Weight Loss help

2WheelsGood,

Don’t get me wrong. I’m all for people getting educated, radicalized, and resolved to act in their own best interests. I’m not an apologist for parents who won’t lead by example and give in to every whine and pout. However, we must consider that not every child grows up in an environment that you or I would condone. We must also look at nutrition as a public health issue. Most importantly, we must look at the world as it is and not as we’d like it to be. Society as a whole should consider measures that encourage good nutrition. Corporations, McDonalds among them, clearly are working against the greater good for the sake of profits. The situation is that McDonalds is a resounding success because their advertising is so effective and pervasive. Expecting parents to stand up straight and make their kids conform isn’t working. McDonalds is a publicly traded corporation that is chartered by the state to operate. One would assume that the state is supposed to act in the common interest. Shouldn’t McDonalds, as an agent of the state, be held to the same standard? This would include matters of public health. I see no contradiction in requiring by law that McDonalds act in ways that promote public health, even if this means banning advertising directed at children.

We live in a media environment that is geared to selling our eyes to advertisers. The media are also obsessed by fairness as opposed to the truth. True or false doesn’t matter so long as there are two or more sides to report. Thus, fact is reduced to opinion. How is the ordinary person to decide an issue if all the discourse is bland and equal? Some news outlets have even gone to the extreme of rip and read journalism. It turns out to be more cost effective to repeat corporate PR copy as news. In this environment, how can one reasonably expect a person to make choices based on unbiased information? Even doctors aren’t immune to this onslaught. Most doctors get their information about new medicines from the pharmaceutical companies. One would expect a group of highly educated intelligent people would get their information from peer reviewed journals and such. However, the opposite is true. Profit seeking corporations have more to do with which drugs you take than the doctors themselves. Or, consider one of my pet peeves: the food pyramid. Did scientists or nutritionists develop it? No, corporate lawyers and lobbyists developed it at the behest of agribusiness. What is the layperson supposed to do? To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln, you can fool some of the people all of the time and that’s usually enough.

Your line of reasoning runs akin to some form of puritanical Protestantism. It’s not a character flaw to be sucked into a corporate scam. Indoctrination usually trumps reason. Repeating a lie long enough and it’s as powerful as the truth. The challenge is to confront one’s assumptions and cast the lies aside. As C. K. Dexter Haven said, “You’ll never be a first rate person until you have an appreciation for human frailty.” Or something like that.

 

Label it how you want. It's called personal responsibility, but you'd rather call it something else so it's easier to brush aside.

I could argue with you on this until the end of time. It won't change anything. Your sad outlook on the human race makes you mistakenly believe they need to be taken care of. My view of man (and the view of the founders of this country) is much brighter--I believe that if he has to take care of himself, and is allowed to take care of himself, he will... no matter how many brilliant commercials he sees with a clown and a purple blob pushing super-sized fries.

 

2WheelsGood,

I’m beginning to wonder if you read my posting. Where did I say that people must be taken care of? My thesis is that it is everyone’s responsibility to call out a liar and shut him up. It’s part of the social contract of do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Is it a crime to point out a serpent to prevent it biting someone? Are you advocating every man for himself? Is that how Lance Armstrong is winning the Tour de France?

You’re on very dangerous ground, sir. For the vast majority of human history we’ve lived in small cooperative groups that shared labor and the fruits of that labor. There are those pundits and ideologues that would have us believe that cooperation and sharing are a weakness and downright un-American. They have their agenda. Keep the unwashed hordes alienated and atomized. Make them a perfect target for corporate ideology and advertising.

Let me tell you a story about some little girls. Two of the girls were from the U.S. and two were from Central America. They were all of a similar age and intelligence. A scientist devised a simple board game wherein the girls could each win a doll if they could manage to move the marker from the center of a grid to her side of the board. They were allowed a limited number of moves and two sessions. The American girls squandered both sessions by one girl moving the marker toward her goal and the other moving it back. Neither of the American girls won a prize. The girls from Central America took turns advancing the marker toward one girl’s goal in the first session and toward the other girl’s goal in the second. Both girls won a prize.

Was one of the Central American girls taking care of the other? No, they live in a society that values cooperation and reciprocity. Every man for himself often leaves every other man with nothing. Cooperation and sharing fosters equality of outcome or true equality. Even Thomas Jefferson had to concede that there is no equality without equality of outcome. (That’s almost a verbatim quote.) The pundits and ideologues would have us believe that there can be no plenty without scarcity. Is that Orwellian or what?

Any further posting should be off line. We’re a bit off topic.

 

No problem. I'm done. You'll never get it. I could tell when you equated an example of genuine teamwork with making a company responsible for what someone puts in their mouth. I'm sorry that you somehow see putting the blame on McDonalds as some twisted version of teamwork. I do know for a fact that I don't want to be on your team--I can stay away from McDonalds without you holding my hand.

When will it end? When every company that provides a product or service that can be harmful when abused is run out of business? I hate to shock you, but that includes everything.... every... single... thing. Yep, even your precious bike will kill you if you abuse it. So after McDonald's has been taken care of, who will you go after next? You've got a huge job ahead of you. As a dietician I hope to be able to help put McDonalds out of business the right way--with education.

OK, I'm done. No need to continue this off-line; if you're older than 12 and you still don't understand the concept of personal responsibility, there's nothing I'll be able to do in an email message to help you.

 

Some good points there Kiwiboy, I know some vegetarians with really bad diets. I'm currently trying to cut down on my dairy intake infavour of pulses/lentals/beans and the like! Seems to me that too many veggies survive on a diet of cheese and chips. There are also people who call themselves veggies, but still eat some animal products, go figure that!

The elite runners with MI's are scary, but no doubt if most of the population ran we would all live that bit longer and have a better quality of life! My gran is now paying for a life of inactivity with quite an impressive resume of symptoms all related to smoking, obesity and inactivity.

I meant to write whole grain bread, although wholemeal is a better choice than white bread. At the end of the day we have to eat something and it would seem that there is a health risk associated with every food. These scares are bad for the consumer, but most people know what are healthy/healthier choices.

You are right about the low fat meals and those claimed as healthy choices, but often these are better for you than the 'full fat' or 'unhealthy alternative'. Its like streaky and lean bacon, both a poor choice but lean is better! I stay well away from preprepared 'ready' meals as you never know what are in them.

I like to keep my diet simple and complete regular dietary analysis of my diet; I beleive its healthy as its within current government guidelines. The diet even fits in with the guidelines with the modifications I make for activity. Unfortunately these guidelines are quite broad and both a reletively good and bad diet can meet them.

 

I think thay have case against McD's if thats the case. I don't remember any specific claims in the UK! How come no one chalenged the claims before it got to this stage? How come we don't have healthy eating classes in school?

 

Thought you worked with computers

 

I gave that up a year and a half ago to go back to school full time to be a dietician. Sorry, didn't mean to imply that I was one now, but I'm working on it. Nope, I'm nothing now... just a very poor college student.

 

Good to see your joining the ranks with me and Ric on the poor student front. Just wanted to pick up on one of your earlier posts. I'm not picking holes just thought it was interesting. How long is dietetics degree? 4 years?

Originally posted by 2WheelsGood
Well rsalazar, I think you have your answer... there is no answer. At least not one that everyone can agree on. How is it that so many people can have completely opposite experiences? Well, I think it's because different people's bodys work in very different ways when it comes to diet and athletic performance.

>If you go to the literature (orginal papers and reviews) you can usualy find a consensus of opinion. Sometimes that consensus is divided between two or three hypothesis in which case +ves and -ves are provided. As a scientist you can make a reasonable choice about which are good or bad and apply to different situations. Most people do respond in similar ways to exercise and diet to people who complete a similar intervention and are compared to people in a similar population. Thats where things become confusing. Also science rarely proves something, only gives a probability of occurance. In my research as an exercise physiologist (I'm only starting out) we use p=.5.

My experience is very similar to kiwiboy's. I raced quite seriously for about 9 years following diets that all the "experts" have been pushing for years. Carbs carbs carbs! Anyway, a couple years ago, after a few years off, I had gained a couple extra pounds (about 20) and I really wanted to take it off. I decided to give low-carb a try. I wasn't concerned about performance at that point. I just wanted to lose the weight. Well, I did lose the weight. And after about 2 months of really crappy performance, something amazing happened. I started getting faster and faster until I felt better than I ever have--even during my serious racing days.

>This is good news. However low carb diets have risks that I would prefer to avoid. I push 50 to 60% of kcals from carbs, a recomendation that is approrpiate for most of the population including athletes. All of the benefits you describe can be acheived on such a diet; without the crap performances.

The "experts" like ricstern can tell you it's rubbish, but my advice is to do some research for yourself and see what works for YOU. For every expert you find, there is another with the complete opposite opinion. It's the nature of the business.

>What works for one individual will ususaly work for another individual!!! We all have similar physiology as we are all humans and share pretty much the same genes. I admit there is some variability; lots of the variablity in nutrition can be explained by what people think they are eating and what they are actualy eating. As a dietition in the making you will appreciate the many 'diet myths' and problems associated with measuring dietary 'needs' and actual intakes. Diets are nutoriously difficult to measure and thats where many problems start.

No joke: The results for me were so mind-blowing that I recently walked away from my comfortable computer job to go back to school for a degree in nutrition. When I'm done with that, I hope to work with athletes in situations like yours. It was that huge for me. I sure wish I hadn't listened to all the "experts" for so many years.

>Congrats on starting the course. When you are qualified and dare I say it an 'expert', you'll find that 1. people misunderstand what their told, 2. only follow the attractive parts of your advice, 3. listen to you and three others and mix up the advice and 4. don't do what they are told and tell you they are!!! As with anything you have to commit 100% and people don't; that can give you a bad name when providing advice as people think its bad advice. I am sure that you gave 110% to the diet that worked (you kept it up for 2 months+) and gave a lot less to any previous diets. Perhaps if you had worked with 1 expert rather than "listened to all the 'experts' for years" the results would have been different. You mention ric by name and if you check all 300+ of his posts you wont be able to find advice that he isn't willing or able to support with sound evidence.

I'm tellin' ya... take people's suggestions (everyone's!) with a grain of salt. There are no "experts" in this field. The closest thing we've got to experts are those open-minded enough to consider all the possibilities. Those people, unfortunately, are very rare.

>There are experts in nutrition and you're training to join them!!! There are many oposing opinions, but just as many agreements in the literature. As an expert people will call on you to make a decision for them (and pay you for it). There are lots of diet possibilities, however some are better than others and some carry big risks. At the moment the 'best' diet for most (i.e. non-clinical) people seems to be a balanced diet; with calorie control and exercise for weight loss.

 

5 years, more or less. It's a 4 year degree, then a required one year internship before you can take the exam to be a dietician.

Absolutely not true. If it was, we wouldn't see some people who are 300 pounds and can barely lose weight, and 150 pound people who can barely gain weight. There are huge physiological differences between people when it comes to metabolising food. Some people are extremely sensitive to sugar, some people aren't. Some people are lactose intollerant, some people aren't. Some people have food alergies, some people don't. I have a good article on metabolic typing, but I can't seem to find it right now. I'll post it if I can ever find it. To assume there is a "one size fits all" approach for athletes is, in my opinion, wildly wrong.

I mentioned ric by name for two reasons. For one, he's the one who called Atkins rubbish. The other is that he's a coach and a contributor to cyclingnews. In my mind that is a position of responsibility. A responsibility to not dismiss something like Atkins as rubbish. Pick it apart, fine, but to just say it's rubbish is lame. That helps nobody.

This brings us back to the original point. "At the moment" and "seems" are key. There is still so much not known that anyone who thinks they've got it all figured out, is sadly blinded. As I stated in another thread, the discovery of insulin happened only 80 years ago. Literally, before then they didn't even know the substance existed much less what it did. That was only 80 years ago. What are we going to know in another 80? And that's what I meant by "there are no experts." Who will be the expert tomorrow?

 

Eric,

Like 2Lap i'm also an exercise physiologist (doing a PhD), which in fairness covers parts of energy metabolism and endurance cycling performance.

I can't specifically recall calling Atkins diet rubbish, but if i did, i did. I stand by that statement. I'm not keeping my eyes closed and am very interetsed in various aspects of nutrition. I realise and understand my position of responsibility but sometimes i don't have time to provide a full response (but if someone wants to employ me to just provide full response to this board, then that's fine).

Normally, as 2Lap pointed out, i do like to provide some documentary evidence to support any hypothesis, however, currently, i'm very busy and unfortunately i don't get paid to write articles on diet. I am however, trying to get an article together to try to explain some of the finer points and my thinking on this matter and why the majority of the evidence points towards a balanced diet of around 50 - 60% CHO, and a split on protein and fat.

I can't recall any resaerch that has suggested cutting fat entirely and i certainly wouldn't advocate that.

Trying to lump all CHO together as 'bad' is just plain daft, and of course i wouldn't suggest getting the majority of CHO from 'simple' type carbs. That's like saying all fats are bad (when of course some are quite ok).

In terms of cycling performance, and after all this forum comes under "racing" heading, the available evidence shows that a high CHO diet is the most optimal.

Someone mentioned that the typical US diet was 80% CHO. I find this so hard to believe that i laughed. The majority of people i coach are from north america, and they're diet is way off this.

Must start with article, just as soon as i've had some nice starchy CHO

Ric

 

Only way to do it: Burn more calories by exercising combined with a lower calorie intake. Period.

 

My .02.

If you really weigh 313 lbs and are 6 feet tall you should get to your doctor and have a physical. Unless you are all muscle you are very overweight. I know because I too am 6 ft tall and the "proper" weight for my height is 178 lbs according to most charts. Right now I am at 188 from a high of 197.

Anyway, see a doctor. Make sure you are healthy. Ask for help losing the weight safely. Ask to talk to a nutritionist. I am sure that everyone means well when they give advice but if you can ask an expert for help. Diets don't work nor do pills. Lose the weight safely and you can become a role model for others.

-Jim-

 

So, what can we agree on?
1. Exercise is good. Cycling is gooder.
2. Know what you're eating. Take inventory.
3. Tweek your diet and exercise program to make slow steady changes. These are the changes that are most likely to persist.
4. Avoid extremes. Don't get too tired. Don't starve. Don't beat yourself up while in the saddle.
5. Cultivate balance.
6. Eat nutrient dense foods.
7. Learn the science behind good conditioning. Keep the brain in good shape, too.
8. Be generous. Do something nice for someone else once in a while.
9. Know when to shut up.

 

Originally posted by 2WheelsGood

My experience is very similar to kiwiboy's. I raced quite seriously for about 9 years following diets that all the "experts" have been pushing for years. Carbs carbs carbs! Anyway, a couple years ago, after a few years off, I had gained a couple extra pounds (about 20) and I really wanted to take it off.

>>Surely, this (the weight gain) would be a result of overeating. Did you not modify your diet once you stopped racing seriously (i.e., decrease your overall energy intake)?


I decided to give low-carb a try.

>>Why not reduce your overall intake?

I wasn't concerned about performance at that point. I just wanted to lose the weight. Well, I did lose the weight. And after about 2 months of really crappy performance, something amazing happened. I started getting faster and faster until I felt better than I ever have--even during my serious racing days.

>>it would be impossible to know whether you're faster because of increased fitness or some other factor(s).


The "experts" like ricstern can tell you it's rubbish, but my advice is to do some research for yourself and see what works for YOU. For every expert you find, there is another with the complete opposite opinion. It's the nature of the business.

>>Actually, the overwhelming majority of peer reviewed scienific opinion is that of a balanced diet -- as 2Lap and myself have pointed out.


No joke: The results for me were so mind-blowing that I recently walked away from my comfortable computer job to go back to school for a degree in nutrition. When I'm done with that, I hope to work with athletes in situations like yours. It was that huge for me. I sure wish I hadn't listened to all the "experts" for so many years.

I'm tellin' ya... take people's suggestions (everyone's!) with a grain of salt. There are no "experts" in this field. The closest thing we've got to experts are those open-minded enough to consider all the possibilities. Those people, unfortunately, are very rare.

>>What's amazing is that you are suggesting/implying that you are open minded for being interested in alternative nutrition (e.g., low carb), but you are in fact very closed minded about a sensible balanced diet. bizarre. It's interesting how you can make such sweeping statements when you have only really just begun your education.

Ric

 

Very interesting. You just made something up that not only did I NOT say, but I never even implied. I know your time is precious, but please take a couple minutes to quote something--anything--that I said that would suggest that I'm closed-minded about a sensible diet (however that's defined).

I've stated many times now that I don't subscribe to, or push, or endorse ANY particular diet. And that my experience with a low-carb diet served as nothing more than a catalyst to pique my interest in learning more about nutrition. I certainly never suggested that low-carb diets are some sort of panacea. I could say it again, but I have a feeling it'll fall on deaf ears.

I'll wait patiently for that quote. Good luck.

 

I think if you are doing a good dump in the morning you have a high fibre diet and reduce the sugar intake increase raw foods you are off to a good start, excerise is still the key stone in ones health as we all are aware.

I was reading an article in a medical journal, they gave people from western society and people from Africa these special pills that don't dissolve then timed how long it took each group to pass the little sucker ( they also weighed the dump...imagine being the guy who does that...!!!) The results were very interesting the African people who lived off high grain diets with high fibre passed it real quick, us eurpoeans on the other hand .....well lets say allot longer.

many beleive this slow time through the gut causes reabsorbtion of waste. You only have to look after someone who has been constipated for awhile to see the bad effects it has on them.
Also the weights were very different, one was way heavier.

So here's to big dumps and high fibre!!!!!!

 

The point we are all finding is science has no answer, if we did then I beleive we would have less sickness.

I beleive nutrition is next stage in modern medicine as more studies are conducted on nutrition related illness we will all learn more.

Unfortunately many people in science are not open to change especally in medicine

 

Hello, I am new to this forum. I was interested in this topic because I am type 2 diabetic and MUST exercise. I used to ride bicycles everywhere when I was younger (no car in Southern California!!) Now I have a car and diabetes. As to the Atkins diet, I tried it and lost a whopping 4 lbs in the first two weeks. My blood sugar dropped, though. I suspect that would happen if I ate dirt.

 

Hello, I am new to this forum. I was interested in this topic because I am type 2 diabetic and MUST exercise. I used to ride bicycles everywhere when I was younger (no car in Southern California!!) Now I have a car and diabetes. As to the Atkins diet, I tried it and lost a whopping 4 lbs in the first two weeks. My blood sugar dropped, though. I suspect that would happen if I ate dirt.