11–20 of 112 posts
How about we stop "fearing" certain foods and just eat a reasonably varied diet that is calorie restricted? Or if you want to simply lose weight, just calorie restricted. Or do I have to bring up the people who have lived on nothing but twinkies or McD for a month and stil lost weight?
http://observer.com/2015/10/here-are-the-people-coca-cola-ha...
In most normal people, meaning without diabetes and other metabolism problems, the liver doesn't immediately convert sugar to fat. Rather extra sugar is converted to glycogen which can be easily accessed for energy. What happens when a runner carbo loads the night before a race? The pasta she eats is coveted to glycogen and stored in the liver not to fat.
However, when the liver storage of energy is full, it then converts the excess to fat. Think about this for a second. The glycemic index and load don't apply because most people convert excess blood sugar to a readily available energy stored in the liver as glycogen not fat.
The problem is that Americans culturally never deplete the storage of energy in the liver because of two reasons; first, Americans snack all the time and drink sugary drinks, and, second, which I don't understand, we have developed an idea that we should eat huge third meals at night.
A big dinner will completely replenish the energy stores in the liver leaving excess sugar that will be converted into fat during sleep. Perhaps, it is smarter to eat a decent breakfast that contains simple sugars which are absorbed faster into the blood stream, a big lunch which will provide energy for the rest of the day, and a small dinner to satiate hunger.
For a person who wakes up around 7am the fast should begin around 5pm in order to let the sugars deplete around bed time. There is no reason to have readily available sugars while sleeping. And then in the morning break the fast.
There is no reason to have big dinners which are ridiculous.
The role of liver function and glycogen should be included in this conversation.[1] There might be a lot more at work than just elevated blood sugar levels. In most normal people, meaning without diabetes and other metabolism problems, the liver doesn't immediately convert sugar to fat. Rather extra sugar is converted to glycogen which can be easily accessed for energy. What happens when a runner carbo loads the nigh…
.. which requires that lunch be the main meal, which could be difficult in countries where eating at your desk is normalised.
The role of liver function and glycogen should be included in this conversation.[1] There might be a lot more at work than just elevated blood sugar levels. In most normal people, meaning without diabetes and other metabolism problems, the liver doesn't immediately convert sugar to fat. Rather extra sugar is converted to glycogen which can be easily accessed for energy. What happens when a runner carbo loads the nigh…
Actually there is a very big reason for why your advice is harmful, for me at least, but I suspect that for others as well. At 5pm I'm still at work, which means that whatever meal I'll have will be fast food and not a home cooked meal.
But even more problematic is that dinner is also the perfect opportunity to sit together with your family, as in that moment during the day that can be shared without feeling rushed and if you want to sit together with your wife and kids, anything less than 8pm is not doable, as afternoons are usually unpredictable, as for example that's also the time of day when people go shopping or solve other chores.
The family dinner is a matter of cultural inheritance that we've been forgetting and I'm willing to bet that this trait of modern life is much more harmful than fats, carbohydrates or whatever identified nutritional element is the enemy du-jour.
How about we stop "fearing" certain foods and just eat a reasonably varied diet that is calorie restricted? Or if you want to simply lose weight, just calorie restricted. Or do I have to bring up the people who have lived on nothing but twinkies or McD for a month and stil lost weight?
The twinkie diet guy was funded by coca cola http://observer.com/2015/10/here-are-the-people-coca-cola-ha...
And? Did he did he supplement the diet by eating Coca-Cola's money as a source of fiber? Because it still sounds like he only ate twinkies and lost weight.
Or are you suggesting that his data was falsified?
It sill blows my mind how little we know about our body. We are aiming to sent someone to Mars, but we can't figure out what to eat. It seems the best default is to try to simulate what we've been eating for a past 50000 years and modify accordingly. When I first tried slow carb diet I lost 5kg in 3 weeks and my general well being improved. I tried it again, but the effect wasn't that strong.
How about we stop "fearing" certain foods and just eat a reasonably varied diet that is calorie restricted? Or if you want to simply lose weight, just calorie restricted. Or do I have to bring up the people who have lived on nothing but twinkies or McD for a month and stil lost weight?
How about we stop "fearing" certain foods and just eat a reasonably varied diet that is calorie restricted? Or if you want to simply lose weight, just calorie restricted. Or do I have to bring up the people who have lived on nothing but twinkies or McD for a month and stil lost weight?
The twinkie diet guy was funded by coca cola http://observer.com/2015/10/here-are-the-people-coca-cola-ha...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The twinkie diet guy was funded by coca cola http://observer.com/2015/10/here-are-the-people-coca-cola-ha...
> You probably saw the compelling story on CNN that a nutrition professor ate only Twinkies for 10 weeks and lost 27 pounds! Except they didn’t disclose one important fact — he got paid by Coca-Cola. Perhaps “Coke-Funded Nutrition Professor Tries to Prove Junk Food Healthy” is now a more appropriate title. And his surprising finding that junk food can be eaten without consequence: perfectly on message for Coca-Cola.…