the eating intelligence



The Low-Carb Bartender wrote:
:: "> :: It boils down to moderation, and not deprivation.
:::
::: But most of us "naturally fat" people know nothing of moderation.
::: So, if it
::: boils down to moderation, how are we supposed to be able to reach
::: that state? IMO, this is just like saying "eat less".
::
:: It's called personal responsibility. Start dealing with it, like
:: dropping the weak excuse of being "naturally fat."

Ah ha....so you just think you know how everything works for everyone.
Naturally.
If moderation worked for everyone, then none of us would really need LC, we
could just do LF or simply eat less of all kinds of foods. You obviously
don't understand why that doesn't work.
 
bob wrote:
:: It would be inaccurate to say nothing changed. Something did change
:: (weight, waistlines). the problem seems to be that behaviors and
:: habits did not change.

They did not change permanently. Old habits die hard....
 
nothing changes permamently, except death, and even that has
phases....(having worked next door to the autopsy room, you learn a lot of
weird stuff....)

therefore to say nothing changed is to deny the word has meaning. Losing
weight, even for a month is a change. It may not be that significant, but it
is more significant than someone who never lost weight, and does not even
know it is possible.

"Roger Zoul" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> bob wrote:
> :: It would be inaccurate to say nothing changed. Something did change
> :: (weight, waistlines). the problem seems to be that behaviors and
> :: habits did not change.
>
> They did not change permanently. Old habits die hard....
>
>
>
 
"Ignoramus3578" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 21:24:15 GMT, Tom <[email protected]> wrote:
> > You are correct. It's not like I did a scientific study on myself.
When
> > I was at normal weight up to my middle 30's, I had no problem with acid
> > reflux. The shear weight itself of the stomach area being pulled to one
side
> > may be in fact a greater influence than the diet itself. Because the
>
> While I was fat, I did not have a "huge" stomach. See
> http://igor.chudov.com/weightloss/ for pre and post pictures.
>
> My heartburn went away almost immediately after I started dieting, way
> before I lost any appreciable weight.
>
> > problems disappeared at the same time it is difficult to know for sure.
I
> > did some experiments in the earlier stage of the diet to see if wheat
> > products were the key. I did suffer from heartburn that night. But,
thinking
> > back, it is possible that I ate to much at the time and that could be
the
> > problem. My achy shoulders could even have been attributed to increased
fat
> > causing decrease of motion and also lack of muscle around the joint
could
> > have been a problem. Even in simple observations, there could be many
> > variations. I can not deny that one possiblity is better than another.
All I
> > can say is that I feel good right now and I have no physical ailments
due to
> > the way I eat. Is it just the weightloss itself? It's very possible.
>
> A good decision making approach.
>
> > Increased hunger after not being as strict will be my fear. So far
>
> Come on, people are hungry all the time all over the world, it does
> not kill them. If you find hunger to be too irritating, come back to
> LC.

I am still on low carb, but there is a lot of peer pressure to relax
about my Nazi-like attitude about it. I think that if I relax too much, I'll
go back to eating too much because of hunger. But you are right, if I do
ever decide that eating at an increased carb level causes hunger to be too
unpleasant I could always become more strict.
Recently I have included beans occasionally to my list of allowable
foods. Our homemade chili does not look like regular chili, as the amount of
beans is small. It is largely chunks of cut up steak or roast with some
added onions, celery, and green pepper, spices and A1 steak sauce, tomato
sauce. I try to add little amounts of any higher carb item and see if there
is any noticable affect in new recipes.
The amounts that are included still don't satisfy what my friends would
consider a reasonable diet. It is still to obvious to them that I am eating
lo-carb. The problem really, is that I feel I am eating properly, but
everyone else thinks that their high carb diet is the best. Of course, I am
one of the slimmest among them but that doesn't matter. I think that the
only way to show them is to continue as long as there are no side affects,
and show them that my weight is stable over a period of a few years. I can
not blame anyone who is skeptical as there is a lot of conflicting data on
just about anything you can think of. I myself am like that as well. I like
to see proof rather than follow blindly.
So far the lo-carb style of eating has shown me that lots of people can
be led to believe whatever is spoonfed to them. The fact that high carb has
been touted for so long is evidence of that. Any disagreement with what they
have been taught can cause anger rather than curiosity. I am a little
different. If someone can provide good evidence for a case, I am more
inclined to at least hear the story and try and look up facts to see if it
is plausible. Some of the people that I have talked to about lo-carb can
only repeat the bad things they have heard about it. When asked why they
think pastas, white bread, rice, sugar, and potatoes are necessary and what
vitamins and nutrients they get out of them, they can't think of a good
reason. When I try to explain about their affect on blood sugar and insulin
spikes, it falls on deaf ears. Most people only rely on what is heard in the
news media, or tend to think the food pyramid is the ultimate guide. Sorry,
I've been rambling much longer than I thought. I'll close it off here.
Tom
>
> > my weight is managable and I like that my food choices are not
> > sweet. My energy levels 'feel to me' to be stable and I really like
> > that.
>
> Ditto.
>
>
>
> --
> 223/172.4/180
 
"> If moderation worked for everyone, then none of us would really need LC,
we
> could just do LF or simply eat less of all kinds of foods. You obviously
> don't understand why that doesn't work.

Self-control and personal responsibility work for everyone. You just have to
stop the excuses and move on.
 
self control is not in the reach of everyone, which is the point of this
thread.
the human brain has many permutations, and some individuals have
pathological deficits in self control with respect to food.

more to the point many of us in this forum are somewhere north of this
extreme, where self control is indeed theoretically possible, but much more
difficult than it is for other people. to ignore this is to ignore the
population segment models that have enabled medicine to move forward for the
last 40 years. One solution does not fit all.


"The Low-Carb Bartender" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:sj5wd.505512$wV.412289@attbi_s54...
>
> "> If moderation worked for everyone, then none of us would really need
> LC, we
>> could just do LF or simply eat less of all kinds of foods. You obviously
>> don't understand why that doesn't work.
>
> Self-control and personal responsibility work for everyone. You just have
> to stop the excuses and move on.
>
 
Yet the military can make one size fit all, and be very successful at doing
so.

--
You're too dumb to even be a troll trainee. -- Cereus-validus


"bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> self control is not in the reach of everyone, which is the point of this
> thread.
> the human brain has many permutations, and some individuals have
> pathological deficits in self control with respect to food.
>
> more to the point many of us in this forum are somewhere north of this
> extreme, where self control is indeed theoretically possible, but much
> more difficult than it is for other people. to ignore this is to ignore
> the population segment models that have enabled medicine to move forward
> for the last 40 years. One solution does not fit all.
>
>
> "The Low-Carb Bartender" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:sj5wd.505512$wV.412289@attbi_s54...
>>
>> "> If moderation worked for everyone, then none of us would really need
>> LC, we
>>> could just do LF or simply eat less of all kinds of foods. You
>>> obviously
>>> don't understand why that doesn't work.
>>
>> Self-control and personal responsibility work for everyone. You just have
>> to stop the excuses and move on.
>>
>
>
 
you are apparently acquainted with a different military than me....I have
never known them to fit anything well.


"JC Der Koenig" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Yet the military can make one size fit all, and be very successful at
> doing so.
>
> --
> You're too dumb to even be a troll trainee. -- Cereus-validus
>
>
> "bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> self control is not in the reach of everyone, which is the point of this
>> thread.
>> the human brain has many permutations, and some individuals have
>> pathological deficits in self control with respect to food.
>>
>> more to the point many of us in this forum are somewhere north of this
>> extreme, where self control is indeed theoretically possible, but much
>> more difficult than it is for other people. to ignore this is to ignore
>> the population segment models that have enabled medicine to move forward
>> for the last 40 years. One solution does not fit all.
>>
>>
>> "The Low-Carb Bartender" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:sj5wd.505512$wV.412289@attbi_s54...
>>>
>>> "> If moderation worked for everyone, then none of us would really need
>>> LC, we
>>>> could just do LF or simply eat less of all kinds of foods. You
>>>> obviously
>>>> don't understand why that doesn't work.
>>>
>>> Self-control and personal responsibility work for everyone. You just
>>> have to stop the excuses and move on.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
 
Then you have never known them.

--
You're too dumb to even be a troll trainee. -- Cereus-validus


"bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> you are apparently acquainted with a different military than me....I have
> never known them to fit anything well.
>
>
> "JC Der Koenig" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Yet the military can make one size fit all, and be very successful at
>> doing so.
>>
>> --
>> You're too dumb to even be a troll trainee. -- Cereus-validus
>>
>>
>> "bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> self control is not in the reach of everyone, which is the point of this
>>> thread.
>>> the human brain has many permutations, and some individuals have
>>> pathological deficits in self control with respect to food.
>>>
>>> more to the point many of us in this forum are somewhere north of this
>>> extreme, where self control is indeed theoretically possible, but much
>>> more difficult than it is for other people. to ignore this is to ignore
>>> the population segment models that have enabled medicine to move forward
>>> for the last 40 years. One solution does not fit all.
>>>
>>>
>>> "The Low-Carb Bartender" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:sj5wd.505512$wV.412289@attbi_s54...
>>>>
>>>> "> If moderation worked for everyone, then none of us would really need
>>>> LC, we
>>>>> could just do LF or simply eat less of all kinds of foods. You
>>>>> obviously
>>>>> don't understand why that doesn't work.
>>>>
>>>> Self-control and personal responsibility work for everyone. You just
>>>> have to stop the excuses and move on.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
 
bob wrote:
|| nothing changes permamently, except death, and even that has
|| phases....(having worked next door to the autopsy room, you learn a
|| lot of weird stuff....)

eww.....you can keep that to yourself :

||
|| therefore to say nothing changed is to deny the word has meaning.
|| Losing weight, even for a month is a change. It may not be that
|| significant, but it is more significant than someone who never lost
|| weight, and does not even know it is possible.

Exactly.

||
|| "Roger Zoul" <[email protected]> wrote in message
|| news:[email protected]...
||| bob wrote:
||||| It would be inaccurate to say nothing changed. Something did
||||| change (weight, waistlines). the problem seems to be that
||||| behaviors and habits did not change.
|||
||| They did not change permanently. Old habits die hard....
 
JC Der Koenig wrote:
|| Yet the military can make one size fit all, and be very successful
|| at doing so.

Interesting. How many military people lost 100 lbs during basic training?
 
demonstrably false.


"JC Der Koenig" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Then you have never known them.
>
> --
> You're too dumb to even be a troll trainee. -- Cereus-validus
>
>
> "bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> you are apparently acquainted with a different military than me....I have
>> never known them to fit anything well.
>>
>>
>> "JC Der Koenig" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Yet the military can make one size fit all, and be very successful at
>>> doing so.
>>>
>>> --
>>> You're too dumb to even be a troll trainee. -- Cereus-validus
>>>
>>>
>>> "bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> self control is not in the reach of everyone, which is the point of
>>>> this thread.
>>>> the human brain has many permutations, and some individuals have
>>>> pathological deficits in self control with respect to food.
>>>>
>>>> more to the point many of us in this forum are somewhere north of this
>>>> extreme, where self control is indeed theoretically possible, but much
>>>> more difficult than it is for other people. to ignore this is to ignore
>>>> the population segment models that have enabled medicine to move
>>>> forward for the last 40 years. One solution does not fit all.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "The Low-Carb Bartender" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:sj5wd.505512$wV.412289@attbi_s54...
>>>>>
>>>>> "> If moderation worked for everyone, then none of us would really
>>>>> need LC, we
>>>>>> could just do LF or simply eat less of all kinds of foods. You
>>>>>> obviously
>>>>>> don't understand why that doesn't work.
>>>>>
>>>>> Self-control and personal responsibility work for everyone. You just
>>>>> have to stop the excuses and move on.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
 
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 09:03:25 -0500, Roger Zoul <[email protected]>
wrote:

> JC Der Koenig wrote:
> :: "Roger Zoul" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> :: news:[email protected]...
> ::: JC Der Koenig wrote:
> ::::: Yet the military can make one size fit all, and be very successful
> ::::: at doing so.


The military never molded me into their ideal (which is why I got out at
the earliest opportunity).

--
Bob in CT
 
Nothing "of consequence" really changed.

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 20:02:06 GMT, bob wrote:

> It would be inaccurate to say nothing changed. Something did change (weight,
> waistlines). the problem seems to be that behaviors and habits did not
> change.
>
> "MU" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 16:42:22 GMT, Tom wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, almost everyone I personally know that had lost the weight on
>>> lo-carb, ended up going back to the old habits. The diet works great. It
>>> seems that eating this way for the long term is the difficult part.
>>
>> That's because nothing really changed.
 
"Ignoramus5102" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 22:28:24 GMT, Tom <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > "Ignoramus3578" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >> On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 20:42:09 GMT, Tom <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > "Ignoramus3578" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> > news:[email protected]...
> >> >> On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 19:15:19 GMT, Tom <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> My acid reflux went away as soon as I started eating less, even
> > before
> >> >> >> low carbing, but it took going low carb to get rid of knee pain.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Perhaps the amount of benefits plays a major role in whether a
> >> > person
> >> >> > decides to change lifestyle for the rest of their life.
> >> >>
> >> >> I do not yet know if I will keep this lifestyle for the rest of my
> >> >> life; I will only keep it for as long as it makes sense.
> >> >
> >> > I definitely agree. If for some reason it is proven that the way
I'm
> >> > eating is dangerous, I would not hesitate to change my diet. Despite
> > vastly
> >> > different opinions about the diet, I don't see any evidence of it
being
> >> > harmful. So far, I have only seen good health from it. I can't see
going
> >> > back to eating large amounts of junk food no matter what the change
> > would be
> >> > in the end though. Time will tell.
> >>
> >> I am wondering if you are familiar with personality typing and whether
> >> you read Keirsey's Please Understand Me II. Specifically, do you think
> >> that you belong to the Rational category.
> >
> > part. Even though some on this board may not feel that I am rational at
> > times bacause I don't always agree with what they say. :)
>
> I asked that questoin because your decision making process was
> entirely rational and suggestiive of yuor personality.

You seem to be as well. Perhaps that is why I find many of your posts
interesting.
Tom
>
> --
> 223/172.4/180
 
"Ignoramus5102" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 00:56:03 GMT, Tom <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > I am still on low carb, but there is a lot of peer pressure to relax
> > about my Nazi-like attitude about it. I think that if I relax too much,
I'll
> > go back to eating too much because of hunger.
>
> If you go off LC, and want to control your weight, you must limit how
> much you eat.

Yes. I would then have to count calories.
>
> > But you are right, if I do
> > ever decide that eating at an increased carb level causes hunger to be
too
> > unpleasant I could always become more strict.
>
> Yes. Experiment with adding carbs from vegs first. Add them slowly.
> Otherwise it is too easy to lose control, as others report.

My recent choice has been the inclusion of beans and lentils in limited
amounts because of the higher fiber values. I like to also cut up a carrot
into a 2 to 3 day supply of salad veggies. Basically what ever I'm adding is
balanced by carbs verses nutrient value. I also intend to eat manderine
oranges as my dessert during this holiday season. I'll have to try and limit
what I include because I also want to see if these additions have any affect
on my former problems of shoulder joint pain(minor), and acid reflux.

>
> > Recently I have included beans occasionally to my list of allowable
> > foods. Our homemade chili does not look like regular chili, as the
amount of
> > beans is small. It is largely chunks of cut up steak or roast with some
> > added onions, celery, and green pepper, spices and A1 steak sauce,
tomato
> > sauce. I try to add little amounts of any higher carb item and see if
there
> > is any noticable affect in new recipes.
> > The amounts that are included still don't satisfy what my friends
would
> > consider a reasonable diet.
>
> Are your friends naturally thin, still fat, or thin because they lost
> weight? Unless they are the latter, they will not understand you. I
> would not try too hard to satisfy them, and, also, they will respect
> you if you stick to your guns.

I am the slimmer than most everyone in my age range(46). These guys have
basically tried all the weightloss diets without success and have basically
concluded that this is there fate. They do understand about calories in and
out and the value of exercise, but find it too hard to stick with any plan.
The few that have tried lo-carb have resumed their former diets and the
weight has come back. There is only one other guy in my age category that
remains successful, actually 2 years longer than me. He only discusses the
diet with me because I am in agreement. His problem is similar to mine. He
will eat more carbs at work, while at home he eats more strict. I can see
why he is doing it this way.
The younger guys I would have thought to be more open about it. But they
are more naturally thin and don't understand about trying to lose weight. Of
course, it's because they are young and don't have those problems yet. I was
just like them at a younger age. If someone would have told me that I would
be 30lbs heavier in 10 years, I would have howled with laughter.
I believe that in another 10 years, these guys will go through the same
thing. Hopefully I will still be at goal weight at that time and can be of
help to them then.
>
> > It is still to obvious to them that I am eating
> > lo-carb.
>
> So, you are slim, healthy, lost weight, and eating low carb. Sounds
> good to me.

It seems odd to me that on one hand a person could say, "Hey you look
great", and aknowledge the health benefits. Then the next day say that the
style of eating is wrong and be concerned about my long term health. Do they
think I'm trading good health benefits now for worse health later?

>
> > The problem really, is that I feel I am eating properly, but
> > everyone else thinks that their high carb diet is the best.
>
> Maybe it is the best, for them.

It was for me, until I got fat.

>
> > Of course, I am one of the slimmest among them but that doesn't
> > matter. I think that the only way to show them is to continue as
> > long as there are no side affects, and show them that my weight is
> > stable over a period of a few years. I can not blame anyone who is
> > skeptical as there is a lot of conflicting data on just about
> > anything you can think of. I myself am like that as well. I like to
> > see proof rather than follow blindly.
>
> I agree here.
>
> > So far the lo-carb style of eating has shown me that lots of people
can
> > be led to believe whatever is spoonfed to them. The fact that high carb
has
> > been touted for so long is evidence of that. Any disagreement with what
they
> > have been taught can cause anger rather than curiosity.
>
> That's normal.
>
> > I am a little
> > different. If someone can provide good evidence for a case, I am more
> > inclined to at least hear the story and try and look up facts to see if
it
> > is plausible. Some of the people that I have talked to about lo-carb can
> > only repeat the bad things they have heard about it. When asked why they
> > think pastas, white bread, rice, sugar, and potatoes are necessary and
what
> > vitamins and nutrients they get out of them, they can't think of a good
> > reason. When I try to explain about their affect on blood sugar and
insulin
> > spikes, it falls on deaf ears. Most people only rely on what is heard in
the
> > news media, or tend to think the food pyramid is the ultimate guide.
Sorry,
> > I've been rambling much longer than I thought. I'll close it off here.
>
> I think that after a while, your friends may learn something from you.

Other than peer pressure to conform, I have no problems at all with the
diet. Your right. They can learn from me, but I will have to set an example
and wait a few years. They have agreed that all the sugar they were eating
was not good. I think as they gain weight in the future, they will remember
my experiences. Talk is cheap. It's results that everyone wants to see.
Tom
> --
> 223/172.4/180
 
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 06:04:53 -0500, Roger Zoul wrote:

> Interesting. How many military people lost 100 lbs during basic training?

Zero.
 
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 09:02:32 -0500, Bob Mauri wrote:

> The military never molded me into their ideal (which is why I got out at
> the earliest opportunity).

Same here.
 
Wrong.

--
You're too dumb to even be a troll trainee. -- Cereus-validus


"bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> demonstrably false.
>
>
> "JC Der Koenig" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Then you have never known them.
>>
>> --
>> You're too dumb to even be a troll trainee. -- Cereus-validus
>>
>>
>> "bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> you are apparently acquainted with a different military than me....I
>>> have never known them to fit anything well.
>>>
>>>
>>> "JC Der Koenig" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> Yet the military can make one size fit all, and be very successful at
>>>> doing so.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> You're too dumb to even be a troll trainee. -- Cereus-validus
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>> self control is not in the reach of everyone, which is the point of
>>>>> this thread.
>>>>> the human brain has many permutations, and some individuals have
>>>>> pathological deficits in self control with respect to food.
>>>>>
>>>>> more to the point many of us in this forum are somewhere north of this
>>>>> extreme, where self control is indeed theoretically possible, but much
>>>>> more difficult than it is for other people. to ignore this is to
>>>>> ignore the population segment models that have enabled medicine to
>>>>> move forward for the last 40 years. One solution does not fit all.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "The Low-Carb Bartender" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:sj5wd.505512$wV.412289@attbi_s54...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "> If moderation worked for everyone, then none of us would really
>>>>>> need LC, we
>>>>>>> could just do LF or simply eat less of all kinds of foods. You
>>>>>>> obviously
>>>>>>> don't understand why that doesn't work.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Self-control and personal responsibility work for everyone. You just
>>>>>> have to stop the excuses and move on.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
 
I'm sure they begged you to stay.

--
You're too dumb to even be a troll trainee. -- Cereus-validus


"Bob Mauri" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:eek:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 09:03:25 -0500, Roger Zoul <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> JC Der Koenig wrote:
>> :: "Roger Zoul" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> :: news:[email protected]...
>> ::: JC Der Koenig wrote:
>> ::::: Yet the military can make one size fit all, and be very successful
>> ::::: at doing so.
>
>
> The military never molded me into their ideal (which is why I got out at
> the earliest opportunity).
>
> --
> Bob in CT
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back