lmmy

??? How can they benefit from something that isn't active? GGreen: yeah, I know, I guess raw foodists will listen to any "raw food guru", even if they don't actually back up their information with anything that's scientifically proven. Like I read an article by a raw food guru saying that "proton-rich fruits will rob your body of needed electrons". I'm convinced now that most raw foodists have never seen the inside of a Chemistry textbook, or listen to anyone who doesn't say something logically impossible like "we biologically benefit from things that aren't active in our bodies." I was nasty because you just said "you're wrong" and didn't bother to argue. I think it shows a lot about your lifestyle if you won't even debate it with scientifically-proven -- not anecdotal -- facts.

I have to step in here -- enzymes are not important. At all. Even if you don't destroy them with cooking, your stomach acid destroys them before they can do much of anything to the food you've eaten. And, as far as I know, minerals cannot be destroyed by cooking -- or there would be no minerals in the Earth, as it spent ~one billion years as molten rock. The only vitamin I have heard that is destroyed by cooking is vitamin C. I don't mean to insult anyone on this forum, but a lot of raw foodists are going on, if not outright bad, then remarkably exaggerated information. That said, I have nothing against raw foodism, just bad information, and I wish you the best in your endeavors.

Kale is one of those leafy green vegetables we've all heard so much about! It's delicious (if a bit bitter when not cooked -- or at least to me it is), and goes well with just about anything you can throw at it. You can put it in shakes and smoothies, and trick kids into getting their veggies by calling it a Hulk shake -- it's true! Kale is also a vegetable which has exceedingly good levels of calcium, at 276 mg per cup (or maybe it was per 1/2 cup? Oh well), and because it doesn't have any oxalic acid (the limiting iron that spinach has), you can absorb the most of both its iron AND calcium levels. Yummy! spiel>

Here's one of my recent menus: Luna bar 1.25 cup kidney beans 2 cups wheat bulghur Italian (romain lettuce/radicchio) salad with Goddess dressing 5 apples Green beans + elephant garlic sauteed with shirataki noodles and 1.75 cup fresh spinach More spinach Pear Banana This came to a little over than 1,600 calories, and it was spread widely throughout the day -- I don't like to eat all at once.

Oh, and it's "L"mmy, not Immy. XD

Okay, I was just worried, because I hear that sort of thing all the time from my friends, and it really weirds me out, because I've seen those "thinspiration" pictures and was at one point really supportive of that disease, so I always get kind of concerned when I hear something like that.. just in case it might be serious, you know? With stuff like this, there's not a lot of room for error. If I may say so, though, I think you're absolutely gorgeous (if that's your picture as your avatar, anyways) and by no means need to lose weight. Coming from a bona-fide lesbian, that's a compliment. I still stand by my statement that weight loss is about not eating enough, because I mean that in a purely technical way, not a health way. The reason you lose weight is because there's a calorie deficit; there's no way to get around that whatsoever. So technically you're not eating enough to support your body's weight. I'm not saying that's good or bad, because it depends on the circumstances (rapid weight loss, for example, would be very bad if one had been poisoned with arsenic), but the whole "calories in < calories out = weight loss" thing is true, albeit highly convoluted due to individual body chemistry.

From another forum I go to: "Skinny Bitch seems to be designed to trick omni women into veganism by appealing to their fat vain asses. It isn't really for vegans, althogh it is by vegans. It actually reads like a really long Rant post on this forum. Some good info peppered with lots of F-bombs and also some bad information. Maybe it was just me, but it doesn't even read like it was written by two skinny bitches! It kinda seems like it was written by vegan dudes pretending to be skinny bitches. Weird. Also, they tell you to get rid of all the omni food, but then they recommend some vegan junk food and pre-packaged food. They also recommend fasting, which unless done under ideal and strict guidelines, can be very dangerous. Their goal is really to make the reader vegan, not necessarily a healthy vegan." "... -They don't talk about how to figure out your caloric needs, or how much you should eat in order to be healthy. They also talk about how great fasts are (which I don't agree with), and advocate only eating fruit for breakfast and then not eating lunch until you're ravenous. On the back of the book, it says that both worked for Ford Models, and a lot of their "how to deal with food" advice seems straight out of a "how to develop an eating disorder" manual. ..." "I agree with OMM and [name ommitted to protect privacy]--I bought the book, read it, and returned it. The language didn't bother me; I'm a huge fan of the f-bomb in all its glorious permutations. The attitude bothered me. I'm rather anti-diet-industry, and their ranting seemed to skirt a dangerous edge between pro-vegan and pro-eating-disorder. I mean, an apple for breakfast? Are you kidding me? I don't really feel like Ford models have a lot of credibility when it comes to giving advice to fat people. But that's my own personal bias against the Great American Cult of the Stick Insect Woman. Plus, it had that same Dr Phil-esque "I'll be mean to you and call you a fat ass to shock you into listening to me" tone that gets really grating after the first few pages. I'm not entirely confident in some of their research, either--some of their sources for their facts were Glamour magazine. As OMM said, it seemed to play off vanity in order to get people to go vegan, which seems like a crappy reason to do so. It's obvious that the authors are vegan for ethical reasons as well as health, but you notice they didn't name the book "Ethical Bitch."" There are positive reviews too, but promoting eating-disorder-like behaviour (fasting, not eating until you're ravenous, etc.) has really turned me off of giving it to anyone, because I'll never know if that will be a "trigger" for someone that's recovering -- women (and men) tend to be very, very secretive about their eating disorders, even after they've recovered or started the road to recovery.

Okay, now I'm getting aggressive because I'm being completely misinterpreted (likely because I'm disagreeing/questioning a beloved member of the forum): I was not being aggressive, I just dislike it when people bring in something completely superfluous.. I want to keep my fat intake under 20%; thus, I am not going to eat nuts or seeds. Sounds pretty simple, doesn't it? Apparently not, so I guess I should have added that to my first post. I get the same way when someone adds in (or seems to) a completely unrelated bit of advice in math. I have a driving need to either eradicate it, or find out what the hell this person is talking about -- and if it's obviously superfluous, I don't bother with it. Yes, I have a stick up my ass about a lot of things. I come from a vegan diet where fat intake was at or over 30% of total caloric intake, so I really don't think that's hte problem. P.S. It also seems odd when you're calling me out for being "aggressive" when Raven was getting offended for me not being grateful for a piece of advice that she should have known, from my original post, that I was not going to follow.

Veganpotter, you are wrong and psychology+physiology in eating disorders supports me. You CAN lose too much weight. "Eating enough" is an oxymoron when it comes to weight loss -- weight loss is about "not eating enough", that's why you lose weight. It's not bad to undergo a mild form of this for an extended period of time -- but it is bad to drop below a weight where you feel and perform your best. In short, you are espousing the mentality of an eating disorder -- something that you do often on this forum, I notice. Princessbee, it's really not good to wish that you would never stop losing weight -- we like living vegans, not dead ones.

I, on the other hand, have heard some very bad things about Skinny Bitch -- for example, that the authors espouse various rituals in eating that are scarily (read: exactly) like the ones done by those with eating disorders.

??? Then why didn't you just leave out the part about the nuts and flax?

Yes, I do. I use the SparkPeople calorie calculator, and list all I eat diligently. Days I stay home, I can eat a little more because I have a ready source of food, but I was out only 4 hours today (got out of bed at 10 -- went to bed at 12), and I ate about 1,800 calories, give or take anywhere from 0-100. I was full all day, but I was still eating, and I'm still full, but I don't feel I need to eat anymore. It's a really big change for me, actually; when I was eating processed foods I was eating for the taste, and "living to eat" as they say, counting calories just to see if I could have another cookie/soy dream bar. But now it's become more of a "eat so I have enough calories" thing, that is, I'm eating because I know I haven't eaten enough to sustain my body. Surprisingly, apples are more calorie-dense than I thought. Four small apples has 250 calories.. weird. But each of them has 2+ grams of fiber. Mainly what got me enough calories today was the bread I had; I had two sandwiches today, with green chile hummus, 1/2 red bell pepper each, and 10+ grams broccoli sprouts. If you don't believe me that's okay, but I mean it when I say that those days I spend at school, I have to eat near-constantly to get my calorie intake up to 1,600, much less 1,800 like I'm supposed to. P.S. Upon reflection, it may also be that I drink ~a gallon of water every day, whether through teas or straight from the tap.

But I am trying to cut down on fats, not add them.

Ironically (as I noted in my other post), I am having to gorge myself, and I'm still not getting to an acceptable calorie level. Of course, it's almost universally fruits and vegetables that I'm eating. 60 grams of fiber a day = good for you. I'm still overweight, though. Maybe that will change.. P.S. This is hilarious, though, if not totally true (I know many fat vegans -- admittedly, they eat a lot of processed foods, so that point's given), but the author has the mentality of the diet industry dead-on.

Raven - ??? I don't have any kinds of cravings at all (except for the occasional piece of fruit), and I don't know quite how you got that from my post. I said in my post that I am trying to get more calories -- not less. I can't possibly see how loading up on low-calorie foods would help this goal. And I already try to take 2 tablespoons ground flax a day. So your post really does nothing for me, sorry.