Snacks That Are Okay..

[tropo]

Jeez where do I start? Sorry but you are living in a land of misconceptions here. I've done the calorie counting and the training/exercise routine and it does not work anywhere near as well. Not even remotely.

No carbohydrate diets are not weird (meat and vegetables, weird?). They do not have to be high fat, nor are you obliged to stuff yourself with unreasonable quantities of food. They are not 'punishment' (calorie counting is punishment!). Its easy to follow and relatively painless precisely because there is no artificial calorie restriction. Nor is it 'unnatural', carbohydrates have only been a significant part of our diet since we developed agriculture, a tiny part of our evolutionary history. If you want to normalise your blood sugar levels cutting carbs (=sugar) is the best way to do it.

When I reach my target weight I'll add carbs in again but in greater moderation than before. The no carb diet is for weight loss, not weight maintenance.

Anyway, to the sceptics all I can say is read the book, which explains the science behind it, and do the experiment. Then you can tell me I'm wrong.

Jeez - Let me spell it out - yes, a low carb diet will result in fat loss. It is a fast way to reduce fat - we agree there.... but it is not the best way. The best way is to reduce carbs and exercise a lot. The best way is the slower way. It's more permanent and healthier. As I said, you probably didn't get fat overnight, so why the rush? When it is over you'll rush back to fat again if you don't exercise.

There's no need to tell me to read a book because I don't agree.

Vegetables are mainly carbs and some have a lot of carbs... so to have a zero carbohydrate diet you wouldn't consume vegetables or fruit. Only meat? We don't have the digestive systems of pure meat eaters. (your evolutionary theory is a totally different topic and that's only a theory, so please don't offer it up as fact - unless we're going to get into a creation vs evolution debate which is beyond the scope of this discussion). (You must have been reading about the Paleo diet - Dr. Mercola perhaps?).

You don't normalize sugar metabolism with low carbs - but you normalize BG levels. All you're really doing is controlling your blood sugar levels. As soon as you introduce carbs again your blood sugar will rise to abnormal levels. Regular exercise is the best way to improve sugar metabolism as it will improve insulin resistance so that the body will be able handle higher carb consumption. (We can talk about this for hours as I have insulin resistance, controlled through exercise and good diet - but no way is my diet a low carb diet).

Edited March 23, 2012 by tropo

[Ulysses G.]

IMO, tropo really knows what he is talking about here.

[robblok]

IMO, tropo really knows what he is talking about here.

In this case he does, there is so much misinformation out there. The cows milk thing is just funny. But in the end you have to try something that works for you.

Else you cant keep doing it. For me lower calories works, low carbs worked too. Most important thing is that you keep doing it consistently.

[spiritrace]

YES! Nuts are one of the best snackfoods. Oh! The worse thing you can do is eat then go to sleep......bad bad bad. Yes, I admit that I do it....

Anything made of wheat or potato is fattening. But it's sooooo delicious! Willpower!!!! You are what you eat.

[tropo]

YES! Nuts are one of the best snackfoods. Oh! The worse thing you can do is eat then go to sleep......bad bad bad. Yes, I admit that I do it....

I don't see any problem with eating LIGHT meals before bed (I stress lighter because heavy food could result in indigestion) - if you can get to sleep that is. If I eat close to bed time I lose my sleepiness and tend to stay awake for another hour or two. Sleeping on an empty stomach can often result in a shorter sleep.

Eating nuts or seeds immediately before bed is a technique type 2 diabetics often use to improve fasting blood sugar levels (FBS). It can lessen the pre-dawn phenomenon which is caused by the liver dumping glycogen into the blood - thereby raising FBS.

Edited March 24, 2012 by tropo

[Crushdepth]

Jeez where do I start? Sorry but you are living in a land of misconceptions here. I've done the calorie counting and the training/exercise routine and it does not work anywhere near as well. Not even remotely.

No carbohydrate diets are not weird (meat and vegetables, weird?). They do not have to be high fat, nor are you obliged to stuff yourself with unreasonable quantities of food. They are not 'punishment' (calorie counting is punishment!). Its easy to follow and relatively painless precisely because there is no artificial calorie restriction. Nor is it 'unnatural', carbohydrates have only been a significant part of our diet since we developed agriculture, a tiny part of our evolutionary history. If you want to normalise your blood sugar levels cutting carbs (=sugar) is the best way to do it.

When I reach my target weight I'll add carbs in again but in greater moderation than before. The no carb diet is for weight loss, not weight maintenance.

Anyway, to the sceptics all I can say is read the book, which explains the science behind it, and do the experiment. Then you can tell me I'm wrong.

Jeez - Let me spell it out - yes, a low carb diet will result in fat loss. It is a fast way to reduce fat - we agree there.... but it is not the best way. The best way is to reduce carbs and exercise a lot. The best way is the slower way. It's more permanent and healthier. As I said, you probably didn't get fat overnight, so why the rush? When it is over you'll rush back to fat again if you don't exercise.

There's no need to tell me to read a book because I don't agree.

Vegetables are mainly carbs and some have a lot of carbs... so to have a zero carbohydrate diet you wouldn't consume vegetables or fruit. Only meat? We don't have the digestive systems of pure meat eaters. (your evolutionary theory is a totally different topic and that's only a theory, so please don't offer it up as fact - unless we're going to get into a creation vs evolution debate which is beyond the scope of this discussion). (You must have been reading about the Paleo diet - Dr. Mercola perhaps?).

You don't normalize sugar metabolism with low carbs - but you normalize BG levels. All you're really doing is controlling your blood sugar levels. As soon as you introduce carbs again your blood sugar will rise to abnormal levels. Regular exercise is the best way to improve sugar metabolism as it will improve insulin resistance so that the body will be able handle higher carb consumption. (We can talk about this for hours as I have insulin resistance, controlled through exercise and good diet - but no way is my diet a low carb diet).

It's unfortunate that people insist on misrepresenting no carb diets. "Don't eat sugar" is hardly controversial dieting advice, but say "don't eat carbohydrate" and you must be stuffing yourself with steak and bacon fat and living in a cave :-)

All food has some carbohydrate in it, including meat, there's no need to get pedantic about it. To be clear: The principle of the diet is simply to avoid all foods containing significant quantities of digestible carbs and sugars. Eating vegetables is fine and encouraged, with a few exceptions, mainly starchy roots and tubers. Fruit we traditionally use as vegetables (tomatoes, capscicums etc) is ok, sweet fruits selected for high sugar content are not.

The *whole point* of the diet is to control your blood sugar level, specifically to avoid spikes that follow carbohydrate consumption, thereby keeping secretion of insulin down which is a major part of the mechanism controlling fat deposition. It's quite likely your insulin resistance was in large part caused by excessive carbohydrate consumption.

Where did you get the weird idea that this fits into some kind of creationist debate? I certainly am not offering any "creationist" theories. The point was that agriculture started around 10,000 years ago and humans did not have regular access to large quantities of carbohydrates until we started *farming* them. Obviously we ate vegetable matter, but the proposition that a high carb intake is a 'natural' part of our diet is a fairly shaky one in evolutionary terms.

Where I really take issue with what you have said though is that a no carb diet is 'punishment', 'doomed to failure' or somehow 'unnatural'. Let's get real here, it's calorie restrictions and hunger that doom most diets to failure. A no carb diet is much easier to follow because you *don't go hungry*, it's simply an adjustment of *what* you eat. It is misdirection to suggest that it is 'less healthy'. Obviously it depends entirely on what you eat, which in my case is mainly more fish and vegetables. Hardly controversial choices, I would have thought.

Given that obesity is such a huge problem (ha ha), any easy, effective way to lose weight should be welcomed. Regardless of how effective you may think it, the fact is that calorie counting has failed the masses. Most people just can't do it. If there is an easier, faster way, why knock it?

[tropo]

It's unfortunate that people insist on misrepresenting no carb diets. "Don't eat sugar" is hardly controversial dieting advice, but say "don't eat carbohydrate" and you must be stuffing yourself with steak and bacon fat and living in a cave :-)

"No carbs" or "zero carbs" means just that. It can't be "misrepresented". My replies here were in reference to another poster who was suggesting his diet was "zero carbs". What's unfortunate is that people are misrepresenting "zero carb" diets when they clearly are not.

You're suggesting a moderate or low carb diet - I'm all for that. At the end of the day, if you consume more calories than you need will become fat.

All food has some carbohydrate in it, including meat, there's no need to get pedantic about it. To be clear: The principle of the diet is simply to avoid all foods containing significant quantities of digestible carbs and sugars. Eating vegetables is fine and encouraged, with a few exceptions, mainly starchy roots and tubers. Fruit we traditionally use as vegetables (tomatoes, capscicums etc) is ok, sweet fruits selected for high sugar content are not.

You could pack quite a few carbs into this so called "low carb" diet.

The *whole point* of the diet is to control your blood sugar level, specifically to avoid spikes that follow carbohydrate consumption, thereby keeping secretion of insulin down which is a major part of the mechanism controlling fat deposition. It's quite likely your insulin resistance was in large part caused by excessive carbohydrate consumption.

That's the prevailing theory but a very damaging one as it allows doctors to make obese people with diabetes feel guilty - that they brought it upon themselves. People are obese because they are diabetic, not diabetic because they are obese.

I won't bother you with the latest studies, but "insulin resistance" (or pre-diabetes or type 2 diabetes) is determined by about 11 genes. The more of these genes you have the worse your diabetes (insulin resistance). You don't eat your way to diabetes, in fact 4 out of 5 obese people are NOT diabetic.

Exercise is a fantastic way to control BG spikes from eating carbohydrates. You get to enjoy a wonderful variety of food while eliminating spikes altogether.

For example, on my exercise program I can consume a large meal consisting of complex carbs (eg. milk, potatoes, carrots, sweet potato, oats etc ... with fruit (bananas, raisins etc) while my 1 hour post prandial BG readings barely break 100 mg/dl. Sometimes after my oats high carb breakfast I'm under 90 mg/dl. A very healthy normal BG level. No spike at all. I can wake up over 100mg/dl and be under this 1 hour after a high carb breakfast. It amazing what exercise can achieve.

If I gave the exercise program away the post prandial readings will creep back up into the 140's and 150's 1 hour after such a meal. Without exercise HbA1c's around 6. With exercise HbA1c's under 5 - with no change in carbohydrate consumption.

With no BG spikes due to insulin resistance, all I need to do to lose bodyfat is ensure that I'm eating less calories than my body requires. I don't personally count calories because I'm not fat - never have been - although it has been creeping up over the last decade or so - mainly in the form of visceral fat as opposed to subcutaneous fat - which I'm combating by improving insulin resistance by exercise and cleaning up my carbohydrate consumption.

Where did you get the weird idea that this fits into some kind of creationist debate? I certainly am not offering any "creationist" theories. The point was that agriculture started around 10,000 years ago and humans did not have regular access to large quantities of carbohydrates until we started *farming* them. Obviously we ate vegetable matter, but the proposition that a high carb intake is a 'natural' part of our diet is a fairly shaky one in evolutionary terms.

I got the weird idea from you. You're telling me as though it is fact that humans were hunter/gatherers before they started cultviating crops. This is the "paleo diet" theory. Creationists do not believe this (I'm a creationist). We believe we were created along with the food to feed us. The early diet consisted only of fruit and later varied to include meat, vegetables, grains, milk etc... as people spread around the world and took up residence in varied habitats making do with what was available.

Anyway, take a look around the world. 7 billion people survive mainly on complex carbohydrates as the bulk of their diet. Asia - rice, Africa - corn, Europe - potatoes, oats etc. It's only in the rich countries we're seeing so many obese people - where people have access to as much food as they want.

Edited March 24, 2012 by tropo

[MAJIC]

When you want to loose weight, you need to realize that it's not only about the calories but also about the carbohydrates. All the snack you have mentioned are high in simple carbs (rice cookies, mashed potato) and sugar (dried fruit, watermelon) - the only time you can have this is after heavy workout (I mean weights here not cardio) and even then these are not the perfect foods. And sorry, but any instant stuff is an absolute no-go when dieting.

I don't know what your goals are and what is your exercise level but generally I would also recommend to eat snacks which are high in protein and are complex carbs. Here are some suggestions for healthy snacks in Thailand:

- Complex carbs: Sweet potato, instant oatmeal

- Greek yoghurt with berries

- Fruits: apples, grapefruit, cantaloupe - strawberries & mango are too high in sugar

- Cottage cheese

- Eggs, eggs and more eggs, or egg whites when you need to be cautious about the calories

- Canned tuna

- Almonds and other nuts (buy natural ones, not salted/roasted)

- Homemade protein bars and cookies (based on oatmeal and no sugar) - if you google you can find a lot

Let me know if you need more help and advice

Julia

Not too many eggs though,they are very high in Cholesterol,that is the Yolks.when I had high cholesterol,the Dr said "no more than two eggs a week!

[tropo]

Not too many eggs though,they are very high in Cholesterol,that is the Yolks.when I had high cholesterol,the Dr said "no more than two eggs a week!

Another old myth from the dark ages which never dies. You post on here that you consume a lot of eggs and everyone freaks out.

At times when I'm a very heavy whole egg consumer (right now I'm cutting the fats) - at least 6 a day - my cholesterol levels are in the healthy range.

Anyway, there's a huge debate on these days about cholesterol levels and how high cholesterol is not the demon it was made out to be - but that's another story.

[MAJIC]

Not too many eggs though,they are very high in Cholesterol,that is the Yolks.when I had high cholesterol,the Dr said "no more than two eggs a week!

Another old myth from the dark ages which never dies. You post on here that you consume a lot of eggs and everyone freaks out.

At times when I'm a very heavy whole egg consumer (right now I'm cutting the fats) - at least 6 a day - my cholesterol levels are in the healthy range.

Anyway, there's a huge debate on these days about cholesterol levels and how high cholesterol is not the demon it was made out to be - but that's another story.

There are two schools of thought on this particular high cholesterol intake,personally I would believe the Medical Profession.

[tropo]

There are two schools of thought on this particular high cholesterol intake,personally I would believe the Medical Profession.

If you study the subject you may think otherwise rather than blindly following doctor's orders. I mean, really, 2 eggs per week because they have high cholesterol? If you blindly follow your doctors suggestions you'll not get to the bottom of your problem which is probably a shortage of essential fatty acids among other things. These old myths can be hazardous to your health because they prevent you from finding out the real cause of your problem - if indeed you have a problem because high cholesterol is not necessarily a problem. Next thing he'll have you on cholesterol lowering drugs which are also hazardous to you health. It's a downward spiral.

Yikes! I just finished my 7th egg for the day - jumbo size. I have no doubt my cholesterol level is in the healthy range. Somebody is wrong - and it's not my lab results as I get lipid profiles done every 3 months.

[necronx99]

There are two schools of thought on this particular high cholesterol intake,personally I would believe the Medical Profession.

If you study the subject you may think otherwise rather than blindly following doctor's orders. I mean, really, 2 eggs per week because they have high cholesterol? If you blindly follow your doctors suggestions you'll not get to the bottom of your problem which is probably a shortage of essential fatty acids among other things. These old myths can be hazardous to your health because they prevent you from finding out the real cause of your problem - if indeed you have a problem because high cholesterol is not necessarily a problem. Next thing he'll have you on cholesterol lowering drugs which are also hazardous to you health. It's a downward spiral.

Yikes! I just finished my 7th egg for the day - jumbo size. I have no doubt my cholesterol level is in the healthy range. Somebody is wrong - and it's not my lab results as I get lipid profiles done every 3 months.

It's like when they went on the "No Salt" crusade, otherwise normal healthy people started getting salt deficiency problems..

[MAJIC]

There are two schools of thought on this particular high cholesterol intake,personally I would believe the Medical Profession.

If you study the subject you may think otherwise rather than blindly following doctor's orders. I mean, really, 2 eggs per week because they have high cholesterol? If you blindly follow your doctors suggestions you'll not get to the bottom of your problem which is probably a shortage of essential fatty acids among other things. These old myths can be hazardous to your health because they prevent you from finding out the real cause of your problem - if indeed you have a problem because high cholesterol is not necessarily a problem. Next thing he'll have you on cholesterol lowering drugs which are also hazardous to you health. It's a downward spiral.

Yikes! I just finished my 7th egg for the day - jumbo size. I have no doubt my cholesterol level is in the healthy range. Somebody is wrong - and it's not my lab results as I get lipid profiles done every 3 months.

It's like when they went on the "No Salt" crusade, otherwise normal healthy people started getting salt deficiency problems..

I know what you mean,salt free diets,or you might be prone to heart attacks,lets face it: everything we eat,is to keep us alive,at the same time its probably killing us bit by bit.

[MAJIC]

There are two schools of thought on this particular high cholesterol intake,personally I would believe the Medical Profession.

If you study the subject you may think otherwise rather than blindly following doctor's orders. I mean, really, 2 eggs per week because they have high cholesterol? If you blindly follow your doctors suggestions you'll not get to the bottom of your problem which is probably a shortage of essential fatty acids among other things. These old myths can be hazardous to your health because they prevent you from finding out the real cause of your problem - if indeed you have a problem because high cholesterol is not necessarily a problem. Next thing he'll have you on cholesterol lowering drugs which are also hazardous to you health. It's a downward spiral.

Yikes! I just finished my 7th egg for the day - jumbo size. I have no doubt my cholesterol level is in the healthy range. Somebody is wrong - and it's not my lab results as I get lipid profiles done every 3 months.

Wow! that's some Egg intake, your not a descendant of "Coolhand Luke" by any chance are you? I think some of us oldies can remember the brilliant film from the 60s? (he had to eat 50 boiled eggs)

But seriously if the Doctors didn't have something to tell us to cut back on,then what would they advise? I can in my lifetime remember,dozens of things that were bad for you,from Coffee,tin peas to cheese,thankfully they havn't included sex on the list..........yet!

And is it only me? or do most Doctors ask you,on a regular basis "how much are you Drinking/Smoking" these days?

Just so they can tell you to cut back, or pack up something? if everyone stopped smoking and drinking,crikey it might be sex next!

Edited March 25, 2012 by MAJIC

[Tolley]

Eggs have nothing to do with high cholesterol. Most cholesterol in any case is made by the liver. The whole cholesterol myth has been a huge winner for the big pharmaceutical companies who make a fortune out of their harmful cholesterol lowering drugs.

Dont listen to anything that doctors say about diet because they are generallly clueless when it comes to diet. They spend almost no time of their 6 years of medical study on diet. If you want to know about diet consult a naturopath or a chinese herbal doctor who are trained in these areas.

Edited March 25, 2012 by Tolley

[robblok]

The egg thing is a myth that has been debunked by the medical profession itself. Baking eggs might be bad but boiling is not because you add no oil.

[tropo]

Wow! that's some Egg intake, your not a descendant of "Coolhand Luke" by any chance are you? I think some of us oldies can remember the brilliant film from the 60s? (he had to eat 50 boiled eggs)

But seriously if the Doctors didn't have something to tell us to cut back on,then what would they advise? I can in my lifetime remember,dozens of things that were bad for you,from Coffee,tin peas to cheese,thankfully they havn't included sex on the list..........yet!

And is it only me? or do most Doctors ask you,on a regular basis "how much are you Drinking/Smoking" these days?

Just so they can tell you to cut back, or pack up something? if everyone stopped smoking and drinking,crikey it might be sex next!

Right now it's not a daily thing as I'm cutting back on calories but there have been times when I eat at least 6 per day and often up to a dozen or so. Of course at that many per day you eventually get bored with them and cut back.

I was exposed to the same nonsense growing up in the 70's as my father died of a heart attack (his 2nd) in 1979. We were rationed eggs at no more than 1 per day and started eating (toxic) margarine.

A few years ago when I visited my mother she freaked out when I said I wanted 4 eggs for breakfast. I really wanted 6 but I decided to go easy on her.

Anyway, being such a heavy consumer you could imagine that I would be interested in seeing what my cholesterol levels are.

[Tolley]

Wow! that's some Egg intake, your not a descendant of "Coolhand Luke" by any chance are you? I think some of us oldies can remember the brilliant film from the 60s? (he had to eat 50 boiled eggs)

But seriously if the Doctors didn't have something to tell us to cut back on,then what would they advise? I can in my lifetime remember,dozens of things that were bad for you,from Coffee,tin peas to cheese,thankfully they havn't included sex on the list..........yet!

And is it only me? or do most Doctors ask you,on a regular basis "how much are you Drinking/Smoking" these days?

Just so they can tell you to cut back, or pack up something? if everyone stopped smoking and drinking,crikey it might be sex next!

Right now it's not a daily thing as I'm cutting back on calories but there have been times when I eat at least 6 per day and often up to a dozen or so. Of course at that many per day you eventually get bored with them and cut back.

I was exposed to the same nonsense growing up in the 70's as my father died of a heart attack (his 2nd) in 1979. We were rationed eggs at no more than 1 per day and started eating (toxic) margarine.

A few years ago when I visited my mother she freaked out when I said I wanted 4 eggs for breakfast. I really wanted 6 but I decided to go easy on her.

Anyway, being such a heavy consumer you could imagine that I would be interested in seeing what my cholesterol levels are.

Yep that whole maragarine thing in the 70s sort of backfired really when it was later found out that margarine is worse than butter because of the trans fats involved.

Also apparently according to some researcher skin cancer increases can be linked directly to ingestion of trans fats.

[tropo]

At least this history lesson could serve as a lesson to people who blindly follow doctors' advice without doing some research first.

If drug companies didn't have so much power we'd all be better off. It's scary the way doctors in Thailand can sell medicine from their clinic. Even scarier that hospitals can legally sell medicine in the name of convenience.

Edited March 26, 2012 by tropo