Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You are lumping all carbs into one bucket. Huge difference between whole foods that are carbs and ultra processed carbs. Ultra processed carbs are the ones that are addictive. Ever notice that the top most addictive foods also contain high amounts of ultra processed fats? IE Pizza
You can eat a bunch of donuts because it's NOT satieting compared to a loaf of bread. Of course you will keep eating after stuffing your face with a bunch of donuts because you are NOT full.
FYI I have fed cows grain to try and fatten them up and they did not fatten up until I confined them to a small space. They will NOT fatten up from just grain alone.
You are assuming its same for all people. I ate whole grain based diet for forty years. And by whole grain I mean WHOLE GRAIN. Cooked in a pressure cooker. It really is cheapest way to eat without frequent trips to grocery store. Nope, doesnt matter, I over ate on whole grains and beans that I cooked. When younger and lot manual labor and faster metabolism, it didnt matter. Got fat in my old age. Got diabetes (high carb whole grain diet, not high sugar diet). Switched to low carb VEGETARIAN (100g carb per day) to control my blood sugar. I wasnt trying to lose weight, just wanted off the insulin. Lost 60 pound in six month. Went from 260 down to 200. No great increase in physical activity, though I was more active the less weight I was carrying around. Body in years since now hovers around 190 to 200 which apparently the new equilibrium on this diet. And its been no great burden to eat low carb, just means I have to cook/process all my food from single raw ingredients. Cause every factory processed food has added sugar or starches or at minimum, some grain derived additives.
So tell me again how donuts are different, not to bread but to actual whole grain cooked in pressure cooker?????
Hey not saying everybody is same. Some may get filled on relatively little whole grain. I DIDNT, cause carbs taste good and want just little more and little more... But obviously eliminating grain entirely woke up my "hey stupid, you're full, stop eating" signal. Cause even as dense as I can be sometimes, I was noticing it took lot less food to make me feel full.
I do, but the trails and forests are in suburban parks. Plus being a six-foot-tall woman, I've never been afraid like that, even working in NYC all my life People don't tend to choose women of my stature for their victims.
If you ACT like a target, you will be one whatever your size. I grew up in NYC and all of 5'1" and 100 lbs. Went wherever I wanted to go. Also had a close friend who was all of 4'10" and was a 2nd Degree Black Belt who taught at a Dojo in the South Bronx. Just from the way she walked, carried herself, look in her eyes, any attacker should have known by instinct not to mess with her. One tried once and I am sure he will think twice about about trying to attack a small woman again. "Mary" creamed a 6 footer.
Last edited by Mightyqueen801; 10-06-2020 at 08:00 AM..
Reason: Fixed quote tag
You are assuming its same for all people. I ate whole grain based diet for forty years. And by whole grain I mean WHOLE GRAIN. Cooked in a pressure cooker. It really is cheapest way to eat without frequent trips to grocery store. Nope, doesnt matter, I over ate on whole grains and beans that I cooked. When younger and lot manual labor and faster metabolism, it didnt matter. Got fat in my old age. Got diabetes (high carb whole grain diet, not high sugar diet). Switched to low carb VEGETARIAN (100g carb per day) to control my blood sugar. I wasnt trying to lose weight, just wanted off the insulin. Lost 60 pound in six month. Went from 260 down to 200. No great increase in physical activity, though I was more active the less weight I was carrying around. Body in years since now hovers around 190 to 200 which apparently the new equilibrium on this diet. And its been no great burden to eat low carb, just means I have to cook/process all my food from single raw ingredients. Cause every factory processed food has added sugar or starches or at minimum, some grain derived additives.
Hey not saying everybody is same. Some may get filled on relatively little whole grain. I DIDNT, cause carbs taste good and want just little more and little more... But obviously eliminating grain entirely woke up my "hey stupid, you're full, stop eating" signal. Cause even as dense as I can be sometimes, I was noticing it took lot less food to make me feel full.
Caloric balance is the exact same for everyone. You need to be in a caloric deficit to lose weight regardless of your body type, energy expenditure, metabolism etc. Yes, everyone is different in the sense that some people have slower metabolism thus they will need to burn alot more in order to lose weight but the principle is the same. You must be in a caloric deficit to lose weight.
When you say you ate whole grain the whole time what do you mean? What type of foods? Wheat, corn, rice, oats, barley, quinoa, sorghum, spelt, rye?
And you just admitted yourself, YOU OVER CONSUMED CALORIES. Of course you won't lose weight when you are in a caloric surplus. No wonder you lost a bunch of weight because you significantly cut down on your calories.
Quote:
So tell me again how donuts are different, not to bread but to actual whole grain cooked in pressure cooker?????
Define whole grain? What type of food are you talking about here? Donuts are the lowest on the satiety index. Not even close to anything that is whole grain.
Caloric balance is the exact same for everyone. You need to be in a caloric deficit to lose weight regardless of your body type, energy expenditure, metabolism etc. Yes, everyone is different in the sense that some people have slower metabolism thus they will need to burn alot more in order to lose weight but the principle is the same. You must be in a caloric deficit to lose weight.
When you say you ate whole grain the whole time what do you mean? What type of foods? Wheat, corn, rice, oats, barley, quinoa, sorghum, spelt, rye?
And you just admitted yourself, YOU OVER CONSUMED CALORIES. Of course you won't lose weight when you are in a caloric surplus. No wonder you lost a bunch of weight because you significantly cut down on your calories.
Define whole grain? What type of food are you talking about here? Donuts are the lowest on the satiety index. Not even close to anything that is whole grain.
Rice, wheat, corn, rye, barley, oats, millet, and buckwheat. I liked quinoa ok but its pricey for what it is. And beans. When I discovered buckwheat porridge, I tended to prefer that for breakfast. Before that either oatmeal (thick rolled oats or sometimes whole hulled oats) or whole wheat pancakes, flour from wheat I ground. Maybe mainstay was BROWN rice and lentils with some veggies added. That was relatively quick and I liked it. And ground flour and made whole wheat bread. And no my bread wasnt half sugar like Subway that recently made the news. Just teaspoon of sugar to feed the yeast.
Hey I was fat kid when there werent lot fat kids in school. But in 7th grade puberty apparently sped up metabolism. No change in diet (kids dont pay attention to such things) and I went from 180 in sixth grade to 140. In college had to eat my own cooking (lived off campus) and rode bike everywhere, went down to 130 at one point, hey I even saw myself as too skinny for 6ft guy. Weight slowly drifted up, around 160 by age 40. Then my metabolism slowed way down was well over 200 by 50s. Topped out at 260 (yes I saw irony of weighing twice what I did when I got down to 130 in college). So yea like it or not, metabolism matters. Old people tend to have slower metabolisms. I guess potlucks are passe now but even as kid, would notice some skinny adult with PILES of food on plate at church or school potluck and went back for seconds or thirds. High carb food. Some people just have very fast metabolism. So yea metabolism matters. Fast metabolism, you burn calories faster.
You however are disregarding my main point. On whole grain diet I was packing on the pounds as my metabolism slowed combined with less manual labor. When I switched to low carb, I lost weight without trying. No suffering or iron will needed to eat less needed, nor training all day like an Olympic athlete. I just didnt want more so stopped eating sooner than I did on a HIGH CARB WHOLE GRAIN DIET. I still eat until I am full, but on low carb never wanted enough to where I felt bloated and need to loosen my belt.
Rice, wheat, corn, rye, barley, oats, millet, and buckwheat. I liked quinoa ok but its pricey for what it is. And beans. When I discovered buckwheat porridge, I tended to prefer that for breakfast. Before that either oatmeal (thick rolled oats or sometimes whole hulled oats) or whole wheat pancakes, flour from wheat I ground. Maybe mainstay was BROWN rice and lentils with some veggies added. That was relatively quick and I liked it. And ground flour and made whole wheat bread. And no my bread wasnt half sugar like Subway that recently made the news. Just teaspoon of sugar to feed the yeast.
Hey I was fat kid when there werent lot fat kids in school. But in 7th grade puberty apparently sped up metabolism. No change in diet (kids dont pay attention to such things) and I went from 180 in sixth grade to 140. In college had to eat my own cooking (lived off campus) and rode bike everywhere, went down to 130 at one point, hey I even saw myself as too skinny for 6ft guy. Weight slowly drifted up, around 160 by age 40. Then my metabolism slowed way down was well over 200 by 50s. Topped out at 260 (yes I saw irony of weighing twice what I did when I got down to 130 in college). So yea like it or not, metabolism matters. Old people tend to have slower metabolisms. I guess potlucks are passe now but even as kid, would notice some skinny adult with PILES of food on plate at church or school potluck and went back for seconds or thirds. High carb food. Some people just have very fast metabolism. So yea metabolism matters. Fast metabolism, you burn calories faster.
You however are disregarding my main point. On whole grain diet I was packing on the pounds as my metabolism slowed combined with less manual labor. When I switched to low carb, I lost weight without trying. No suffering or iron will needed to eat less needed, nor training all day like an Olympic athlete. I just didnt want more so stopped eating sooner than I did on a HIGH CARB WHOLE GRAIN DIET. I still eat until I am full, but on low carb never wanted enough to where I felt bloated and need to loosen my belt.
It's not surprising you lost weight going from a high carb diet to low carb diet. You significantly cut calories to the point where you were at a caloric deficit. You would have lost the same amount of weight if you were on a high fat diet and you went to a low fat diet.
It's not surprising you lost weight going from a high carb diet to low carb diet. You significantly cut calories to the point where you were at a caloric deficit. You would have lost the same amount of weight if you were on a high fat diet and you went to a low fat diet.
Both low carb and low fat probably not practical. You need your calories from somewhere. But yea suppose if you could somehow manage both at same time, you would definitely lose weight. You however will never feel full and have to deal with your body constantly telling you to eat something, anything.
And again and again and again. The high carb diet, at least for some of us, means our brains dont get that signal to stop eating when we are full. Thus you have to consciously be counting calories all the time. This doesnt work for many people, ITS WHY PEOPLE CANT REALLY STICK TO CALORIE COUNTING DIET MORE THAN COUPLE WEEKS. Your body is continually telling you that you are hungry and to eat something. Low carb diet, most calories from fat. Fat works much better signaling you that you are FULL. No battling your own body whether you eat that snack or extra meal or whatever.
But hey up to each individual whether they want to constantly battle your own body and its plateaus cause it goes into starvation mode and reduces metabolism to conserve calories. I prefer not thinking about, just eat until I am full, end of story.
Also I didnt go low carb to lose weight. I am T2 and did it to control blood sugar and get off insulin quick as possible. The loss of weight was nice side effect. Been several years now and I have had no problem sticking to it. Course I do have T2 dangling over my head and threat having to go back on insulin, something I truly dont want.
Both low carb and low fat probably not practical. You need your calories from somewhere. But yea suppose if you could somehow manage both at same time, you would definitely lose weight. You however will never feel full and have to deal with your body constantly telling you to eat something, anything.
You do one or the other. Low carb/moderate fat or moderate carb/low fat. You lost weight on both if you are in a caloric deficit. One method has no advantage over the other. Some people do better on low carb, some people do better on low fat.
Quote:
And again and again and again. The high carb diet, at least for some of us, means our brains dont get that signal to stop eating when we are full. Thus you have to consciously be counting calories all the time. This doesnt work for many people, ITS WHY PEOPLE CANT REALLY STICK TO CALORIE COUNTING DIET MORE THAN COUPLE WEEKS. Your body is continually telling you that you are hungry and to eat something. Low carb diet, most calories from fat. Fat works much better signaling you that you are FULL. No battling your own body whether you eat that snack or extra meal or whatever.
I don't see anywhere that anyone is advocating for a high carb diet. You do not have to count calories to lose weight. Just eat whole foods high in fiber, protein, and plenty of servings of fruits and vegetables and you will start losing weight. Yes, low carb works better for some people but as I have said before it is not superior to moderate carb/low fat.
I counted 42 different high-sugar breakfast cereals at my local Wal-Mart today. 42 !
The least-busiest aisle was produce and the biggest queue was at the pre-cooked lunch counter.
The 300lbs lady in front of me at the check-out was so fat she was in a motorized wheelchair provided by the store to help her shop because walking was too much of a strain.
She had her son with her who I would say was about 14-years-old and he must have weighed 200lbs.
Her final bill came to $96 dollars - there wasn't a single piece of vegetable or fruit among what she'd bought and virtually everything was food which didn't need any preparation other than opening a packet.
I guestimated 75% of the people in the store were obese.
There just doesn't seem to be a lot of shame about being fat in America these days.
I live in an area with mixed demographics and sadly, I see that a lot, especially in the store in the less-prosperous area of town. People on scooters with an empty sock where a foot used to be, with the cart full of pop and snack cakes. And of course it's a vicious circle- the more you weigh, the harder it is to exercise. Heck, I can't even carry my 3-year old granddaughter too far without getting short of breath and feeling the extra strain on my joints and that's nothing like carrying around 200 extra pounds.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Mary" creamed a 6 footer.