Carbs or protein for breakfast?

[robblok]

13 hours ago, bangkokairportlink said:

not some people, MOST people overeat carbs and then eat to much calories daily.

I am bot sure if you are really not able to understand or if you play dumb, but it's so obvious or anybody that the easiest thing to cut to lose weight or stop getting more are CARBS, but if you still believe in your "different" ideas, keep doing...

 

 

Again carbs are not the problem, for some people yes for others not. Just got a 70grams of oatmeal with caseïne. Later I will also eat some rice berry or sweet Potatoe. Will get close to 150 or more g of carbs. And guess what i lost 25 kg that way. 

 

Of course this wont work if i take loads of processed foods. But i can even add in some bread (with chicken breast). 

Basically you got it totally wrong but your stuck in an echo chamber of like minded fools.

 

Now going low carb when dining is great as it helps you selecting foods. But i order my foods before hand when i eat at home. My rule is making sure i got the right food and it works.  

 

Now i got a friend who can eat all the carbs and junk food he wants and he is super super lean. Actually if he does not eat enough he starts to lose weight right away.

Maybe its time for you to accept there are more ways then one and not everyone has a carb problem.

 

If your talking about an older expat with a love for alcohol then yea there will be problems. Alcohol is the absolute worst.

 

For me cannabis is the worst as then i do order bad carbs and lots of them.

 

 

[robblok]

Maybe its time for those low carb acolytes to understand that the kind of carb and amount is much more important then carbs or no carbs. All these meals are carbs and and all are great and making me lose weight.

 

That eating overly processed food is clear but to cut out carbs is stupid. Cut out overly processed food and then eat what you like. Its stupid to limit your choices too much. 

 

Below the pics of normal meals with carbs (and no im not fat nor am i going to hell)

 

The boxes are from homie a food delivery service in BKK around 320cals a box, the oats is just water + 70 grams of big leaved oats and 1 serving of casein and water. 

 

I really get bored at the constant demonization of carbs. Processed foods and stuff i can get into. But even then its amount that counts.

 

For the bright guy that said that insulin stores fat, i can tell with 100% certainly you wont store any fat if you burn more as what you eat. Even if it stores the fat for a short while it will be burned during the rest of the day. 

 

YOU CANT GET FAT IF YOUR IN A CALORIC DEFICIT EVEN IF YOU EAT TWINKIES Insulin does not work indipendent from your other body processes. Maybe its time to look at the big picture instead of taking something out of context without knowing how it works. 

[drtreelove]

On 9/8/2021 at 1:51 PM, WhiteBuffaloATM said:

No Breakfast. Plant Based Diet. HIIT Exercise. Intermittent Fasting. Diet: Low Carb / Mid Protein / High Fat. Produces Sustainable Weight Loss, Great Sleep, High Energy / Mood. Dr. Eric Berg -You Tube.

Dr Eric Berg is an awesome nutritionist, but he does not advocate for a plant based diet. That may be your preference, not mine. I followed his amazingly revelationary videos, as well as Dr Ken Berry ("Normal Human Diet", and "Lies Your Doctor Told You" author), and Dr Sten Eckberg (athlete and MD)  and some others, all along the same lines with Ketogenic diet, no sugar, no seed oils, no alcohol, low carb, no between meal snacking, Intermittent fasting, exercise (not necessarily HIIT). 

 

Weight loss wasn't a big issue for me, but in the first month I dropped 5 kilos without really trying. What was a big issue was recovering from about 4 years of pain and relative inactivity and bilateral hip replacement surgeries, with all the pain meds and anti-biotics that go along with it. I've been able to drop all prescription meds and NSAIDs, reverse all acute and chronic conditions, high BP, GERD, BPH.  No Covid, colds or flu. After almost a year into a modified keto plan, at 75 I'm sleeping good, getting up to pee only once at night instead of 4 or 5 times. I'm happy to be back out off-road mountain biking, swimming laps and  lite weight training. No more joint inflamation even with metal knees and hips. I've still got a ways to go, but I feel like I'm getting younger not older. 

[robblok]

18 hours ago, drtreelove said:

Dr Eric Berg is an awesome nutritionist, but he does not advocate for a plant based diet. That may be your preference, not mine. I followed his amazingly revelationary videos, as well as Dr Ken Berry ("Normal Human Diet", and "Lies Your Doctor Told You" author), and Dr Sten Eckberg (athlete and MD)  and some others, all along the same lines with Ketogenic diet, no sugar, no seed oils, no alcohol, low carb, no between meal snacking, Intermittent fasting, exercise (not necessarily HIIT). 

 

Weight loss wasn't a big issue for me, but in the first month I dropped 5 kilos without really trying. What was a big issue was recovering from about 4 years of pain and relative inactivity and bilateral hip replacement surgeries, with all the pain meds and anti-biotics that go along with it. I've been able to drop all prescription meds and NSAIDs, reverse all acute and chronic conditions, high BP, GERD, BPH.  No Covid, colds or flu. After almost a year into a modified keto plan, at 75 I'm sleeping good, getting up to pee only once at night instead of 4 or 5 times. I'm happy to be back out off-road mountain biking, swimming laps and  lite weight training. No more joint inflamation even with metal knees and hips. I've still got a ways to go, but I feel like I'm getting younger not older. 

Great that it helped for you I am not against low carb or Keto or whatever. I just like it when people know there are other ways besides Keto / Low carb.

 

IMHO and that of many scientists / gym experts / research, there is are individual differences. Some people respond good to one kind of diet while others do not. Sometimes there is no difference. You can only know if you try. But once you try you should not (and your not doing that) advocate for only your way. Many people seem to do that.

 

I think in basis if you cut out processed foods, eat your fruits and veggies, and cut out liquid calories your fine. That works for most. After that you can try whatever you want. OMAD, Low carb, Keto, normal diet without processed foods (my favorite), intermittent fasting ect, paleo (though how they present it has flaws but cutting out processed foods is always good). 

 

Some people get hungry when they eat carbs others don't, even within food selection some things work better for some then others. But the basics stay the same eat less then you burn or the same if you like to stay on weight. Calories do count, there is a reason all research is uses calories as a yard stick. How you limit those by eating less because you dont eat carbs and are not hungry, or just eating smaller portions its all good. 

 

People should stop being fanatics and push their way as the only way. There are many ways and people should try what suits them as sustainability is one of the biggest issues. 

 

This was not a comment on you but a general remark you gave a good post.

[WaveHunter]

On 6/29/2022 at 7:25 AM, robblok said:

Counting calories works, its just not practical for most. The rest I fully agree. Though its still about excessive calories. Can't beat science there. I dont get it why people dont understand it probably brainwashed.

 

There is a reason ALL studies use calories as a yardstick. If they did not do you in or matter then calories would not be used as a measure in scientific experiments. Could you explain to me why all scientist use them to measure diets and their results if they are not the driving factor ?

 

I do agree about the excessive carbs in form of processed food and high fructose corn syrup.  Though ultimately its still about amounts. 

Sure, if you cut calories sufficiently you will lose body fat, BUT only in the short run.  If you do not fix the underlying problem that causes excessive fat storage, you will only gain that fat right back, and science supports this notion up 100%.

 

The human body in its' normal, healthy state is an incredibly well balanced machine capable of converting macronutrients we eat into energy that we need to survive and rebuild the body plus the necessary surplus needed as a reserve for when food is not available.  It is stored as fat and typically should be between 10% and 20% (for men), AND NOTHING MORE.

 

It's only when the metabolic machinery in the cells is compromised that things go awry.  The most common way to compromise these metabolic processes is overwhelming them with excessive carbohydrates, and here is one of the main reasons why:

 

When the human body is overwhelmed with carbohydrates, a process occurs within the cells called "glycation"

 

Simply put, glycation is the bonding of a sugar molecules to a protein or lipid molecule, resulting in what's called Advanced Glycation End Products (AGEs).  As the acronym "AGE" implies, and countless studies have demonstrated, they cause an acceleration of the aging process.  Accelerated storage of fat is a SYMPTOM of this.

 

Don't take my word for this, Google "Advanced Glycation End Products (AGEs)" and learn for yourself how real this is.

 

My point is simply that "getting fat" is a SYMPTOM of dysfunctional metabolic processes (most notably AGE's), and merely cutting calories is NOT going to fix this.  The only thing that will fix it is eliminating the cause, and the cause is NOT calories, it is excessive carbohydrates.

 

If you cut the excessive carbohydrates out of your diet, you have eliminated the root cause of excessive weight gain, and the body will soon return to a homeostatic state all on its' own without the need for going on a "diet"

 

However, merely cutting calories all by itself is like putting a band-aid on an infected would.  You need to address the root cause to fix the problem, and it has been statistically proven that for most people, calorie reduction diets alone do NOT work in the long run.  If they did work, there would not be epidemic levels of obesity today.

 

Edited July 3, 2022 by WaveHunter

[robblok]

24 minutes ago, WaveHunter said:

Sure, if you cut calories sufficiently you will lose body fat, BUT only in the short run.  If you do not fix the underlying problem that causes excessive fat storage, you will only gain that fat right back, and science supports this notion up 100%.

 

The human body in its' normal, healthy state is an incredibly well balanced machine capable of converting macronutrients we eat into energy that we need to survive and rebuild the body plus the necessary surplus needed as a reserve for when food is not available.  It is stored as fat and typically should be between 10% and 20% (for men), AND NOTHING MORE.

 

It's only when the metabolic machinery in the cells is compromised that things go awry.  The most common way to compromise these metabolic processes is overwhelming them with excessive carbohydrates, and here is one of the main reasons why:

 

When the human body is overwhelmed with carbohydrates, a process occurs within the cells called "glycation"

 

Simply put, glycation is the bonding of a sugar molecules to a protein or lipid molecule, resulting in what's called Advanced Glycation End Products (AGEs).  As the acronym "AGE" implies, and countless studies have demonstrated, they cause an acceleration of the aging process.  Accelerated storage of fat is a SYMPTOM of this.

 

Don't take my word for this, Google "Advanced Glycation End Products (AGEs)" and learn for yourself how real this is.

 

My point is simply that "getting fat" is a SYMPTOM of dysfunctional metabolic processes (most notably AGE's), and merely cutting calories is NOT going to fix this.  The only thing that will fix it is eliminating the cause, and the cause is NOT calories, it is excessive carbohydrates.

 

If you cut the excessive carbohydrates out of your diet, you have eliminated the root cause of excessive weight gain, and the body will soon return to a homeostatic state all on its' own without the need for going on a "diet"

 

However, merely cutting calories all by itself is like putting a band-aid on an infected would.  You need to address the root cause to fix the problem, and it has been statistically proven that for most people, calorie reduction diets alone do NOT work in the long run.  If they did work, there would not be epidemic levels of obesity today.

 

I dont take your wordt for it as i have seen research that showed no difference between low carb and med carb diets in meta studies. So again your focusing on the stupid small things while the big picture proves you wrong. I posted this before you probably ignored it as usual.

 

Cutting calories always helps, no way around it. But yes you need to fix the problem of overconsuming foods and clean your diet up.

 

Quote

Data from six studies that compared low-carbohydrate to other diets showed that the difference in BMI values was statistically insignificant (SMD; -0.26kg/m2; 95% CI; -0.54kg/m2, 0.01kg/m2; P = 0.20, I2 = 31%). Similarly, data from seven studies showed no significant difference between KDs compared to other diets in the reduction of BMI values (SMD: -0.31kg/m2; 95% CI; -0.81kg/m2, 0.20kg/m2; P < 0.00001, I2 = 84%). Figure 6 shows a forest plot of the effect of a low-carbohydrate diet on BW and Figure 7 shows a forest plot of the effect of a KD on BW.

https://www.cureus.com/articles/99798-a-comparative-study-evaluating-the-effectiveness-between-ketogenic-and-low-carbohydrate-diets-on-glycemic-and-weight-control-in-patients-with-type-2-diabetes-mellitus-a-systematic-review-and-meta-analysis

Quote

Our aim was to determine the relative effectiveness of two dietary macronutrient patterns (LFHC (low-fat, high-carbohydrate) diets and LCHF (low-carbohydrate, high-fat) diets) on weight loss and cardiovascular risk factors. We searched four databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science to identify the eligible studies on March 13, 2020. Randomized clinical trials (RCT) were included which compared the effect of two diets (LFHC and LCHF) on weight loss, blood pressure, serum liquids, and blood glucose in overweight or obesity adults. Standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were used for the pooled results. This paper included eleven studies involving 739 participants. Compared with LFHC diets, LCHF diets had a greater effect on weight loss (SMD = -1.01 kg; 95% CI -1.99 to -0.04, p = 0.04) and HDL-cholesterol changes (SMD = 0.82 mmol/l; 95% CI 0.43 to 1.21, p < 0.0001), but a smaller effect on total cholesterol decrease (SMD = 0.63 mmol/l; 95% CI 0.18-1.08, p = 0.006) and LDL-cholesterol decrease (SMD = 0.59 mmol/l; 95% CI 0.11-1.18, p = 0.05). Between the two groups, changes in lean mass, fat mass, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, triglycerides, and glucose were non-significant. To conclude, both diets are effective for weight control and reduction of cardiovascular risk factors. And further studies with long-term follow-up are needed to confirm our results.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34168293/

 

 

[robblok]

@WaveHunter

 

You focus too much on small things that look good on paper but in factuality have no real impact given all the studies. Just like that guy with his when there is insulin you cant burn fat (right) but then the twinkie diet proved that there is enough time to burn fat when insulin is down otherwise weight loss would not have been possible

 

or the guy with the vitamin c that increased the speed of fat burning however we did not need an increased speed as the normal speed is already fast enough and limited by the defict.

 

You need to take a step back and see if its actually working in the grand scale of things.

 

Quite often you make good remarks like no processed foods and sugars and so on. Everyone agrees on it and then you blow it by things like this. 

 

Basically once you remove processed foods and those HFC sugars it does not matter anymore what diet you choose.

[WaveHunter]

22 hours ago, drtreelove said:

Dr Eric Berg is an awesome nutritionist, but he does not advocate for a plant based diet. That may be your preference, not mine. I followed his amazingly revelationary videos, as well as Dr Ken Berry ("Normal Human Diet", and "Lies Your Doctor Told You" author), and Dr Sten Eckberg (athlete and MD)  and some others, all along the same lines with Ketogenic diet, no sugar, no seed oils, no alcohol, low carb, no between meal snacking, Intermittent fasting, exercise (not necessarily HIIT). 

 

Weight loss wasn't a big issue for me, but in the first month I dropped 5 kilos without really trying. What was a big issue was recovering from about 4 years of pain and relative inactivity and bilateral hip replacement surgeries, with all the pain meds and anti-biotics that go along with it. I've been able to drop all prescription meds and NSAIDs, reverse all acute and chronic conditions, high BP, GERD, BPH.  No Covid, colds or flu. After almost a year into a modified keto plan, at 75 I'm sleeping good, getting up to pee only once at night instead of 4 or 5 times. I'm happy to be back out off-road mountain biking, swimming laps and  lite weight training. No more joint inflamation even with metal knees and hips. I've still got a ways to go, but I feel like I'm getting younger not older. 

I hate to burst your bubble but Dr. Berg, Dr. Berry, and Dr. Eckberg are really terrible sources for unbiased, science-based information on nutrition.  Their basic message is honest and even valid to a point, but they all grossly over-simplify complex topics to the point where they are not giving an accurate picture of what they are talking about, and worse, making it seem that there is a "miracle food" or supplement for just about anything that ails you....and, especially in the case of Dr. Berg, he usually just happens to SELL a food product or supplement that will solve the problem he happens to be discussing.

 

Essentially they are all producing these videos on an almost daily basis, which is highly suspicious.  I mean, where does a reputable professional find the time to produce all of these videos anyway, if they are not gaining financially from producing them.

 

BTW, it might surprise you to learn that Dr. Berg is a chiropractor, NOT a medical doctor, or licensed nutritionist.  Dr. Eckberg is also NOT an MD.  He is also only a chiropractor.  Dr. Berry, while he is a licensed MD only has a small rural GP practice, so none of these guys are really credentialed in a way that makes them trusted sources.

 

If I were you, I would look to more science-based sources for knowledge than these guys.

[WaveHunter]

23 minutes ago, robblok said:

I dont take your wordt for it as i have seen research that showed no difference between low carb and med carb diets in meta studies. So again your focusing on the stupid small things while the big picture proves you wrong. I posted this before you probably ignored it as usual.

 

Cutting calories always helps, no way around it. But yes you need to fix the problem of overconsuming foods and clean your diet up.

 

 

 

THere is no need to insult me by calling me stupid or claim that I ignore what you consider to be "facts".  There is an epidemic of obesity in the world today.  Caloric reduction diets have been the mainstay of weight control for over hundred years now.  If they worked, there would NOT be an epidemic!  How hard is that to understand?

 

Every day a new fad diet appears that's entirely based on caloric reduction.  Why does a new one appear daily if the basic concept were valid.  I can't believe you actually mentioned "the twinkie diet" in one of your posts to affirm the validity of caloric reduction diets!  I mean, seriously...!  

 

The inquiry into a metabolic basis for obesity has only existed for a little more than a decade, and the research findings are already completely turning around our understanding of how the body REALLY works.  Much of that research has been game-changing...as in Nobel Prize type game changing!

 

Of course, it's your right to ignore all of this new research that is gold-standard in every way, and just cling to antiquated and disproven beliefs that calorie-reduction diets really do work for the population as a whole, and that the obesity epidemic is just a myth.  

Edited July 3, 2022 by WaveHunter

[WaveHunter]

44 minutes ago, robblok said:

@WaveHunter

 

You focus too much on small things that look good on paper but in factuality have no real impact given all the studies. Just like that guy with his when there is insulin you cant burn fat (right) but then the twinkie diet proved that there is enough time to burn fat when insulin is down otherwise weight loss would not have been possible

 

or the guy with the vitamin c that increased the speed of fat burning however we did not need an increased speed as the normal speed is already fast enough and limited by the defict.

 

You need to take a step back and see if its actually working in the grand scale of things.

 

Quite often you make good remarks like no processed foods and sugars and so on. Everyone agrees on it and then you blow it by things like this. 

 

Basically once you remove processed foods and those HFC sugars it does not matter anymore what diet you choose.

Sorry to disagree with you but you are the one that is not looking at the big picture.  You are completely ignoring the metabolic basis of obesity, and claiming that the antiquated view of "calories in vs calories out" is the cause.  That notion died over a decade ago in the scientific community.

 

There is indeed a metabolic basis for obesity and many other disease states that wasn't well understood until the last decade.  Perhaps you should do some UNBIASED research to find that out. 

 

You can cite all the arcane studies you want.  The truth is, neither you nor I are qualified to even interpret such studies to know whether they are valid or not. 

 

All that should really matter is to see that obesity IS INDEED at epidemic levels today, and the main tool up until now has been calorie-reduction diets.  If those diets really worked, there would not be an epidemic. An epidemic is all the proof I need to know that something is ineffective.

 

The research into the metabolic basis for obesity has resulted in many Nobel prize awards in the last decade. They do not award Nobel Prizes to researchers unless they have discovered something that is truly game changing!  Perhaps that's a good reason to take such groundbreaking and well-vetted research much more seriously than you presently seem to do .

Edited July 3, 2022 by WaveHunter

[robblok]

3 hours ago, WaveHunter said:

Sorry to disagree with you but you are the one that is not looking at the big picture.  You are completely ignoring the metabolic basis of obesity, and claiming that the antiquated view of "calories in vs calories out" is the cause.  That notion died over a decade ago in the scientific community.

 

There is indeed a metabolic basis for obesity and many other disease states that wasn't well understood until the last decade.  Perhaps you should do some UNBIASED research to find that out. 

 

You can cite all the arcane studies you want.  The truth is, neither you nor I are qualified to even interpret such studies to know whether they are valid or not. 

 

All that should really matter is to see that obesity IS INDEED at epidemic levels today, and the main tool up until now has been calorie-reduction diets.  If those diets really worked, there would not be an epidemic. An epidemic is all the proof I need to know that something is ineffective.

 

The research into the metabolic basis for obesity has resulted in many Nobel prize awards in the last decade. They do not award Nobel Prizes to researchers unless they have discovered something that is truly game changing!  Perhaps that's a good reason to take such groundbreaking and well-vetted research much more seriously than you presently seem to do .

 

I think you still don't get it a calorie is a measurement of energy, i hope you can agree there.

If you eat more then you burn you get fat and vice versa if you burn more then you eat you get lean.

 

Your to hung up about calorie counting and stuff, and look too much at things under a microscope and miss the big picture.

 

After you cut out processed foods and added sugars it really does not matter anymore if you go high low or whatever carb or protein. The differences are minimal. The obesity is because people eat too much highly processed foods.

 

If you think calories dont matter then find me 1 study about weight loss or where they compare diets where they dont mention calories. Just 1 study ? I dare say you wont be able to find it because in science calories are the measurement of energy. That is all they are.

 

So basically to lose weight you want a deficit of energy and that translates to a caloric deficit. It does not matter how you create it. Your the stuborn bias one, not me I looked at all diet and looked at all studies and only if you cherry pic will you find that some diets are better. If you do meta analysis you will see they are basically the same. However some people respond better to some diets then others. There is are just individual differences.

 

 

 

[robblok]

@WaveHunter

 

Lets make it easy so i can get some direct answers.

• Do you think that after cutting processed foods, and only eating healthy carbs there is an advantage to going keto or low carb. I am talking about lower then say 200 grams of carbs a day (of stuff like oats / sweet potato  / rice berry brown rice / some fruits ect
• if so how many % more fat (not weight) will you lose then
• Do you think that on a diet as I described you cannot lose weight because im eating carbs

Because that is basically what im talking about a diet without processed foods (or way of eating). I dont contest that highly processed foods and bad sugars. I mean that is a given. 

 

This is short and simple because we might be arguing about nothing.

[2009]

Coffee

[drtreelove]

19 hours ago, WaveHunter said:

I hate to burst your bubble but Dr. Berg, Dr. Berry, and Dr. Eckberg are really terrible sources for unbiased, science-based information on nutrition.  Their basic message is honest and even valid to a point, but they all grossly over-simplify complex topics to the point where they are not giving an accurate picture of what they are talking about, and worse, making it seem that there is a "miracle food" or supplement for just about anything that ails you....and, especially in the case of Dr. Berg, he usually just happens to SELL a food product or supplement that will solve the problem he happens to be discussing.

 

Essentially they are all producing these videos on an almost daily basis, which is highly suspicious.  I mean, where does a reputable professional find the time to produce all of these videos anyway, if they are not gaining financially from producing them.

 

BTW, it might surprise you to learn that Dr. Berg is a chiropractor, NOT a medical doctor, or licensed nutritionist.  Dr. Eckberg is also NOT an MD.  He is also only a chiropractor.  Dr. Berry, while he is a licensed MD only has a small rural GP practice, so none of these guys are really credentialed in a way that makes them trusted sources.

 

If I were you, I would look to more science-based sources for knowledge than these guys.

If you were me, you would look to what inspires you to make positive changes, and works for you to improve your health, physical, psycological and spriritual well being, and not try to sell the idea to others that MDs and modern science are the only source of good information, and that DCs, naturopaths, and traditional medicine are invalid. As a lifelong student and practitioner of natural health and healing, necessitated by an intensly athletic profession and sports, I have drawn as much help from TCM, Aurveda, chiropractic, polarity and massage practitioners as I have from the MDs and orthopedic surgeons who have kept me going. 

 

In my opinion, "science based" is deeply flawed. I've been around long enough to have seen many scientific-research-based beliefs and practices disproved by the next set of scientists with their new research that comes along. My father was a horticulturist and my mother a nurse practitioner/nutritionist.  The science of their day that I apprenticed in has long been greatly modified and replaced by newer information.  I would be a fool to assume that all the current popular science of horticulture and health care will endure. 

 

Eric Berg and the others mentioned, from my experience are not deserving of the negativity that you present. I find that they are enthusiastically sharing information and experiences that they have gained from their practices and patient's experiences, as well as their own experience. What they are presenting is a program, with certain components, that if put together in real life practice, can help certain people who are attracted to the information, with certain health and lifestyle issues. The products they offer are not the focus, they are offered as adjuvants within the comprehensive program. 

[wn2c]

On 6/30/2022 at 7:37 AM, robblok said:

Again carbs are not the problem, for some people yes for others not. Just got a 70grams of oatmeal with caseïne. Later I will also eat some rice berry or sweet Potatoe. Will get close to 150 or more g of carbs. And guess what i lost 25 kg that way. 

 

Of course this wont work if i take loads of processed foods. But i can even add in some bread (with chicken breast). 

Basically you got it totally wrong but your stuck in an echo chamber of like minded fools.

 

Now going low carb when dining is great as it helps you selecting foods. But i order my foods before hand when i eat at home. My rule is making sure i got the right food and it works.  

 

Now i got a friend who can eat all the carbs and junk food he wants and he is super super lean. Actually if he does not eat enough he starts to lose weight right away.

Maybe its time for you to accept there are more ways then one and not everyone has a carb problem.

 

If your talking about an older expat with a love for alcohol then yea there will be problems. Alcohol is the absolute worst.

 

For me cannabis is the worst as then i do order bad carbs and lots of them.

 

 

you should finally understand how wrong you are and clearly say that someone who doesn't train daily and eat too much carbs is wrong, you like it or not, it's not only about calories, it's also about glucose, it's so funny that you keep thinking "theory" when we are talking to you about real life. I guess that you have been one of the first vaccinated, maybe you need more to help you think ????

 

 

[robblok]

8 minutes ago, wn2c said:

you should finally understand how wrong you are and clearly say that someone who doesn't train daily and eat too much carbs is wrong, you like it or not, it's not only about calories, it's also about glucose, it's so funny that you keep thinking "theory" when we are talking to you about real life. I guess that you have been one of the first vaccinated, maybe you need more to help you think ????

 

 

Its so funny that you dont seem to understand what I am saying. Processed food is bad, normal carbs are not bad in moderation. Maybe you should read some real science instead of believing the pseudo science of a few.

 

I never stated that too much carbs is bad. Im at 200 grams (high days) of carbs a day. that is around 33% the rest comes from proteins and some fat. My carbs are oats, sweet potato, berry rice slow digesting no problem with insulin.

 

Maybe you could explain me how it is that a professor lost loads of weight on a twinkie diet. I mean those are bad carbs and he still lost the weight. So riddle me that how is that possible ?

[robblok]

The strange thing is nobody, ever gave me an explanation why the twinkie diet, highly processed sugary stuff still worked for weight loss. 

 

Maybe they cant because of their information bias. 

[wn2c]

1 minute ago, robblok said:

Its so funny that you dont seem to understand what I am saying. Processed food is bad, normal carbs are not bad in moderation. Maybe you should read some real science instead of believing the pseudo science of a few.

 

I never stated that too much carbs is bad. Im at 200 grams (high days) of carbs a day. that is around 33% the rest comes from proteins and some fat. My carbs are oats, sweet potato, berry rice slow digesting no problem with insulin.

 

Maybe you could explain me how it is that a professor lost loads of weight on a twinkie diet. I mean those are bad carbs and he still lost the weight. So riddle me that how is that possible ?

i understand very well what you are saying, so many stupid articles online telling the same, but they are disconnected to people real life, just as stupid doctors who understand nothing.

most people do not eat carbs in moderation and add a lot of %hit sauce with carbs, not so difficult to understand finally ?!

 

 

[wn2c]

3 minutes ago, robblok said:

My carbs are oats, sweet potato, berry rice slow digesting no problem with insulin.

this is where you are so wrong, your carbs are okay. but do you believe it's the kind of carbs that 90% people eat ? open your mind and accept it you are wrong and it's so clear for anybody with half a brain.

 

 

[robblok]

1 minute ago, wn2c said:

i understand very well what you are saying, so many stupid articles online telling the same, but they are disconnected to people real life, just as stupid doctors who understand nothing.

most people do not eat carbs in moderation and add a lot of %hit sauce with carbs, not so difficult to understand finally ?!

 

 

No that is absolutely not difficult to understand, hence what i always say don't eat processed foods those are the bad carbs that people overeat on and ad sauce too. I never seen people put sauce on a steamed sweet potato, or add sauce to oatmeal.

 

So what I have always been saying cut the processed foods then it really does not matter if you eat some good carbs. Saying that all carbs are bad and you should stay away from carbs is far too much of a generalization.  It really tires me that there are too many acolytes of the low carb sect. 

 

I believe in eating healthy foods carbs included (not processed carbs like cakes french fries and  the likes) Is it so hard to differentiate between the two. 

[wn2c]

4 minutes ago, robblok said:

I never seen people put sauce on a steamed sweet potato, or add sauce to oatmeal.

I have never seen any fat guy eat only the few carbs that you eat. End of discussion ????

 

[robblok]

1 minute ago, wn2c said:

I have never seen any fat guy eat only the few carbs that you eat. End of discussion ????

 

I agree, 100% with you. Processed carbs are bad. But not ALL carbs are bad. That is my whole point. That is why in almost every post i make it clear stay away from the processed food / carbs. 

 

You just don't seem to differentiate between the two is it so hard to admit that there are carbs that one can eat without problems (again if too much its still a problem but i really cant stuff myself with sweet potato ????)

[eezergood]

On 7/2/2022 at 12:33 PM, drtreelove said:

Dr Eric Berg is an awesome nutritionist, but he does not advocate for a plant based diet. That may be your preference, not mine. I followed his amazingly revelationary videos, as well as Dr Ken Berry ("Normal Human Diet", and "Lies Your Doctor Told You" author), and Dr Sten Eckberg (athlete and MD)  and some others, all along the same lines with Ketogenic diet, no sugar, no seed oils, no alcohol, low carb, no between meal snacking, Intermittent fasting, exercise (not necessarily HIIT). 

 

Weight loss wasn't a big issue for me, but in the first month I dropped 5 kilos without really trying. What was a big issue was recovering from about 4 years of pain and relative inactivity and bilateral hip replacement surgeries, with all the pain meds and anti-biotics that go along with it. I've been able to drop all prescription meds and NSAIDs, reverse all acute and chronic conditions, high BP, GERD, BPH.  No Covid, colds or flu. After almost a year into a modified keto plan, at 75 I'm sleeping good, getting up to pee only once at night instead of 4 or 5 times. I'm happy to be back out off-road mountain biking, swimming laps and  lite weight training. No more joint inflamation even with metal knees and hips. I've still got a ways to go, but I feel like I'm getting younger not older. 

He is a chiro - not a nutritionist 

[WaveHunter]

On 7/4/2022 at 7:47 AM, drtreelove said:

If you were me, you would look to what inspires you to make positive changes, and works for you to improve your health, physical, psycological and spriritual well being, and not try to sell the idea to others that MDs and modern science are the only source of good information, and that DCs, naturopaths, and traditional medicine are invalid. As a lifelong student and practitioner of natural health and healing, necessitated by an intensly athletic profession and sports, I have drawn as much help from TCM, Aurveda, chiropractic, polarity and massage practitioners as I have from the MDs and orthopedic surgeons who have kept me going. 

 

In my opinion, "science based" is deeply flawed. I've been around long enough to have seen many scientific-research-based beliefs and practices disproved by the next set of scientists with their new research that comes along. My father was a horticulturist and my mother a nurse practitioner/nutritionist.  The science of their day that I apprenticed in has long been greatly modified and replaced by newer information.  I would be a fool to assume that all the current popular science of horticulture and health care will endure. 

 

Eric Berg and the others mentioned, from my experience are not deserving of the negativity that you present. I find that they are enthusiastically sharing information and experiences that they have gained from their practices and patient's experiences, as well as their own experience. What they are presenting is a program, with certain components, that if put together in real life practice, can help certain people who are attracted to the information, with certain health and lifestyle issues. The products they offer are not the focus, they are offered as adjuvants within the comprehensive program. 

You make some good points however I have issues with people like Dr. Berg simply because they over-simplify complex concepts and do it in a way to support their narrative.  They are therefore not being truthful and lead people astray.

 

I agree with you that what is scientific "fact" today can becomes a fallacy tomorrow.  People used to firmly believe in the "food pyramid" concept from a few of decades ago in which carbohydrates were considered the foundation a healthy nutrition.  Science has soundly disproven that today.  Now the question is, will science again disprove the current view?

 

Well, if you look back you can see that science NEVER supported the notion behind the Food Pyramid, at least not with empirical clinical studies, in the first place.

 

If you discount the scientific method and only rely on clinically unsupported, anecdotal accounts, or cherry-picked bits of scientific research that's out of context (which is what Berg often does), then you really are flying blind if you embrace such notions.

 

[WaveHunter]

On 7/3/2022 at 4:13 PM, robblok said:

 

I think you still don't get it a calorie is a measurement of energy, i hope you can agree there.

If you eat more then you burn you get fat and vice versa if you burn more then you eat you get lean.

 

Your to hung up about calorie counting and stuff, and look too much at things under a microscope and miss the big picture.

 

After you cut out processed foods and added sugars it really does not matter anymore if you go high low or whatever carb or protein. The differences are minimal. The obesity is because people eat too much highly processed foods.

 

If you think calories dont matter then find me 1 study about weight loss or where they compare diets where they dont mention calories. Just 1 study ? I dare say you wont be able to find it because in science calories are the measurement of energy. That is all they are.

 

So basically to lose weight you want a deficit of energy and that translates to a caloric deficit. It does not matter how you create it. Your the stuborn bias one, not me I looked at all diet and looked at all studies and only if you cherry pic will you find that some diets are better. If you do meta analysis you will see they are basically the same. However some people respond better to some diets then others. There is are just individual differences.

 

 

 

I fully understand what a calorie is, and yes if you eat more than you burn, you will gain weight.  What you neglect to acknowledge is that accumulating excess body fat involves a lot more than eating excess calories, and that's where we always come into conflict.

 

In all of our discussions you seem to put ZERO importance on metabolic factors that have a major bearing on whether a person accumulates excess fat, and seem to insist it is simply a matter of calories in vs calories out.

 

What I am saying is the metabolic factors are crucial.  If somebody habitually over-consumes carbohydrates, their insulin levels remain high 24/7.  You seem to refuse to accept a basic concept that insulin is essentially an on/off switch for whether the body stores or burns body fat.  That is really the main function of insulin; to tell the body when to store fat or when to access it.  It really is that simple!

 

If a person's insulin levels are continually high through overconsumption of carbohydrates, their body will NEVER be able to access stored body fat.

 

My point is simply that up until the last decade or so, the prevailing notion of obesity is that it is the result of too many calories, and that is just not the complete picture.  If it were that simple, then all of the popular diets that rely on caloric restriction would work...but obviously they do not work, otherwise we would not be in an obesity epidemic right now with over one-third of the population of developed countries being obese!

 

Until people embrace the underlying metabolic factors involved in obesity, people will contnue to be obese.

[robblok]

5 minutes ago, WaveHunter said:

I fully understand what a calorie is, and yes if you eat more than you burn, you will gain weight.  What you neglect to acknowledge is that accumulating excess body fat involves a lot more than eating excess calories, and that's where we always come into conflict.

 

In all of our discussions you seem to put ZERO importance on metabolic factors that have a major bearing on whether a person accumulates excess fat, and seem to insist it is simply a matter of calories in vs calories out.

 

What I am saying is the metabolic factors are crucial.  If somebody habitually over-consumes carbohydrates, their insulin levels remain high 24/7.  You seem to refuse to accept a basic concept that insulin is essentially an on/off switch for whether the body stores or burns body fat.  That is really the main function of insulin; to tell the body when to store fat or when to access it.  It really is that simple!

 

If a person's insulin levels are continually high through overconsumption of carbohydrates, their body will NEVER be able to access stored body fat.

 

My point is simply that up until the last decade or so, the prevailing notion of obesity is that it is the result of too many calories, and that is just not the complete picture.  If it were that simple, then all of the popular diets that rely on caloric restriction would work...but obviously they do not work, otherwise we would not be in an obesity epidemic right now with over one-third of the population of developed countries being obese!

 

Until people embrace the underlying metabolic factors involved in obesity, people will contnue to be obese.

My point is also simpel, if you don't eat more then you burn your body will burn fat because at those amounts your body can't have a constant insulin height. You seem to forget that all the time. You seem to overstate insulin as i have proven with the Twinkie diet. (so much carbs and still weight loss). If the amount is low enough you will lose fat even if its carbs.

 

You are too focused on details while ignoring logic. If insulin was so important and so destructive the Twinkie diet would not have worked. Tell me how do you explain that ?

 

All I am saying is that insulin is not a problem if you burn more then you consume. However it can compound things if you overeat. But don't underestimate the bodies ability to get insulin low again. 

[WaveHunter]

On 7/3/2022 at 7:53 PM, robblok said:

@WaveHunter

 

Lets make it easy so i can get some direct answers.

• Do you think that after cutting processed foods, and only eating healthy carbs there is an advantage to going keto or low carb. I am talking about lower then say 200 grams of carbs a day (of stuff like oats / sweet potato  / rice berry brown rice / some fruits ect
• if so how many % more fat (not weight) will you lose then
• Do you think that on a diet as I described you cannot lose weight because im eating carbs

Because that is basically what im talking about a diet without processed foods (or way of eating). I dont contest that highly processed foods and bad sugars. I mean that is a given. 

 

This is short and simple because we might be arguing about nothing.

First of all let me make a very simple point.  Excess body fat is a SYMPTOM of something of much greater concerns.  Too many people think of obesity as a disease, and seek to remedy it through "dieting" by caloric reduction.

 

Obesity is only a symptom of a greater problem, and that problem is simply an imbalance of metabolic hormones caused by poor nutrition over time. 

 

Some refer to this as "metabolic syndrome".  The chief cause is habitual overconsumption of carbohydrates, not too many calories.  It is really as simple as that!

 

If the cause was too many calories, then calorie-reduction diets would work just fine.  They have been the mainstay of attacking obesity for over 100 years.  If they worked, we would not be in the midst of an obesity epidemic right now with one-third of the population of developed countries being obese.

 

Not everybody suffers from metabolic syndrome.  When a person is  young and quite active (up until your early 20's), they can eat practically anything.  Their bodies can adapt to over consumption of carbs, BUT if they are inactive, or simply as a result of natural aging, their metabolic processes can lose that ability to maintain homeostasis, and that's where problems start.

 

When that happens, you need to address the cause, and the cause is not too many calories consumed, it is the ineffectiveness of hormones such as insulin to function properly.  

 

Merely cutting calories will not fix the problem.  The only answer is to restore to proper functioning of hormones, primarily insulin.  To do that requires lowering insulin levels and restoring sensitivity of insulin receptors to insulin.  That is NOT going to happen if you merely cut calories, but consumption of carbohydrates remains high.

 

It's really that simple.

Edited July 20, 2022 by WaveHunter

[robblok]

17 minutes ago, WaveHunter said:

First of all let me make a very simple point.  Excess body fat is a SYMPTOM of something of much greater concerns.  Too many people think of obesity as a disease, and seek to remedy it through "dieting" by caloric reduction.

 

Obesity is only a symptom of a greater problem, and that problem is simply an imbalance of metabolic hormones caused by poor nutrition over time. 

 

Some refer to this as "metabolic syndrome".  The chief cause is habitual overconsumption of carbohydrates, not too many calories.  It is really as simple as that!

 

If the cause was too many calories, then calorie-reduction diets would work just fine.  They have been the mainstay of attacking obesity for over 100 years.  If they worked, we would not be in the midst of an obesity epidemic right now with one-third of the population of developed countries being obese.

 

Not everybody suffers from metabolic syndrome.  When a person is  young and quite active (up until your early 20's), they can eat practically anything.  Their bodies can adapt to over consumption of carbs, BUT if they are inactive, or simply as a result of natural aging, their metabolic processes can lose that ability to maintain homeostasis, and that's where problems start.

 

When that happens, you need to address the cause, and the cause is not too many calories consumed, it is the ineffectiveness of hormones such as insulin to function properly.  

 

Merely cutting calories will not fix the problem.  The only answer is to restore to proper functioning of hormones, primarily insulin.  To do that requires lowering insulin levels and restoring sensitivity of insulin receptors to insulin.  That is NOT going to happen if you merely cut calories, but consumption of carbohydrates remains high.

 

It's really that simple.

So you just ignore all my points. You keep not responding to the Twinkie diet, maybe because it blows holes in your theories.

 

Great, you forget one thing caloric reductions work, problem is sticking to them. Its never been proven that they don't work the problem is sticking with them. (like with most things)

 

Now if you have the metabolic syndrome you say it will get back in balance by cutting out processed carbs and eating less then you burn. Its that simple.  Latest research shows aging is not so much of a problem but the inactivity and loss of muscle that comes with it (like you described) is the problem.

[drtreelove]

1 hour ago, WaveHunter said:

You make some good points however I have issues with people like Dr. Berg simply because they over-simplify complex concepts and do it in a way to support their narrative.  They are therefore not being truthful and lead people astray.

 

I agree with you that what is scientific "fact" today can becomes a fallacy tomorrow.  People used to firmly believe in the "food pyramid" concept from a few of decades ago in which carbohydrates were considered the foundation a healthy nutrition.  Science has soundly disproven that today.  Now the question is, will science again disprove the current view?

 

Well, if you look back you can see that science NEVER supported the notion behind the Food Pyramid, at least not with empirical clinical studies, in the first place.

 

If you discount the scientific method and only rely on clinically unsupported, anecdotal accounts, or cherry-picked bits of scientific research that's out of context (which is what Berg often does), then you really are flying blind if you embrace such notions.

 

If I have been led astray, then astray is where I want to be.  I'm just saying, my health is improving weekly, along with sense of well being, spiritual awareness, progressive mastery of my profession, marriage, and cycling legs and lungs that allow me to ride and breathe in the refreshing farmland, hills and forests. Dropping sugar, alchohol, seed oils, preserved foods, plastic containers, Rx medications, recreationals, and consuming low carb high fat foods, high nutrient density organically grown foods as much as possible, exercising, chi kung, using TCM herbs and acupuncture, observing Ayurvedic Tridosha and TCM dietary principles, yin and yang, five elements, thermal qualities of heating and cooling foods, is not for everybody, 200 years of modern science plus thousands of years of Taoist and Ayurvedic empirical research, all works for me, take it or leave it. 

 

Back to the OP. My favorite breakfast is fish and eggs. 

Edited July 20, 2022 by drtreelove

[WaveHunter]

1 hour ago, robblok said:

So you just ignore all my points. You keep not responding to the Twinkie diet, maybe because it blows holes in your theories.

 

Great, you forget one thing caloric reductions work, problem is sticking to them. Its never been proven that they don't work the problem is sticking with them. (like with most things)

 

Now if you have the metabolic syndrome you say it will get back in balance by cutting out processed carbs and eating less then you burn. Its that simple.  Latest research shows aging is not so much of a problem but the inactivity and loss of muscle that comes with it (like you described) is the problem.

I'm sorry, but the point you are making are not germain because you are only addressing the vanity aspect of losing weight, not the health perspective:

• Do you think that after cutting processed foods, and only eating healthy carbs there is an advantage to going keto or low carb. I am talking about lower then say 200 grams of carbs a day (of stuff like oats / sweet potato  / rice berry brown rice / some fruits ect
• if so how many % more fat (not weight) will you lose then
• Do you think that on a diet as I described you cannot lose weight because im eating carbs

 

What I am trying to say is that "fat loss" is not the real issue from a health perspective.  It is only a symptom of a bigger problem and that problem is poor metabolic health.

 

But OK, I will address your points. 

 

Cutting processed foods and only eating good carbs and limiting carbs to 200g is of course preferred to eating unhealthy, highly processed foods and over consuming .  No question about it. 

 

So the question then becomes, how much body fat will be lost in adopting that sort of nutritional change?  IMO, probably not that much if all you are doing is restricting some calories. 

 

200 grams of carbs will still result in high insulin levels, and if you have been a habitual over-consumer of carbs prior to that change, your insulin response will remain low.

 

Regardless of what you seem to believe, it is a basic scientific fact that if insulin levels are high, access to stored body fat for energy will be highly impaired.  I mean, one of the main purposes of insulin is to determine whether energy should be used or stored.  If insulin levels are high, it will be stored, not accessed for energy.

 

Now, If you restrict calories enough to result in a body fat reduction of, say, 2 pounds per week, it will take you far longer to reduce body fat significantly than most people have the willpower to achieve.

 

I know so many people that are otherwise healthy but wish to drop body fat percentage primarily for reasons of vanity (and there's nothing wrong with that).  The problem is that most of those people have had that as a goal for years, and never achieve it!

 

The simple reason is that the body does not like caloric restriction, and it does everything possible to remedy it.  The body reacts to caloric restriction by reducing the basal metabolic rate firstly, so you may be eating fewer calories, but the body's response to lowering the BMR only results in a no-sum change since you are now burning fewer calories.

 

That is an incredible uncomfortable state and so after a few days most people will abandon the diet.  They may just think of it as a temporary thing (i.e. taking a day off from their diet), the same thing will happen over and over, and in the long run, no body fat will be lost.

 

I mean, no offense intended, but in the three or four years we have traded views on this forums,  you are always talking about wanting to shed a few percentage points of body fat.  If you are still talking about this wish for over 3 years now, maybe you should reconsider your strategy.

 

IMO, dieting to lose body fat is not a wise strategy.  It is a goal based on the desire to look good, not a goal based on the desire to be healthy. 

 

If however, you look at excess body fat as a symptom of a bigger problem, namely a metabolic imbalance (i.e.: Metabolic Syndrome), you may realize that the real problem is hormonal, not simply too many calories consumed.

 

The negative aspects of aging such as higher body fat levels and sarcopenia (loss of muscle due to aging) are not just due to inactivity and poor diet.  They are most importantly the result of poor metabolic health.

 

What I mean is that long-term poor nutrition and not enough physical activity results in negative changes to hormonal balance.  This in turns leads to dysfunctional activity on a cellular level.  For instance, within every cell are structures called "mitochondria".  Basically they are what generate power for our bodies.  They are like the power plants that power our bodies.

 

Amazingly, they even resemble little electric motors!  They generate power just like an electrical generator by physical processes, not chemical processes!  Little structures within the mitochondria literally spin around when viewed under an electron microscope, resulting in the generation of ATP.

 

Take a look at this:

Screen Recording 2022-07-20 at 10.32.45 AM.mov

(see the complete video here)

 

Through habitual poor nutrition, these mitochondria can become dysfunctional from alterations in proteins, and the accumulation of these maladapted proteins. 

 

Even more impressive is the growing body of research linking these impaired proteins with disease states that include Alzheimer's, Parkinsons, general dementia, and even many forms of cancer!

 

Believe it or not, excessive carbohydrate consumption is now thought to be a probable cause of these proteins becming dysfunctional. 

 

This notion is born out of the groundbreaking, nobel-prize winning work of Yoshinori Ohsumi, where he documented how these maladapted proteins are purged from within the cells, broken down to basic amino acids, allowing new fully functional proteins to restore proper functioning within the mitochondria.  it is called "autophagy"

 

And how was that accomplished...through a period of nutritional fasting!

 

So, my point here is that your goal should not be to simply shed a few pounds of body fat for reasons of vanity, but it should be to improve your metabolic health which will take care of that problem for you WITHOUT the need to resort to ineffective fat-loss diets which have always proven to be ineffective in the long run.

 

This is NOT just Health Guru speak.  It is all based on Gold-standard scientific research of the Nobel Prize winning kind!

 

I'm not a scientist, nor am I advocating fasting for everybody, but I have proven it to myself, that a intermittent, prolonged fast that results in autophagy is the easiest and most effective way to restore a healthy metabolic state where the mitochondria are functioning at full capacity, insulin sensitivity, as well as a whole host of other metabolic hormones are restored to their proper state.

 

The vanity desire for fat loss will just be a by-product of that since the homeostatic state of the body is to have a HEALTHY level of body fat.

 

TO sum up, the goal should be a healthy metabolic state, not merely to look good through a forced reduction of body fat.

 

 

 

Edited July 20, 2022 by WaveHunter