Weight Loss help

As a woman, I find it interesting to see guys write 10 pages on a forum about weight loss, and diet. I thought only women had that many opinions on that subject. Anyway, I think the Adkins diet in unhealthy. I am not a nutritionist, but know many people who've gone on that diet. All have since gone off, and gained back the weight. I'm sure there are those of you out there who have stuck to it. - but I think the majority of people who go on extremely restrictive diets end up going off them. Common sence needs to be part of a persons diet. - and realization that your eating habits need to change for a lifetime. Pick something you can stick to. Which in my mind means that eating a diet more in line with the food pyramid is much more obtainable for a lifetime.

good luck RSalazar. I lost 20+ pounds in my 20's (I'm now 48) and have kept it off. Like serottarider said, everyone needs to find what works for them.

 

Wow, what a wide range of responses. My comments:
You should not worry about the best way to lose weight in a single ride, but rather, how to lose weight over an entire year. The best way to do this is to keep riding.

The way to STOP riding is to ride as hard as you can in every ride! In fact, Lance Armstrong (arguably the best conditioned athlete on the planet) was about to quit racing because of burnout from training too hard every day; his coach backed him off from hard rides everyday, and instead carefully taylored and timed hard rides amidst long, easy rides.

The key to long term performance is to stress yourself, then recover before stressing yourself again. So, if you go out and ride hard on a given day, then you would want to ride at an easy pace for the next two or three days. Given your starting point, I would recommend frequent short, easy rides, with one or two days a week becoming longer rides over time. In time, you'll feel ready to ride hard one or two days a week. Trust yourself and how you feel on this!

Relative to eating - apply common sense. The key is to cut back on what you eat, especially for "foods" with empty calories. Beyond that, there are many opinions on diet, which I won't debate. But don't completely give up on foods (or snacks) you love - just cut back the amount and how often you have them. As you have success, your motivation will increase - if you stay with the program long enough, you'll get in the groove and the weight will continue to drop off.

Good luck on this journey - a love of cycling can be your best tool for becoming fit again, and can be a life-long pursuit that helps you maintain a healthier weight, cardio-vascular system, and positive outlook on life.

One more hint - if you have a spouse or significant other that wants to join you in this, so much the better - you may want to consider riding a tandem - its a blast!

Steve

 

Wow Rsalazar, have YOU generated a lot of traffic!!! Hey, I'll be on the Bike To The Beach ride from SA to Corpus. I'm right there with you. Haven't been on a bike in years and am spooling up for the ride. I started "training" for it about 6 weeks ago, clocking in at 227 lbs. I'm riding 5 days a week, 12-15mls with a 25-25 ml. ride on weekends. I've dropped to 214lbs, without significant changes to my diet...just eating BETTER carbs and moderating my total intake. Just getting out and spinning is the key. If you don't have a Heart Rate Monitor, get one. It's like a tachometer for your heart/body. Great feedback. Cadence meter is helpful but not necessary. Make sure to give yourself at least a one-week rest before the ride to allow your muscles to recoup. Look us up: Team LacticAssid

Also, my brother is training for it in SA and does a Wednesday night group ride of about 25-30mls. let me know if you are interested and I'll get details ([email protected]). While some of the guys go faster, they apparently have checkpoints where they wait for folks to catch up...very friendly group...and big! Like 50-75 people.

Keep spinning and congratulations for the dedication to doing the ride!!!!

 

Hey, guys want to look good for you ladies too! Having "Done Atkins" I can say it is not unhealthy. I have not met nor read someone who has actually "done Atkins" and has a negative reaction...as long as the do it correctly.

Key Points: (#1) Atkins is not a diet...it's a way of eating for life. Dr.Atkins principle was that we as Americans have gone from consuming 12 pounds of sugar a year to more than 150 lbs a year...my numbers are probably not exactly right, but the ratio is pretty close. European countries which are becoming more "Americanized" are showing the fastest increase of obesity in the world.

(#2) People who haven't done Atkins or taken the time to read the book don't understand that the intial phase (2 weeks) called the "induction phase" is admittedly strict and appears unhealthy. But that plan is NOT the entire Atkins program...it's simply a 2-week "shock therapy" for the body, to get it realigned and purged of the dependancy on Carbs...particularly bad Carbs high in refined sugars, flours, etc. There are 4 phases to the diet, the last 2 of which no person in their right mind would argue with...they are about balance.

Atkins is arguably the most popular eating regimine out there. Close on it's heals is the South Beach Diet. Essentially the same principles as Atkins but a bit more moderated on the front end...thus perhaps easier to stick with.

One other point. One of the research efforts that ATkins did was take a group of athletes (runners / cyclists) and put half on a "standard" high carb diet and half on a high protein diet, low carbs. The high carb group had better jackrabbit speed and pace initially, but flamed out much faster. The high protein folks were able to perform as well as they ever had on high carbs, but could sustain it longer AND RECOVERED FASTER than the carb junkies.

As already stated, it is about balance. But "balance" is relative. If you want to read some interesting food/life regime stuff, read "The Okinawa Program". Shows the life expectance, general health and low disease rates of folks in Okinawa, and the stuff they eat. Guess what kids: low carbs, high protein. Absolute longest life expectancy ON EARTH and the lowest rates of major illnesses like diabetes and heart disease ON EARTH. That's no fad.

Fun dialog. Even if you don't "do Atkins" and wish to have an opinion on it, read. I was a disbeliever...I thought the guys was totally wacked out....until I read his book. It really makes sense, as incredulous as some of it seems.

By the way, the people who go on Atkins and lose weight only to go "off Atkins" and regain it all...I know several. They simply went back to their old habits which got them to the bad state they were in to begin with. Makes sense, doesn't it? I mean, they did everything that was required to get there.

Live FOR your heart and FROM your heart...it's the definition of who you are. http://www.ransomedheart.com/index.cfm/id/AE4C089C-60D8-4058-A25AAFAF1F8E2F30

 

So whats the percentage of kcals from carbohydrate/protein/fat on the Atkins in the long term/maintance phase?

 

Originally posted by wbmorrison, i responded with >>

Hey, guys want to look good for you ladies too! Having "Done Atkins" I can say it is not unhealthy. I have not met nor read someone who has actually "done Atkins" and has a negative reaction...as long as the do it correctly.

>>the bulk of the scientific evidence doesn't support this theory, and suggests that Atkins could be bad in terms of heart disease etc. In fact, in the UK now, it is considered *negligent* to recommed the Atkins diet


Key Points: (#1) Atkins is not a diet...it's a way of eating for life. Dr.Atkins principle was that we as Americans have gone from consuming 12 pounds of sugar a year to more than 150 lbs a year...my numbers are probably not exactly right, but the ratio is pretty close. European countries which are becoming more "Americanized" are showing the fastest increase of obesity in the world.

>>People gain weight (fat) because they eat too much, and don't exercise enough.


(#2) People who haven't done Atkins or taken the time to read the book don't understand that the intial phase (2 weeks) called the "induction phase" is admittedly strict and appears unhealthy. But that plan is NOT the entire Atkins program...it's simply a 2-week "shock therapy" for the body, to get it realigned and purged of the dependancy on Carbs...particularly bad Carbs high in refined sugars, flours, etc. There are 4 phases to the diet, the last 2 of which no person in their right mind would argue with...they are about balance.

>>sorry, but i don't believe in a very low carb diet and can't find *any* evidence to support this, especially in an athletic population




Atkins is arguably the most popular eating regimine out there. Close on it's heals is the South Beach Diet. Essentially the same principles as Atkins but a bit more moderated on the front end...thus perhaps easier to stick with.

>>eating chocolate, fatty foods and McD is popular but that doesn't mean it's good for you!



One other point. One of the research efforts that ATkins did was take a group of athletes (runners / cyclists) and put half on a "standard" high carb diet and half on a high protein diet, low carbs. The high carb group had better jackrabbit speed and pace initially, but flamed out much faster. The high protein folks were able to perform as well as they ever had on high carbs, but could sustain it longer AND RECOVERED FASTER than the carb junkies.

>>you're correct, there is *one* study that supports this notion. However, the study was so badly designed, and incorrect and goes against all the other data available, that it can be dismissed.


Fun dialog. Even if you don't "do Atkins" and wish to have an opinion on it, read. I was a disbeliever...I thought the guys was totally wacked out....until I read his book. It really makes sense, as incredulous as some of it seems.

>>it's just a way for atkins and the company to make money.

>>there's a few studies comparing normal mixed diets and atkins diets and the people on the atkins loose no more weight than any other diet

>>a normal mixed diet eating a mix of carbohydrates (bread pasta rice etc, and minimising sweets, table sugar etc) protein and fat, and plenty of exercise is the healthiest option

Ric

 

Ric, at the risk of sounding confrontational (I'm not!), it doesn't seem that you have actually read the Atkins Nutrional Approach materials. I think you would find it to be much more balanced than you may perceive. SIDE NOTE: I don't work for Atkins, don't represent nutrional companies of any kind. I'm just a user with personal experience AND have read the materials in detail.

The inital "induction" phase is strict. I would tend to agree that it seems to put too many saturated fats in the "rotation". However, the rest of the program is ALL about balanced nutrition, reducing/eliminating 'bad' carbs, etc.

And, the Approach also makes a huge priority on excercise.

I profit nothing by convincing you...just sharing experience. I would encourage you to read more about it. You can sell the book on eBay when you're done!

Also, check out:
+ http://atkins.com/why/debunking-the-myths.html
+ http://atkins.com/science/index.html

 

Sorry, I am a non believer too.

So how does it differ from a normal balanced, healthy and calorie controled that Ric hints at?

You suggest they may even be the same? Now I'm confused.

Also, little of the research on the site addresses the Atkins diet directly and much has very loose links with Atkins diets (there are papers on children and adolecents... not the usual atkins dieters).

There are also times when a single paper is refered to and a particular conclusion drawn; when I know that the wealth of evidence on some topics says otherwise! This is a very biased site!

Can you tell me...

What the percentage of kcals from carbohydrate/protein/fat on the Atkins in the long term/maintance phase?

The site doesn't seem to tell us and I'm just interested to see how different it is from the recomened.

 

I'll check the exact figures and post that...I simply don't have those with me at my office and don't wish to post a guesstimate. Clearly, the site is biased...they are trying to sell a program! Also, they don't post the entire program details...they want you to buy the book!! No arguements from me about the commercialism of it.

My points to Ric were: the Atkins Approach gets slammed...some of it I agree with (abundance of saturated fats) some of the slamming I don't agree with as it demonstrates a lack of personal experience/knowledge. It's not saying Carbs are bad. It is not a "no carb" diet. It does say there are good carbs (grains & fruits among them) and bad carbs (processed/refined flours & sugars, junk foods, etc.).


So how does it differ from a normal balanced, healthy and calorie controled that Ric hints at?

In the end (sustaining/maintenance phase), not much. It might move a few percentages of carbs over into the protein camp, but not a dramatic amount. The Induction phase (2 weeks) seems dramatic...and is intended to be so. It is trying to shock a (bad) carb dependent body out of that regimine for 2 weeks, only to then begin re-establishing a proper balance of protein/fat/carbs.

But don't misjudge the program by the first two weeks alone...the common failing of those reviewing the program. The first 2 weeks to deprives the body of carbohydrate fuel. Admittedly, it does so in a dramatic way...only 20g of carbs are allowed per day. The key point here is that AS LONG AS ADEQUATE SOURCES OF CARBOHYDRATES / GLYC. ARE AVAILABLE, THE BODY WILL BURN THEM FIRST...whether they are in the short-term digestive process or stored in tissue. Next comes fat. So, if someone is looking to kick-start burning fat, it makes sense to deprive the fuel source of carbs FOR A BRIEF TIME...2 weeks.

For a healthy, fit person the first phase or two doesn't make sense...you likely have no need to burn fat in a significant way. But for someone who is carbohydrate dependent and whose glycogen levels are out of whack, subtlety might not get the intended result. As was posted here, burning more than you consume is the key...as is a balanced approach to nutrition. But it also requires getting the body trained to not crave and be dependent upon sugar-rich carbs. Someone who does not have their weight well managed and want to make a LIFELONG change need a jump start...as well as a plan for life. I do believe the Atkins program does a decent job of both...IF YOU FOLLOW IT CORRECTLY. The South Beach Diet also seems to follow a very similar principle to Atkins but seems a bit more considerate of eliminating bad fats (transfats) than Atkins does.

I'll get the details on dietary mix and post it this weekend. But I would encourage you guys to read the Atkins book...or at least the philosophy and science behind it. This is a topic you obviously care a great deal about and I'd propose the only way you can truly speak with authority is if you KNOW it personally.

Cheers.

 

As 2Lap mentions there's research on the site, some of which that is used that is not very good research (such as the sport one mentioned above) and other stuff that's off topic!

i have read the atkins book, although it was a few years ago. the 'science' in it is laughable (or at least i remember laughing at what was written).

in the latter stages of the diet it appears that "increasing the daily carbohydrate intake in 10-gram increments each week so long as very gradual weight loss is maintained" means that you'll be on a very low carbohydrate diet. You're advised to avoid foods such as pasta, bread, vegetables and fruit (phase 4). You have to take a multi vitamin and mineral supplement to make up for this lack of essential food.

the majority of scientific evidence suggests that atkins (i.e., high fat/protein) is unhealthy, and in the UK the british medical association has now suggested that it is *negligent* to advise patients to use this regime. In hospitals the diet has been taken off the list of dietary regimes that can be given to patients.

in athletic and exercising populations (which this forum is all about) it is well established and there is *unequivocal* research showing that a moderate high carbohydrate intake is required for optimal performance.

there's research showing that a very high carbohydrate intake (80/10/10 carb, protein, fat) has been shown to help people with diabetes

there's stacks of research showing that high protein/fat is bad for your health in terms of CHD etc.

on weight loss research, there appears to be no difference in total weight loss between the various types of diets

a moderate to high carb diet doesn't mean eating table sugar!

As we all cycle here, or at least i assume that's the reason we're all here on this forum, we need largeish amounts of carb to ride well. as an example, for those exercising say 4 or 5 times a week as a club cyclist carb requirements are ~ 6g per kg body mass per day, i.e., a 70 kg person needs 420 g carb per day (a shade under a pound for the non metric!).

Ric

 

I don't think we are THAT far apart on this. Totally agree about low sugar consumption and I also agree that as cyclists (or any other athlete for that matter), good carbs are key for the body to perform.

But the arguement is really about someone who is 260 pounds needing to get in shape. As long as an abundance of carbohydrates are available, he won't get traction on burning fat. He still needs carbs...and ONLY good ones...but the ratio for a time can shift toward protein and allow him to accelerate the process of weight loss and still not do harm to his vital processes. No question, there's a reason why they recommend supplements...so you can make sure your body gets the necessary minerals/vitamins, etc. that you would otherwise not get on such a high dose of protein and fat.

Lastly, if a low fat diet is so unequivocably right, why is it that Americans obesity has skyrocketed in the last 30 years? Sure, we could excercise more. But if you simply look at foods that are "low fat" what you see is a significant increase in carbs (sugars).

To your point about your reading ATkins book...I do believe he has made some significant updates to the appraoch (and thus his book) in the last 2-3 years. Still the same core approach but a bit more moderated in some areas and more 'balanced'.

 

Originally posted by wbmorrison, i repsonded with >>

I don't think we are THAT far apart on this. Totally agree about low sugar consumption and I also agree that as cyclists (or any other athlete for that matter), good carbs are key for the body to perform.

>>but atkins doesn't allow good carbs (e.g. pasta) in any of the phases according to their website

But the arguement is really about someone who is 260 pounds needing to get in shape. As long as an abundance of carbohydrates are available, he won't get traction on burning fat. He still needs carbs...and ONLY good ones...but the ratio for a time can shift toward protein and allow him to accelerate the process of weight loss and still not do harm to his vital processes.

>>whilst i'm not 100 % certain what you mean, i will state that to loose weight you only need a negative energy balance (burn more energy than you take in). in the research that has compared normal diets (restricted energy intake) with atkins there's been no difference in weight loss between groups



No question, there's a reason why they recommend supplements...so you can make sure your body gets the necessary minerals/vitamins, etc. that you would otherwise not get on such a high dose of protein and fat.

>>so surely you must agree that atkins is 'bad'?


Lastly, if a low fat diet is so unequivocably right, why is it that Americans obesity has skyrocketed in the last 30 years?

>>surely, that's because a) americans (and a lot of other places, i'm not singling out the usa) don't eat low fat, b) total energy intake is too high


Sure, we could excercise more. But if you simply look at foods that are "low fat" what you see is a significant increase in carbs (sugars).

>>you mean like vegetables.... also, i haven't said we should all eat 'low fat' candy bars (although good when cycling) etc


To your point about your reading ATkins book...I do believe he has made some significant updates to the appraoch (and thus his book) in the last 2-3 years. Still the same core approach but a bit more moderated in some areas and more 'balanced'. [/QUOTE]

 

NUMBERS DON'T JIBE!
This is a lot of wonderful information sparked by someone who may be putting us all on. Pardon me if you're not. I see rsalazar as the user name. Is this the former world record holder for the marathon, Roberto Salazar? If that's not you, and you really are serious, then you may get encouragement to realize that your weight in kilograms is only 142.3 kg corresponding to 313 lbs. If you were really 241 kg, trying to convert to lbs, you wouldn't have been able to ride an hour comfortably: no way! I'm surprised all you sophisticated readers out there didn't notice that. I'll bet most of you are used to using kilograms too.

 

Well, I am a Ph.D. in nutrition and their is truth in all of this. Evolutionary ecology gives different strategies for survival. We all don't have the same genetic pool to work with. The Atkins diet does work, and initial weight loss is tremendous. However, glycogen stores are reduced and the associated water is lost. Their is a ratio of glycogen to water that is held by the body (1-4), when you burn glycogen this metabolic water is lost and weight loss is great.

Long term weight loss is the key, 1 -2 lbs per week unless you are lossing more by energy expenditure. Remember that the basal metabolic rate (BMR) is related to weight, so as you loose weight what you require to maintain weight goes down. I believe that a prudent method is to figure out what you want to have as a target weight and consume that caloric intake, loose weight with exercise. When you have achieved your target weight you will be adjusted to the proper caloric intake.

If you look at the Atkins, Zone, Sugar busters, they all have good points that may work for some people. But remember it is simle math. A lb of fat is 3500 calories, caloric expenditure is 350-900 per hour depending on rate and BMR is 1200-2000 depending on weight. So if you eat over the BMR and don't exercise you gain weight.

This is my favorite plan: eat BMR, then exercise 7000 calories/week. You will loose 2 lbs. Now if your very overweight and select a BMR at your target you will loose more and your body will adjust to the new intake. If you don't do this you will be reducing your caloric intake downward as you loose weight, if you don't weight loss will subside.

In respect to athletic performance, glycogen stores are the key. Trained atheletes have higher stores, as their cells are "trained" to do this. Dietary factors also play a key, the "recovery period" after expenditure is vital, since the enzymes are in place for glycogen production.

Appetite and glycemic index is also in play here. Like chinese food your hungry again in an hour, a steak lasts a long time. Sugar subsides immediate hunger attacks, so don't get hungry. Eat designed "planned" snacks throughout the day, these should have protein and carbs, but little or no simple sugar.

The body has several "pools" of energy, some are more mobile than others and used under different oxygen states. We have compounds that may spare glycogen (caffeine, ascorbic acid) and others than may enhance glycogen uptake and storage. These are the key to performance. We do not want to confuse elite athletic performance and weight loss in this discussion. To the cyclist burning 5000-7000 calories a day in a 120 mile race, carbs and fat may be critical, but for weight loss we don't need to eat like Lance Armstrong.

Best wishes

 

I have read most of the post here regarding your weight loss, my Wife and I have lost a lot of weight over the last three years, she lost 70lbs, and I went from 256lbs to 178lbs.

We totally changed our diet....no fried foods (this includes chips), high carb low calorie foods were added into our diet.

We worked out on an excercise machine (We started this with a SoloFlex but financed forced the sell of it) we now have a Weider Multi-Gym....(available at any Walmart).

I rode then and ride now (the Wife however is not an avid rider as she has yet to find a seat that doesn't hurt her.)

And most importantly, WE DRANK A LOT OF WATER. 2 TO 3 GALLONS A DAY.

This kept our systems flushed and kept us hydrated while working out...

Good luck with your weight loss, and take it easy on that 150m ride.

Randy

 

A few posts back I was raving about the virtues of Atkins. I have changed my opinion somewhat based on my experience with the near thousand miles I’ve ridden since.

First, the first stages of Atkins are a treatment more than a diet. Atkins is designed to treat pre-diabetics and type II diabetics. The associated weight loss started out as a side effect. Now it has grabbed the center stage, so to speak. I have no argument there. Being overweight has associated risks and it restricts one’s activities.

Second, Atkins works for losing the weight and keeping it off. If one reads his books, you find that he recommends exercise along with the diet. The forth, or maintenance, stage of Atkins is not that far from the mainstream. The problem with the mainstream is that it allows too much sugar and other refined carbs in the diet. At no time in human history has any population had such easy access to simple carbohydrate. All calories are NOT created equal. A simple tallying of the calories can be very misleading when one considers the different metabolic paths required for different nutrients. I just read an article about how fructose, derived from corn, is inferior to other sugars because of its unavailability during exercise. It tends to wind up as fat rather than fuel. The assumption that it goes the way of all sugars is apparently wrong.

Thirdly, there’s a big but. The Atkins diet will keep a pre-diabetic and type II diabetic out of the woods. This is good. Diabetes ages the body at nearly twice the normal rate. The associated vascular problems are killers. The big but is that the Atkins diet’s carbohydrate intake is not sufficient for a training cyclist to have the required energy reserves for workouts and recovery. I now take various forms of carbohydrate just before, during, and immediately after a workout. Protein can’t deliver the carbs to the muscles fast enough to ward off stiffness and cramps.

In conclusion, outside the context of cycling I eat the high protein/fat foods with low glycemic fruits and vegetables as Atkins recommends. This seems to be my evolutionary legacy from the hunter/gatherer days. For cycling, I add in some extra carbs for the necessary boost. I’m still losing weight, too. I’m now hovering around 180 lbs down from 185-ish when I last posted. At 6’1”, this gives me a pretty good BMI for 47 years old. Today I rode a half century in good form and felt great afterwards.

 

Expend more than you consume will help as well but make sure you are getting enough nutrition.

 

Many nutritional guidelines are based on fairly dubious evidence. Just like the Atkins website will promote stuff that backs up its beliefs, so will the Wheat Farmers Federation promote stuff that it agrees with. Recently a group comprising of sugar cane growers and soft drink manufacturers threatened to bring the WHO down when they were about to put out new WHO Guidelines suggesting a lower amount of refined carbohydrates in a "healthy diet". The WHO have thus increased the amount of recommended daily refined carbs to avoid the threatened action.

Just because the BMA says this, doesn't mean there are not ulterior motives behind them doing so.

There is not great evidence for any particular type of diet so it is pretty difficult for anyone to say one is "better based on the evidence".

 

I do disagree with most of your post, however it is difficult for all of us (i.e. consumers) to understand the conflicting evidence provided a variety of sources!

 

When some one provides "evidence" one should ask, ‘who paid for it and what are they selling?’ We live in an age when the chartered corporation, which started out as a creature of the state, is now the master of the state. Hence, the profit motives of the corporations outweigh science and tradition when it comes to matters of public policy and education. Even the institutions of higher learning have been co-opted and rendered just another profit center. Research is now driven more by market analysis and patent law than the needs of the people corporations claim to serve.

Ask yourself, what is the biggest change in the human diet in industrial countries in the last century? By far, it has to be the industrial quantities of sugars and other refined carbohydrates. What kinds of fats did people consume in the 19th century? Lard and butter were the cooking media of choice. No one ate hydrogenated oils or seed oils because they didn’t exist for the most part. Combine that with the corporate grip on the mass media and it should be obvious that diet related diseases are largely the fault of the new industrial cuisine. Advertising works by slowly affecting one’s attitudes and choices. It works best in a vacuum where contradictory views are suppressed or ridiculed. Is it in the corporate interest to educate a population about the dangers of industrial cuisine? Or, would it be more likely that some corporation would try to sell you a cure for the problem?

The simple fact of the matter is that evolution has tuned our bodies over thousands of generations to eat the food we found in pre-agricultural times. Sugars and fats were never removed from their natural context. Fruits, vegetables, nuts, and seeds supplemented a diet of hunting and scavenging. All of the vegetable matter was seasonal and never available in quantity over extended periods.

As cyclists, we are a self-selecting minority. We regularly engage in a level of activity that is no longer the norm. The closest thing I can compare it to would be running down a wounded animal for a couple of hours just before dinner. I doubt whether our Pleistocene ancestors worked as hard as often. Therefore, a little extra carb around work out time is no big deal to me. I still believe that any cyclist can be a healthier cyclist if they eat more whole, natural foods and eschew processed trash.

Let us not lose sight of the bigger picture. People who don’t participate in some sport or exercise program are jeopardizing their health. Eating industrial cuisine only makes their behavior more prone to risk. The beneficiaries of industrial cuisine are the owners of the corporations that produce it. Those who consume it are subsidizing the profits with their health. It’s no coincidence that as we approach a fascist state our diet is deteriorating. To paraphrase John Muir, when one considers one thing, you’ll find it’s connected to everything else.