Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Health and Wellness > Diet and Weight Loss
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-09-2012, 03:40 PM
 
Location: Philaburbia
41,958 posts, read 75,174,114 times
Reputation: 66905

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id View Post
You think that after you consume a large bowl of brown rice with vegetables you'll still be hungry?
In about an hour, yes. Big bowls of carbs, aside from having little nutritional value, don't stick with me.

Swap the rice for fish or chicken? The same number of calories' worth, not volume. I'm good for three or four hours, or longer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by selhars View Post
Actually I am hungry SOONER after carbs -- as in rice an vegetables -- than I am after eating protein.
Ditto. I naturally eat less, because the protein satisfies me (for hours!), so I'm less likely to snack inappropriately.

Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id View Post
As far as the brown rice and vegetables, they will satiate a normal body (i.e., one that doesn't get satiated for an entire day on 300 calories of eggs) rather well.
Might I remind you once again that you're posting in the diet and weight loss forum, and most people with recurrent weight issues do not have normal bodies.

Quote:
Though, if one is use to eating high fat or sugar foods its not going to feel satisfying at first. Like something is missing....
Yes. Protein.

Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id View Post
Without what protein? A bowl or rice and vegetables will have protein, just not nearly as much as a bowl of meat. Protein may satiate you better than sugar, but why would it satiate the body better than a high-fiber whole foods source of carbohydrates? Both won't spike blood sugar levels and are slowly converted into useable energy.
Not as slowly as protein. That's why protein keeps you satisfied longer; fat, too. This is reasonably common knowledge.

Quote:
But an eggs and bacon meal isn't particularly high in protein, its high in fat. A cup of soy milk has the same amount of protein as 2~3 slices of bacon, but its around half the calories.
That's lovely, but one of the primary guidelines in weight loss is: Don't drink your calories. And again, soy milk -- most of which is laden with sugar and even the unsweetened product is carb-heavy -- won't provide the same long-lasting feeling of satisfaction as a two eggs and two strips of bacon.

Why this is so difficult for you to comprehend is quite perplexing.

Quote:
For example, why would the stomach still trigger "hunger messages" to the brain 30 minutes after eating 4 bananas which would fill the stomach and still be almost entirely undigested? Do bananas shrink when you eat them?
You really do need to read up on digestion, blood sugar, and glycemic index. While you're at it, read up on food addictions and weight loss. Your lack of understanding of this topic is immense.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-09-2012, 07:41 PM
 
1,084 posts, read 1,845,684 times
Reputation: 824
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnonChick View Post
If I am allowed to eat half a pound of food...and my options are:

1. a half pound of brown rice with some chopped brocolli peas and carrots in it..
2. a half pound of boneless skinless chicken breast
3. a bowl of leafy green salad with tomatoes and mushrooms and other veggies totalling 3 ounces total, plus 3 ounces (1/4 pound) of sliced boneless skinless chicken breast, with 1/4 ounce of oil-based salad dressing, plus 1.75 ounces (a serving spoonful) of brown rice on the side:

I will feel the following:

1. stupidly full, for an hour, and then hungry.
2. sick to my stomach, and then uncomfortable and unhealthy the rest of the day
3. full at first, and comfortable for the next several hours, until it's time for my next meal.

A bowl full of protein is no more healthy than a bowl full of starch. But a bowl full of dense nutrition, which includes both starch and protein in modest proportions, is healthy, AND filling, AND sustainable with regards to hunger.
I agree with this. I think there needs to be balance in your meals. Each meal should contain a protein, a good carb, and maybe a dairy of some sort.

I've done the low carb thing and didn't feel like it was sustainable for my lifestyle. I'm a foodie and like to try to different things, eating a low carb diet is very restrictive and might I say: boring. Some people can operate on meats, eggs, cheese, and minimal amounts of veggie, fruits and dairy, but I cannot live like that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2012, 07:52 PM
 
Location: In a house
13,250 posts, read 42,776,455 times
Reputation: 20198
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunkisses87 View Post
I agree with this. I think there needs to be balance in your meals. Each meal should contain a protein, a good carb, and maybe a dairy of some sort.

I've done the low carb thing and didn't feel like it was sustainable for my lifestyle. I'm a foodie and like to try to different things, eating a low carb diet is very restrictive and might I say: boring. Some people can operate on meats, eggs, cheese, and minimal amounts of veggie, fruits and dairy, but I cannot live like that.
It really depends on what the person means by "low carb." A LOT of people confuse "starch" with "carb" and assume low-carb just means low starch. If they're doing a "low starch" diet, then they're probably getting all the nutrition they need, and cutting out starches will be good for them.

People forget that all kinds of foods have some amount of carbs in them. But not all carbs are created equal.

Just like not all fats are created equal, and not all proteins are created equal. Eating small amounts of organ meat can be a healthy source of protein and iron (such as liver, kidney, and heart). Eating even "moderate" amounts of organ meat can be very unhealthy. But eating "moderate" amounts of lean cuts of steak, chicken, and fish, can be very healthy. On the other hand, eating "moderate" amounts of some fish can be downright dangerous, and should be avoided, or taken in very small portions, and not very often.

Same with dairy. People aren't really built to handle copious amounts of cow dairy. Yes, calcium is important, but it doesn't have to come from homogenized pasteurized milk. You can get it from goat cheese, and have less risk of digestive upset. You can also get calcium from seashells and chalk, but it's not a good idea to eat too much of either

I think a lot of confusion, truly, is with people who assume "low carb" necessarily means "high fat and high protein" and then they toss "low carb = ALL carbs, and not just cutting out starch and sugar" into the mix, and end up with a diet they can't sustain, or sick.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2012, 09:25 PM
 
Location: Conejo Valley, CA
12,460 posts, read 20,083,618 times
Reputation: 4365
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohiogirl81 View Post
In about an hour, yes. Big bowls of carbs, aside from having little nutritional value, don't stick with me.
You may not fancy a bowl of brown rice and vegetables, but the claim that they have "little nutritional value" is entirely false. Brown rice is a higher fiber source of carbohydrates and protein and is filled with micro-nutrients.....and the vegetables will make it even more nutritious.

As for as protein goes, plant-foods contain protein and there are numerous plant-foods that are high in protein. If protein was the distinguishing factor than a bowl of brown rice and beans should satisfy you just as much as some fish of similar caloric content.

Also, I'm not talking about "carbs" in general. I'm talking about whole plant foods which, in most cases, happen to be high in carbohydrates. What is true of high carbohydrate whole foods is not necessarily true of high carbohydrate processed foods.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohiogirl81 View Post
and most people with recurrent weight issues do not have normal bodies.
Of course they do, their weight issues are due to lifestyle choices and not an abnormal body. Obesity use to be rare, now its common place....and people's bodies haven't changed.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohiogirl81 View Post
Not as slowly as protein. That's why protein keeps you satisfied longer; fat, too. This is reasonably common knowledge.
This isn't "common knowledge", its a gross specification..... How long carbohydrates metabolize depends on a number of factors, unlike protein you can't speak about "carbs" in a general way.

Whole plant foods will digest slowly and whether or not its as slow, slower or faster than protein depends on the details. But length of digestion really isn't an issue to begin with...its blood sugar levels and whole foods won't spike them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohiogirl81 View Post
That's lovely, but one of the primary guidelines in weight loss is: Don't drink your calories. And again, soy milk -- most of which is laden with sugar and even the unsweetened product is carb-heavy -- won't provide the same long-lasting feeling of satisfaction as a two eggs and two strips of bacon.
Soy milk was mentioned in relation to cereal, not as an isolated drink. And no, contrary to your suggestion unsweetened soy milk isn't high carb. Its a high protein and high fat food.

Regardless, yep, you've already mentioned the magically power of a small portion of eggs and bacon to satisfy the body. I'm not sure why you think simply repeating your assertion, a assertion I'm disputing, some how addresses anything....

It would also be nice if you could discuss matters without numerous personal insults.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2012, 05:53 AM
 
Location: US
5,139 posts, read 12,710,836 times
Reputation: 5385
this thread got way OT...

Anyway...back to the OP


I would like to know how they came up with the 300 number. Was it due to weightloss results? What was the test?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2012, 10:05 AM
 
Location: San Diego
50,262 posts, read 47,023,439 times
Reputation: 34060
Interesting article:

Hunter Gatherers Live Longer and are Healthier than Agriculturalists
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2012, 10:36 AM
 
Location: In a house
13,250 posts, read 42,776,455 times
Reputation: 20198
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1AngryTaxPayer View Post
It's not an article. It's a blog, written by some guy into crossfit, who references another blog, written by a doctor who gets paid to promote protein powder for a nutriceutical company, who cites another article, written by someone into archeology.

In short, it's just more internet pro-paleo sensationalism.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2012, 02:59 PM
 
Location: Cleveland
4,651 posts, read 4,972,902 times
Reputation: 6015
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id View Post

Whole plant foods will digest slowly and whether or not its as slow, slower or faster than protein depends on the details. But length of digestion really isn't an issue to begin with...its blood sugar levels and whole foods won't spike them.

.
How about a potato?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2012, 03:11 PM
 
Location: Cleveland
4,651 posts, read 4,972,902 times
Reputation: 6015
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opsimathia View Post
this thread got way OT...

Anyway...back to the OP


I would like to know how they came up with the 300 number. Was it due to weightloss results? What was the test?

Good write-up on this here, pay particular attention to the different types of energy expenditure measurements:

Good science, bad interpretation « The Eating Academy | Peter Attia, M.D.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2012, 03:36 PM
 
Location: Conejo Valley, CA
12,460 posts, read 20,083,618 times
Reputation: 4365
Quote:
Originally Posted by tribecavsbrowns View Post
How about a potato?
Potatoes are fine so long as you eat them in their natural state (baking is okay). But as soon as you "refine" them by peeling them, mashing them up and creating little fries or whatever else out of them it can become problematic just like refined grains.

And yes, I realize that you're bringing them up because they have a "high glycemic index", but that isn't a serious measure of a food's ability to spike your blood sugar.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Health and Wellness > Diet and Weight Loss
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top