Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by beforewisdom

  1. The article implies that because all calories are created equal, you can eat whatever you want, just count calories.


    I think you have most of the point right.


    A completely correct interpretation might be


    "Since a given amount of calories is the same amount of energy, no matter the source, it makes no difference, in terms of weight control, where the same amount of calories comes from. In terms of health and nutrition it will, but not weight control."

  2. What you are saying is like saying a fossil fuel is a fossil fuel.


    It is more like he is saying "What weighs more a pound of feathers or a pound of steel ?"


    300 calories from oatmeal and 300 calories from roasted peanuts are the same amount of energy.


    The only difference to someone trying to lose fat is that the amount of peanuts that has 300 calories is only a handful. Choosing that for lunch will make them want to eat more food and take in more 300 calories, which may hurt their goal of weight loss.


    However, if they are happy with only eating the amount of peanuts that has 300 calories they will not do any better....or any worse than the person eating 300 calories of oatmeal.

  3. This article is short enough that I am quoting the whole thing.




    A "calorie" (kilocalorie) is a measure of energy -- the amount of energy needed to increase temperature of 1 gram of water 1 degree Celsius.


    Many people think they are eating "more" when they eat high bulk diets. Bulk being fiber and water combined. Such people are eating more bulk, but not more calories ( energy ). Some foods "wrap" the same amount of calories in "different sized boxes"( bulk). So people who are eating "more", bulk feel fuller but might actually be eating less calories ( energy ). Some good visual examples: http://www.wisegeek.com/what-does-200-calories-look-like.htm


    The article: ( from http://mobile.nytimes.com/article?a=945833&f=26 )


    In Dieting, Magic Isn't a Substitute for Science


    NO TRICKS Dr. Jules Hirsch has been researching obesity for nearly 60 years.



    Published: July 10, 2012


    Is a calorie really just a calorie? Do calories from a soda have the same effect on your waistline as an equivalent number from an apple or a piece of chicken?


    For decades the question has percolated among researchers - not to mention dieters. It gained new momentum with a study published last month in The Journal of the American Medical Association suggesting that after losing weight, people on a high-fat, high-protein diet burned more calories than those eating more carbohydrates.


    We asked Dr. Jules Hirsch, emeritus professor and emeritus physician in chief at Rockefeller University, who has been researching obesity for nearly 60 years, about the state of the research. Dr. Hirsch, who receives no money from pharmaceutical companies or the diet industry, wrote some of the classic papers describing why it is so hard to lose weight and why it usually comes back.


    The JAMA study has gotten a lot of attention. Should people stay on diets that are high in fat and protein if they want to keep the weight off?


    What they did in that study is they took 21 people and fed them a diet that made them lose about 10 to 20 percent of their weight. Then, after their weight had leveled off, they put the subjects on one of three different maintenance diets. One is very, very low in carbohydrates and high in fat, essentially the Atkins diet. Another is the opposite - high in carbohydrates, low in fat. The third is in between. Then they measured total energy expenditure - in calories burned - and resting energy expenditure.


    They report that people on the Atkins diet were burning off more calories. Ergo, the diet is a good thing. Such low-carbohydrate diets usually give a more rapid initial weight loss than diets with the same amount of calories but with more carbohydrates. But when carbohydrate levels are low in a diet and fat content is high, people lose water. That can confuse attempts to measure energy output. The usual measurement is calories per unit of lean body mass - the part of the body that is not made up of fat. When water is lost, lean body mass goes down, and so calories per unit of lean body mass go up. It's just arithmetic. There is no hocus-pocus, no advantage to the dieters. Only water, no fat, has been lost.


    The paper did not provide information to know how the calculations were done, but this is a likely explanation for the result.


    So the whole thing might have been an illusion? All that happened was the people temporarily lost water on the high-protein diets?


    Perhaps the most important illusion is the belief that a calorie is not a calorie but depends on how much carbohydrates a person eats. There is an inflexible law of physics - energy taken in must exactly equal the number of calories leaving the system when fat storage is unchanged. Calories leave the system when food is used to fuel the body. To lower fat content - reduce obesity - one must reduce calories taken in, or increase the output by increasing activity, or both. This is true whether calories come from pumpkins or peanuts or pâté de foie gras.


    To believe otherwise is to believe we can find a really good perpetual motion machine to solve our energy problems. It won't work, and neither will changing the source of calories permit us to disobey the laws of science.


    Did you ever ask whether people respond differently to diets of different compositions?


    Dr. Rudolph Leibel, now an obesity researcher at Columbia University, and I took people who were of normal weight and had them live in the hospital, where we diddled with the number of calories we fed them so we could keep their weights absolutely constant, which is no easy thing. This was done with liquid diets of exactly known calorie content.


    We kept the number of calories constant, always giving them the amount that should keep them at precisely the same weight. But we wildly changed the proportions of fats and carbohydrates. Some had practically no carbohydrates, and some had practically no fat.


    What happened? Did people unexpectedly gain or lose weight when they had the same amount of calories but in a diet of a different composition?


    No. There was zero difference between high-fat and low-fat diets.


    Why is it so hard for people to lose weight?


    What your body does is to sense the amount of energy it has available for emergencies and for daily use. The stored energy is the total amount of adipose tissue in your body. We now know that there are jillions of hormones that are always measuring the amount of fat you have. Your body guides you to eat more or less because of this sensing mechanism.


    But if we have such a sensing mechanism, why are people fatter now than they used to be?


    This wonderful sensing mechanism involves genetics and environmental factors, and it gets set early in life. It is not clear how much of the setting is done before birth and how much is done by food or other influences early in life. There are many possibilities, but we just don't know.

    So for many people, something happened early in life to set their sensing mechanism to demand more fat on their bodies?




    What would you tell someone who wanted to lose weight?


    I would have them eat a lower-calorie diet. They should eat whatever they normally eat, but eat less. You must carefully measure this. Eat as little as you can get away with, and try to exercise more.


    There is no magic diet, or even a moderately preferred diet?


    No. Some diets are better or worse for medical reasons, but not for weight control. People come up with new diets all the time - like, why not eat pistachios at midnight when the moon is full? We have gone through so many of these diet possibilities. And yet people are always coming up to me with another one.


  4. If you had two weeks before an event like a wedding or a party at which you'd like to look as trim and tight as possible, what would you focus on during those two weeks leading up to it? Would you be doing mostly cardio? Weight training? What would your diet look like, etc?


    Looking forward to hearing your responses.


    I would make go to my Google calender and set it to email me a note once a day reminding me:

    - there are no 2 week quick fixes

    - that I felt disappointed about not looking my best for this event and that I do not want to feel that way again

    - that I have set myself a goal using a common sense plan starting ____


    Then I would do what I could without going extreme, because extreme measures make you feel like crap, don't last and I wanted to feel good at the event. I could get good looking clothing that fit comfortably. Then I would eat a vegan diet based off of whole grains, legumes, vegetables and fruit. No deserts, I would wait until I felt hunger in my stomach, not my mind before eating and I would drink a lot of water to avoid eating when I am really thirsty.

  5. I don't understand why you are so upset.


    If you have a real hormone problem any competent doctor should be able to measure it and tell you the standard treatments, the side effects, etc. You can always get a second and third opinion before you start anything. You can also do your own research, then make a decision.


    If you needed glasses, would you forgo the benefits of using them because you would need to use them for the rest of your life?

  6. There is an old joke where someone goes on about how their grandfather smoke a pack of cigarettes every day and lived to be 97. Someone replies back "but imagine how much longer he could have lived if he DIDN"T smoke".


    Without scientific backing nobody knows if Brazier did well because of his diet, in spite of his diet or if his diet was neutral in regards his athletic good fortune..........or if he could have done BETTER on another diet.


    The same questions apply to anyone athletic following his books. Maybe they could do as well or even better without the inconvenience of his system or the cost of his supplements.

  7. From the blog of Jack Norris, vegan Registered Dietitian(RD) and cofounder of Vegan Outreach:





    An activist brought to my attention the article B12 Deficiencies in Vegans? Not True! at Flaming Vegan. I guess I’m naive about what vegans are saying about vitamin B12, but I was very surprised to read the article and the comments, and so I posted a response below it. It’s mostly about seaweed as a source of vitamin B12.


    Another reader brought my attention to a page on vegan triathlete Brendan Brazier’s site, Lesson 2: High Net-Gain Nutrition. On that page, he claims that miso is a source of vitamin B12. In fact, the two studies that have measured vitamin B12 in miso have found none.


    Brazier also claims that chlorella is “the best source of B-12!” Two studies have found vitamin B12 analogues in batches of chlorella while one study found practically none. This could mean that the B12 analogues in the two studies that found it were there from contamination, which means it cannot be relied upon. More importantly, Chlorella has not been tested to see if it improves vitamin B12 status in humans. The track record of other seaweeds that were once considered a source of B12 has not been good, so there is reason to be skeptical of chlorella as well. Thus, chlorella is far from the best source of vitamin B12.


    Citations for the miso and chlorella studies can be found in B12 in Tempeh, Seaweeds, Organic Produce, and Other Plant Foods.


    As an aside, Brazier lists romaine lettuce and arugula as sources of calcium. According to the USDA, one cup of shredded romaine has only 15 mg of calcium, making it a poor source. One cup of arugula has 32 mg of calcium, making it a somewhat better source, but still not very good.


    I sent Mr. Brazier a note through his contact form on May 5 in an attempt to alert him to these issues and did not get a response. As of today, this information is still on his website so I thought it was appropriate to let readers know they should not rely on this information and continue my attempt to spread the word to the vegan community about reliable sources of vitamin B12.


  8. Tried increasing fat intake. Just made me fat. Zinc is ok. Like I said, blood tests came out normal. I was hoping someone here might be on TRT or a synthetic steroid to help with the same problem. Anyone?


    I've been on this forum for a while. I don't think you are going to find anyone who has been on TRT who posts. There is a bodybuilding forum called something like "T Nation", you are more likely to find people there who have been steroids and other hormones. Of course, their views will be biased, but you will get to talk to someone who has lived on the stuff.


    You might also try Googling on "testosterone forum", "testosterone replacement forum", etc ...


    You are bound to find at least some narratives from oridinary men who have gone on it who have something to say about their experiences.


    However, ancedotal accounts are not facts.


    Your best bet is to go to at least two ( maybe more ) specialists with MDs to get different opinions and when you do go, don't tell them what the other doctors said.


    Hope it works out for you.

  9. I did lose a lot of weight by going vegan, but I still have about 10 extra pounds that I can't get rid of despite a lot of exercise and a very clean, mostly raw diet.


    I have seen some popular articles that report that (good) dietary fat can elevate testosterone. Some raw diets out there can be extremely low in fat. The only other natural means of rasining testosterone are weight training, particularly the large movement free weight exercises like squats.

    I have no idea if either of those things would make enough of a difference for a significant problem.


    You are already on the best route you can be, going to medical doctors in conjuction with your own research. Sorry I can't be of more help.

  10. Which art should I study? When I was younger I was taught Tae Kwon Do, but I disliked the kick-heavy emphasis in the art. I've been looking at Judo, Aikido, and Wing Chun, although someone told me that Wing Chun is largely ineffective and inefficient compared to other modern fighting styles. I like the emphasis on hands, strikes, and redirections these appear to offer, but I really don't know much beyond that. Something with an emphasis on self-defense.


    Wing Chun was made for nuns. It doesn't require strength or large amounts of time.


    Judo and Aikido depend very much on skill. It can take you a long time to get it and keep it good enough to be able to effectively defend yourself.


    If your interest is purely in self defense, not art, than Savate or the Isarali Defense Force classes might be your best bet. Both are mode for modern times ( ie in Savate your practice in shoes, just like you would be wearing if you got into a fight ).

  11. Compassion Over Killing has just announced that they have had some success with their campaign to persuade Subway to begin offering vegan options.


    A limited number of their restaurants in Canada, Maryland, Washington D.C. and Virginia will be experimenting with offering vegan some vegan sandwiches:





    Want vegan options at Subway? Let them know by leaving a comment at Compassion Over Killing's site "We Love Subway":



  • Create New...