@boarder2020, I agree you wouldn’t think that running can make you lose leg muscle,
Define "lose".
In fact there are many factors at play, as I (vaguely) recall from some sessions by professional coaches during BASI courses some years back, but there are some types of exercise that can make muscle bigger without making it stronger, and vice versa. And different exercises are used to build strength from those to increase endurance.
So some sorts of exercise performed be professional athletes may actually be improving their muscles' fitness for their desired result while actually decreasing the total muscle mass. For some of them "losing" muscle, in one sense of the word, may actually be a targetted outcome.
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
It was in here somewhere (2 hours long mind but it’s quite interesting in places) about the running. I think.
Some might be interested in what he has to say regardless.
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
VolklAttivaS5 wrote:
@sibhusky, oh I see. Ok, no after 15 hours of fasting your sugar level should be very low if you’re normal. First thing in the morning after no food for 12 hours for example mine would be about 3.8-3.9 mmol/L and I’d definitely be ready for some food then (normal, no diabetes or pre-diabetes).
I think the point, which you seem to be avoiding, is that the model you're referring to isn't very helpful overall, for the reasons he gave.
Imo he massively overstates the difficulty of counting kcal for weight loss. Millions of people have successfully lost weight counting kcal, it's simply not that complicated.
For example, the idea it's impossible to know your RMR without lab testing. The online calculators are all research based and work well for the vast majority of people. Sure there will be some outliers, but you will quickly work out if you've over/underestimating RMR by tracking weightloss.
I will admit the first week or 2 of kcal counting is a pita. You reach a point pretty quick where you can eyeball weights and the second time you eat the same food the numbers are already done for you. The dieting apps with huge databases of food nutrition have certainly made this easier.
Yes you probably never will estimate kcal 100% accurately. My suspicion is it's swings and roundabouts where it more or less offsets. Let's for arguments sake say you are underestimating by 35%, it's not a big deal. You will see weight doesn't go down and adjust your target intake.
The idea that these things might be a little inaccurate so therefore counting kcal doesn't work is like me saying "I don't know exactly how much my electricity bill and food costs will be next month so budgeting doesn't work. Counting kcal will certainly get you in the right ball park.
In terms of it not being sustainable long term, he has a point. But that same point applies to nearly all diets. In the vast majority of cases when people lose weight (regardless of how) they end up putting it all plus more back on.
Quote:
Your model suggests that eating less food makes you less fat.
Some of us would perhaps have managed to work that out.
What is the other model? The only one I know is carbohydrate-insulin model, which is a stretch at best.
Eating less kcal will result in lower weight gain/more weight loss. Actual amount of food is kind of irrelevant.
Quote:
His point is that such unsophisticated logic is used by the ultra processed food industry to trick people into thinking their products won't make you fat. It's a deeper point. You don't have to deny the conservation of energy to understand it.
How is the fast food industry tricking us? At this point we all know that pizza/chips/Indian/Chinese/McDonald's etc. is unhealthy. We all know that fruit, vegetables etc. are healthy. Sure there are some "tricks" where people could go wrong (e.g. salad but covered in high kcal dressing), but kcal on menus have made it much harder to hide this (even if they are not 100% accurate).
His claims about foods advertising as low fat means they've added a ton of sugar or vice versa have some truth. Although plenty of examples where low fat doesn't mean added sugar - skim milk is an obvious example. Diet drinks remove sugar completely and don't replace it with fat, and are going to be a much better choice for weight control From a kcal in perspective I'd argue for weightloss alone it doesn't really matter, total kcal is more important than fat:carb ratio.
I think there is a misunderstanding that people supporting kcal in kcal out model think macronutrients don't matter at all and we just want to justify eating "unhealthy" foods. I'd say in general that's not true. Counting kcal quickly makes you realise eating a slice of pizza and feeling hungry 2 hours later is a far worse option for weight control than that chicken breast, sweet potato, and huge salad would have been. In terms of health macronutrients (in particular getting enough protein), fibre, micronutrients are all clearly important.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
"Diet drinks remove sugar completely and don't replace it with fat, and are going to be a much better"
No, because the sugar is replaced with artificial sweeteners, which can be even worse for health than sugar. (They make me depressed & lethargic)
Best to stay away from the chemical cocktail that is in pre packaged drinks altogether
@tangowaggon, aspartame is one of the most widely studied ingredients, with all the big health organisations coming to the same conclusion that it's safe for humans. If you are trying to lose weight and craving a sugary drink, the zero kcal option is probably going to be preferable for your weight loss goal. Although I'd tend to agree sticking to plain old water is probably a better option.
"Chemicals" gets thrown around way too much. Everything is a chemical. Around UK you will find chlorine, lead, and fluoride in tap water. How about that "chemical cocktail"? Bananas contain potassium-40 (radioactive). It's like the antivaxers that point to mercury being in vaccines.
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
boarder2020 wrote:
Diet drinks remove sugar completely and don't replace it with fat, and are going to be a much better
Not according to Spector.
He says that the sweeteners in those chemical cocktails "change the brains of kids so they want more sweetness in their food",
amongst other effects. He admits that "we know very little about the effects", but he does conclude that they're "harmful".
You're not arguing like a scientist - are you working for the ultra processed food industry?
After all it is free
After all it is free
Quote:
He admits that "we know very little about the effects", but he does conclude that they're "harmful"
How can he make that conclusion if we know so little?
I'm not saying you should go and drink litres and litres of diet coke. I'm saying from a purely weight loss point of view a diet coke is going to better than a regular coke, simply because it's less kcal. (I could make the argument overconsumption of sugar is having a far more detrimental effects on people's health than any realistic claims about artificial sweeteners). Again, drinking water is probably best, but if you are craving something sweet the odd diet drink is not something to be concerned about.
Quote:
You're not arguing like a scientist - are you working for the ultra processed food industry?
There are so many studies showing isocaloric diets produce equal weight loss. As I keep saying if you just care about weightloss that's the only thing that matters. Unless you can show me a better model, that can accurately predict weight loss without kcal balance?
I don't think anyone is stupid enough to argue ultra processed food is as healthy as natural food. Again there are a plethora of studies showing diets high in fibre, fruit, and vegetables decrease all cause mortality.
In terms of artificial sweeteners, they have went through so much testing. Every respected organisation (WHO, Scientific Committee on Food of the European Union etc.) has came to the conclusion they are safe.
I'm not saying anything controversial, or that 99% dieticians would disagree with. Tim Spector is the minority here. But I guess all of us are just funded by big food
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
Fortunately, weight loss is not my issue, but excessively sugary drinks cause indigestion, for the likes of Fanta orangevtype drinks, I wish they would just remove half the sugar & not replace it with anything, these guys produce some very enjoyable drinks.
Fortunately, weight loss is not my issue, but excessively sugary drinks cause indigestion, for the likes of Fanta orangevtype drinks, I wish they would just remove half the sugar & not replace it with anything,
I was very annoyed to find last year when I had to spend some time in the UK that it was almost impossible to find soft drinks without aspartame or similar sweeteners. I'm just very sensitive to the taste, specifically the aftertaste it leaves. The cynic in me recognises that the only way to (temporarily) get rid of the aftertaste is to drink more, so I do wonder how much the manufacturers are keen to add the extra sweetener rather than just reduce the sugar in order to ensure their market.
The absolute worst for me was sitting at a cafe at Peel Castle, having just been scattering ashes, and deciding to relive my childhood with a can of Vimto. First sip, ahh, that's brings back memories... second sip, what's that nasty aftertaste, third sip, oh no, how could they? Memories shattered.
I don't drink a lot of fizzy drinks - rarely have any in the house, for example, but on those odd occasions when I do I want to have the option of a full-fat version, TYVM.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
Completely agree @Chaletbeauroc, i hate the stuff. I've no thoughts whatsoever as to effects or scientific analysis, just detest the mouth feel and taste after drinking. Nothing more than that.
Occasionally drink normal can but probably not more than 10 in a year, no particular reason but not really needing it. The cold and taste is more attractive with very large gaps between drinking them perhaps on a really hot day sometimes. I'm certainly not disciplined enough to use at this level, fortunately not addicted.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
boarder2020 wrote:
In terms of artificial sweeteners, they have went through so much testing. Every respected organisation (WHO, Scientific Committee on Food of the European Union etc.) has came to the conclusion they are safe.
I'm not saying anything controversial, or that 99% dieticians would disagree with. Tim Spector is the minority here. But I guess all of us are just funded by big food
I don't think Spector is disagreeing with the basic beliefs of the dietician "industry". He's saying that those beliefs aren't useful, not that they are fundamentally wrong.
To (over?)simplify:
* long term adherence to calorie-controlled diets is negligible so why do we keep recommending these to people, when all the evidence shows they don't work
* calorie counts are so often so wrong that even if you could adhere to a diet, you wouldn't really know what the adherence meant
* it's much better to focus on _what_ you eat, than on how many calories you eat
* there are foods that reduce your desire to eat more, and foods that increase this desire, and these foods differ for different people
* just because something is "safe" from a biochemical perspective, doesn't mean it's good for you; Spector argues that artificial sweeteners increase your appetite and make it harder to stick to a diet
There's a lot of overlap with Unwin's work on low carb and diabetes - UPFs are so addictive that some (many?) people with diabetes would rather take insulin than change their diet.
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
Quote:
long term adherence to calorie-controlled diets is negligible so why do we keep recommending these to people, when all the evidence shows they don't work
All diets have terrible long term adherence. By that logic we should just give up?
I'd be the first to say different options (intermittent fasting, vegetarian, high fat etc.) seem to work better for different people in terms of adherence. But the mechanism for weight loss in any diet is kcal balance.
Quote:
calorie counts are so often so wrong that even if you could adhere to a diet, you wouldn't really know what the adherence meant
I wrote above why I don't buy this as being an issue, and kcal counting simply isn't as complex as he makes out. He's kind of contradicting himself again - on one hand he says kcal counting works but adherence is so low it's a poor long term choice (i.e. it works in principal), then he says it's so complicated people can't do it. If it was that impossible people wouldn't lose weight to begin with.
Quote:
it's much better to focus on _what_ you eat, than on how many calories you eat
They don't have to be mutually exclusive. It's certainly possible to put on weight while avoiding ultraprocessed foods only eating "healthy" foods. Again, I don't think people that support kcal counting are saying just eat donuts and avoid salad. Kcal counting arguably makes you much more aware of "what" your are eating.
Quote:
there are foods that reduce your desire to eat more, and foods that increase this desire, and these foods differ for different people
I'm not sure there's evidence that foods have widely different satiety for different people (although I'd be interested to see a study on it). Again, people that kcal count tend to work this out! You quickly realise 500kcal of pizza/ice cream is way less filling that 500kcal of x/y/z.
Quote:
Spector argues that artificial sweeteners increase your appetite and make it harder to stick to a diet
Yet there are lots of studies showing the opposite.
"This systematic review and meta-analysis found that using low- and no-calorie sweetened beverages as an intended substitute for sugar sweetened beverages was associated with small improvements in body weight and cardiometabolic risk factors without evidence of harm.
You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
@boarder2020, we can all find studies to prove our point... I'll take yours and raise you:
"But do artificial sweeteners actually help reduce weight?
Surprisingly, epidemiologic data suggest the contrary. Several large scale prospective cohort studies found positive correlation between artificial sweetener use and weight gain. The San Antonio Heart Study examined 3,682 adults over a seven- to eight-year period in the 1980s [18]. When matched for initial body mass index (BMI), gender, ethnicity, and diet, drinkers of artificially sweetened beverages consistently had higher BMIs at the follow-up, with dose dependence on the amount of consumption. Average BMI gain was +1.01 kg/m2 for control and 1.78 kg/m2 for people in the third quartile for artificially sweetened beverage consumption. The American Cancer Society study conducted in early 1980s included 78,694 women who were highly homogenous with regard to age, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and lack of preexisting conditions [19]. At one-year follow-up, 2.7 percent to 7.1 percent more regular artificial sweetener users gained weight compared to non-users matched by initial weight. The difference in the amount gained between the two groups was less than two pounds, albeit statistically significant. Saccharin use was also associated with eight-year weight gain in 31,940 women from the Nurses’ Health Study conducted in the 1970s"
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
@snowdave, systematic reviews and metaanalyses trump an unstructured minireview - always.
Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
But this whole thread is a nonsense. It was kicked off by a complicated question by someone who had experienced massive weight gain following serious mental illness treated with antipsychotics. Followed by all sorts of pop science advice.
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
ed123 wrote:
@snowdave, systematic reviews and metaanalyses trump an unstructured minireview - always.
Exactly. The RCTs and meta-analysis are where we should be looking.
It's actually not surprising you can find epidemiology research showing a correlation between artificial sweeteners and obesity. Remember correlation doesn't equal causation. There are many co-founding variables. Using myself as an example I only ever drink diet coke when I'm eating a fast food meal that comes with a free drink, so more diet drinks would correlate with a much worse diet in general. Also we could hypothesise that people that struggle maintaining weight may be more likely to use diet drinks than those that don't, creating a huge bias in the findings. We could go on, this is the limitation of not being able to draw causation from epidemiology studies and why we need RCTs.
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
@boarder2020, I think there is a distinct correlatuon between the demise of proper pirates and global warming.
I’ve just signed up to Noom, and have lost 2.5kg in just under 3 weeks. For me attempting to write down what I eat seems to be the only thing that works as it just makes me more conscious of the calories going in. I like the way it works so far. Finally got round to signing up to park run too, disappointed all my local ones are cancelled due to ice tomorrow!
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Yes, I think writing down and measuring is the only thing that works for me. Plus, "simple" foods: beef, broccoli, whatever, not "recipes". Which is driving my husband nuts as he just likes to start cooking and throwing things in as the spirit moves him, 15 minutes after it's served he can't tell you how much of what is in the concoction. I'm 30# down, 50# to go, I need to know what's going in and I need a morning warning if it's going to have more than the usual calories so that I can plan it into the day.
Used in narrow band of product here UK market and certainly seems to have less taste/aftertaste experience to me.
I've no particular view, just that if out somewhere and occasionally wanting a canned drink then most in market have been affected by aspartame etc. Is this just the same/ nonsense marketing etc ?
I've no immediate dietary considerations to make, just sometimes want to buy something ok to drink. A brand containing this is prominent in high interest cycling and walking area store here.
Interested to see other's thoughts.
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
My experience (physiology & sports science academic background) and a history of endurance sports, notably ironman and nutrition and weight management (I'm 'naturally' around 83/5kg, but train down to 73/4kg) I would say that most people vastly underestimate calorific intake. A combination of processed (sugars & unnatural fats) foods, portion control and sedentary lifestyles have caused the "obesity epidemic".
Portion control is a real issue for many, the preponderance of eating out and take-aways has perpetuated this and skewed what a normal portion size should be. For anybody serious about dieting and nutrition, I would highly recommend investing in a set of cheap digital food scales from amazon. This quickly helps visualise what 200kcals of pasta, potatoes or pizza actually looks like.
As for the good doctor, he's selling a book, he's a snake oil salesman.
The science really is as simple as kcal in vs kcal out...take a look at returning soldiers from WW2 if you need convincing further; much research was done in the late 40s/50s on exactly this subject, and much of which still stands today.
BMR/RMR does vary from person to person, but rarely more than 200kcals as does metabolic digestion and processing, but kcal in vs out remains extant.
After all it is free
After all it is free
I’ve just finished reading the book ‘Glucose Revolution’ by Jessie Inchauspe
Very interesting and entertaining read indeed.
Well worth reading.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
boarder2020 wrote:
Exactly. You can lose weight just eating awful food (plenty of examples). But it's much harder. It doesn't support the argument that kcal don't matter. In fact Spector's arguments mostly come back to X causes you to eat more kcal so therefore it's bad. Which while true only supports the kcal balance model.
Spectors argument that Calories don't matter would mean some really fundamental laws of Physics are wrong to the point, there is a Nobel prize in it. Of course, the laws of Physics are not wrong and it will remain true to the end of time if Calorie intake is higher than Calorie consumption over the long term you will gain weight and vice versa. There is a small range around the balance point where your body will adjust it's metabolism to avoid weight gain/loss but that is an aside.
Is it easier to eat less if you avoid certain food types; absolutely but at the end of the day if you want to lose weight then Calorie consumption has to be lower than Calorie use. The easiest way to not consume "bad" Calories aka junk food is to simply not buy them in the first place IMHO.
As a final note there is a range of serious genetic defects which screw up metabolic pathways and cause people to gain weight no matter what they do. These are really really rare and are usually fatal by around age 30. You are probably more likely to win the lottery than meet someone with such a generic defect.
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Not sure about these kilo things, but am also trying to lose weight and improve fitness before we go skiing again. I went last Easter and was okay but had a few niggly shoulder/knee issues... Boots were okay.. Now feeling like I want to enjoy my skiing more. I was skiing quite defensively and cautiously last time and avoided too many off piste bits - just the usual lumps and bumps but nothing serious in terms of off piste but enough to niggle my knees a bit too much!!
With a garmin watch fenix 6, this has encouraged me to monitor fitness, health and a few other items, such as sleep etc.. and so I'm focussing on getting fitter and hopefully less fatter and losing some weight - much like yourself I'm noticing clothes are a size smaller and if I don't do one of my activities I notice my energy levels are higher the next day. My resting heart rate has lowered and I'm finding it harder to get my rate out of the lower 'zones' and up to the next zones plus aerobic vs anaerobic exercise.
I've 'only' been doing 10-15 minutes on a rowing machine each day and then a couple of long walks with the dog, which I'm now making at a quicker pace now as well. So getting more out of the exercise.
Plus food wise, trying to reduce portion size and less high processed food. But not going too crazy!
Doing loads more steps each day and stairs, instead of going the shortest route, I'll try and take a more circuitous route or even go upstairs for something as opposed to staying downstairs. Every little helps as they say.
Plus the watch has challenges and a couple of friends are using them as well, so I can compare with them and open weekly and monthly challenges to maintain the interest and gamification of fitness.
ETA: I've lost almost a stone and want to lose another 1 or even 1.5 stone!
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
Now 36 down, 44 to go.
Skiing regularly helps.
sibhusky wrote:
Yes, I think writing down and measuring is the only thing that works for me. Plus, "simple" foods: beef, broccoli, whatever, not "recipes". Which is driving my husband nuts as he just likes to start cooking and throwing things in as the spirit moves him, 15 minutes after it's served he can't tell you how much of what is in the concoction. I'm 30# down, 50# to go, I need to know what's going in and I need a morning warning if it's going to have more than the usual calories so that I can plan it into the day.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
I have recently lost quite a bit of weight, and after trying for ages these are the things that made a difference:
1) regular gym work building muscle, together with regular cardio. But more muscle makes a big difference, and also changes body shape in an aesthetically pleasing way
2) cutting down on processed food, especially carbohydrates such as biscuits and baked goods
3) higher protein, less carbs in general. Takes a while to adapt but once the craving for carbs has gone (and it will) it becomes much easier and feels more natural
4) less carbs means less sugar. I use Hermestas granulated artificial sweetener, which I just found out is a mixture of sodium cyclamate and saccharin. Apparently the mixture takes the bitter aftertaste away from each individual artificial sweetener.
TLDR: weights in the gym and cutting carbs really helped me. Results may vary.
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
Keto gummies Another unnecessary product full of artificial sweeteners.
Such a lot of confusion about "carbs". The main culprit is sugar. Yes, of course biscuits and buns should be avoided if you're trying to lose weight. But so should stuff like ice cream, and sweetened yogurts. And fruit juices (just eat the whole fruit).
What that amounts to is "eat fewer calories". Whatever the source. As various people on this thread have been saying.......
You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
pam w wrote:
Such a lot of confusion about "carbs". The main culprit is sugar. Yes, of course biscuits and buns should be avoided if you're trying to lose weight. But so should stuff like ice cream, and sweetened yogurts. And fruit juices (just eat the whole fruit).
What that amounts to is "eat fewer calories". Whatever the source. As various people on this thread have been saying.......
Current research suggests the opposite: yes, fruit juices are terrible (& dried fruit isn’t great), because they’re dense sources of sugar. But calories are an incredibly misleading way of thinking about both food and weight loss, as our body don’t extract anything like the same amount of energy from foodstuffs as they release when burned (which is how calorific values are measured). & that’s before you get into the question of which foods are harder (in some cases: are designed to be harder) to stop eating.
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Quote:
the question of which foods are harder (in some cases: are designed to be harder) to stop eating
this is the nub. Just stop eating sugar and sugar substitutes and drinking alcohol. And especially, stop kidding yourself.
Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
Quote:
Current research suggests the opposite
"Eat more calories". The next essential-reading diet best-seller?
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
pam w wrote:
Quote:
Current research suggests the opposite
"Eat more calories". The next essential-reading diet best-seller?
try: the source actually matters far more than the number of calories
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
I have a varied sort of diet, quite heavy in starchy carbs (home-made sourdough bread with a mix of grains and seeds being one of my staples). I eat some "bad" things, including home-made ice cream, and drink alcohol, but whatever combination of foods/calories I eat seems to meet my energy needs adequately, as my weight only changes a few pounds up and down. But I do get cross when friends coming to eat with me when they're trying to lose weight turn their noses up at my delicious bread or roast potatoes but are happy to scoff the home made ice cream. People delude themselves more over this "weight loss" business than almost anything else in life - and they provide a lucrative market for all kinds of theories. I can well believe that different forms of carbohydrate are metabolised differently (I spent half a century looking after a Type 1 diabetic) but so what? The fact remains that any calories you imbibe over and above your energy needs will sit somewhere, making you fat. And if you keep eating more calories than you need, you will keep getting fatter. It's really simple.
If the time spent reading up on weight loss theories was to be spent going out for a walk - that would definitely help. Eat fewer calories AND/OR increase your energy requirements. Preferably both.
Before industrially produced edible substances were invented almost no one had any problem at all with food.
It's almost as we'd all evolved to deal with food, but not to deal with industrially produced addictive edible substances.
I think the pattern is the same as tobacco: eventually we legislate. A decade or two later, and everyone wonders how it could ever have been allowed to get so bad.
I'm still amazed how well 2000AD got all this down years ago.
When that came out, there were fat people in the US, but not really in the UK at all.
Now, they're here too, and ordinary sized ski jackets are hard to find (and called "extra small", FFS).
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Clothes do seem to have got bigger. When I was in my late teens "my size" in Marks and Spencers was a 12 or 14. I weigh much the same now as I did then, though it's all gone much floppier, sadly. My size in M & S now is 10 or 8.
The problem for many of us is that food is just too readily available, and much of it very tasty. and easy to eat. Certainly some of the industrially-produced stuff full of additives is probably not very healthy, but even "healthy, home-cooked food" will make you fat if you eat too much of it!
I understand the "glycaemic index" because of my years with a type 1 diabetic husband. When it was first developed there were some very ill-informed articles equating "lower GI" foods with "less fattening" foods, which is rubbish as a generalisation. For example, roast potatoes or chips have a lower GI than plain boiled potatoes (and are far more delicious) but they are also more fattening.
Before industrially produced edible substances were invented almost no one had any problem at all with food.
It's almost as we'd all evolved to deal with food, but not to deal with industrially produced addictive edible substances.
At the same time, we’ve allowed a political-economic system to develop that incentivizes the production & sale of things that people get addicted to & can’t stop eating.
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
jmr59 wrote:
At the same time, we’ve allowed a political-economic system to develop that incentivizes the production & sale of things that people get addicted to & can’t stop eating.
"Can't stop eating." Utter rubbish. Don't want to stop eating, look for excuses, blame anyone but themselves.
Same with smoking, TBH, and many drug habits. Yes, there's an element of chemical addiction that makes it harder, unlike food which however much nasty processed sugar and whatnot it contains, but it's the lifestyle of which the food/tobacco/heroin is a large part that needs to change - as evidenced by the overwhelming proportion of recidivism amongst drug and alcohol addicts after they've got 'clean' via rehab centres and the like.
After all it is free
After all it is free
Chaletbeauroc wrote:
jmr59 wrote:
At the same time, we’ve allowed a political-economic system to develop that incentivizes the production & sale of things that people get addicted to & can’t stop eating.
"Can't stop eating." Utter rubbish. Don't want to stop eating, look for excuses, blame anyone but themselves.
Oh, yeah, and an associated philosophical-economic system according to which any suffering, however unnecessary and avoidable, as a result of those economic incentives, is stigmatized as the result of some kind of personal ‘moral failure’.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
There are a lot of very disciplined and strong-minded people on this thread. Even those of us who aren't drug addicts are not always such paragons, unfortunately.
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Hurtle wrote:
There are a lot of very disciplined and strong-minded people on this thread.
FAQ
Poster: A snowHead
and if I don't do one of my activities I notice my energy levels are higher the next day. My resting heart rate has lowered and I'm finding it harder to get my rate out of the lower 'zones' and up to the next zones plus aerobic vs anaerobic exercise.
Another unnecessary product full of artificial sweeteners.
try: the source actually matters far more than the number of calories