AWKWARD ZOMBIE

The average food intake of a healthy person should have an equal split between protein, carbs, and vegetables/fruits. For those trying to be on a diet, the starches need to be dialed down and replaced with more of the other two groups.

This is the general concept for most diets that aren't weird about starving you off of something or insisting on smoothies or filler foods.

Now, breakfast usually is the meal you should have the most carbs, because you need a jumpstart for the day and your body doesn't like to dip into the fat reserves right off the bat without grumping at you. Dinner should be the meal with the least carbs, as you're easing yourself into the night, and any carbs absorbed will likely become fat unless you're active. You're better off burning fat at this time than anything.

Most diets fail because they take you from a comfortable routine and tell you to deny yourself things. No more carbs, lean meat, etc.

The main thing is controlling portion sizes. You can have fries, but have a third of what you'd normally have and have your burger without the bun. Going cold turkey usually does not have good results, at least not without some initial health issues.

The problem is that it's very hard to achieve this when carbs are often the cheapest foods available, and are extremely plentiful in things like fast food.

TheStranger wrote:You'll notice that most "fat activists" arent the people who are just pretty big, we're talking "motorized scooter fat", the ones who throw a hissy fit when McDonalds doesnt provide sidecarts so they can cart home their daily 50 big macs

I think this is too much of a grotesque generalization about how the overweight are somehow assholes or boarish about their food. I've had more headaches with thin people talking about fat shaming than actual overweight people, and usually the people that I see throwing the biggest fits at fast food places are the people intent on counting carbs and calories and getting worked up because the salad dressing isn't fat-free or something. Certainly doesn't mean there aren't fat people who are assholes (there certainly are, and I've seen them), but I think when people think about what group is most likely to be general assholes about food, they immediately jump to morbidly obese wal-mart shopper mental images.

And I think that's part of what a lot of the fat activism (the stuff that isn't complete idiocy) is focused on.

Is it true that corn syrup is worse than sugar? Ive heard that, but cant seem to find any confirmation.

Actually some studies are showing that eating more in the evening than in the morning is better for losing weight.

http://www.huji.ac.il/cgi-bin/dovrut/do ... 5005872560

They got the idea for the study by looking at the Muslim holiday Ramadan, where Muslims don't eat until sunset whereupon they consume high-carb food.

Also corn syrup, high fructose corn syrup, cane sugar, and just plain sugar have zero difference. It all gets processed into glucose because the body doesn't care.

IIRC, it is because the body takes it up faster because it's a monosaccharide and can be used immediately unlike sucrose (common sugar), which is a polysaccharide and needs to be broken up.

HFCS is also used because it's easier to put into products without having clumps of sugar or seperation of ingredients when the product sits around for awhile.

Madican wrote:Actually some studies are showing that eating more in the evening than in the morning is better for losing weight.

http://www.huji.ac.il/cgi-bin/dovrut/do ... 5005872560

They got the idea for the study by looking at the Muslim holiday Ramadan, where Muslims don't eat until sunset whereupon they consume high-carb food.

I have to kinda question the study, since religious fasting does tend to cause a loss of weight because it's, well, fasting. Deprivation of food is of course going to cause you to lose weight even if you indulge at the end of the day if you change nothing else about your lifestyle (still going to work/school, keeping up with clubs).

It's still not considered completely healthy as a means for actual weight loss, especially if it's done improperly. It's part of the reason that in some places, workers are less productive, and in some cases, people have been known to pass out or cause accidents (especially in the work place) with making this choice. It's certainly not going to make you at the top of your game, and you could hurt yourself in the process, so you shouldn't fast for extended periods or use it as a weight loss solution.

Oh hey healthy diets! I just read up on that since I started getting off my booty last week.

What Kamak said is mostly right (though fruits are mostly carbs so they shouldn't be separate from them).
In the end of the day, it all comes down to calories. There's calculations to get the amount of calories your body absolutely needs to not panic into full "let's not burn anything and pack as much as I can into the fat reserves" mode, called the BMR, which depending on your activity level gets multiplied by some number to get your TDEE. If you're trying to lose weight, eat calories between your BMR and your TDEE, preferrably about 20% / 500 calories under TDEE. It's really not rocket science.
Also lots of protein and weight lifting helps, even if you don't want to be muscular.
The thing I'm trying to do suggests 2.5 - 3 grams of protein per kg you weigh per day. Have more carbs and less fat on days you have been exercising, have less of them and more fat on days you're not.
You can drop fat entirely, but that will decrease your sex drive and may have other unwelcome side effects.

...What are we talking about?

Kamak wrote:I have to kinda question the study, since religious fasting does tend to cause a loss of weight because it's, well, fasting. Deprivation of food is of course going to cause you to lose weight even if you indulge at the end of the day if you change nothing else about your lifestyle (still going to work/school, keeping up with clubs).

It's still not considered completely healthy as a means for actual weight loss, especially if it's done improperly. It's part of the reason that in some places, workers are less productive, and in some cases, people have been known to pass out or cause accidents (especially in the work place) with making this choice. It's certainly not going to make you at the top of your game, and you could hurt yourself in the process, so you shouldn't fast for extended periods or use it as a weight loss solution.

They got the idea from Ramadan, but that wasn't the actual study. They did it with police officers, Israeli police officers, and split them into two groups for six months. The first one loaded up on carbs in the evening and kept them light the rest of the day. The second just went about things as usual with carbs all day.

What they found is that for the people in the evening, they were much less hungry during the day because the hormone that causes hunger adapted to fit the new schedule.

The researchers found that the innovative dietary manipulation led to changes in daylight hormonal profiles in favor of the dieters: the satiety hormone leptin’s secretion curve became convex during daylight hours with a nadir in the late day; the hunger hormone ghrelin’s secretion curve became concave, peaking only in the evening hours; and the curve of adiponectin, considered the link between obesity, insulin resistance and the metabolic syndrome, was elevated. At the same time this dietary pattern led to lower hunger scores, and better anthropometric (weight, abdominal circumference and body fat), biochemical (blood sugar, blood lipids) and inflammatory outcomes compared to the control group.

Keep in mind that modern medicine has a lot to thank Muslims for. I could actually believe that Ramadan was used the way it is specifically because they already knew the benefits of that eating style.

D-vid wrote:Oh hey healthy diets! I just read up on that since I started getting off my booty last week.

What Kamak said is mostly right (though fruits are mostly carbs so they shouldn't be separate from them).

I kinda knew this was going to come up, and that's why I'll say the caveat to this is that most fruit consuption (at least in America) is done either as a dessert/snack or a breatfast item. You might have an apple to start off the day, but you're less likely to grab one when you're sitting down for dinner.

In this way, the fruit can do double duty in the beginning of the day, and since they almost always have only simple sugar, it's taken up quickly and burned, making it the ideal carb to jumpstart the day and the fat burning process.

Also, generally, consuming fat when you're trying to lose weight is somewhat better than consuming carbs (the exception is saturated or "solid" fats like lard and butter. Avoid overindulging in those).

The body is pre-disposed to grab carbs because there's a constant need for them. When it comes to fat, when you already have a good amount stockpiled, there's less focus to grab all of it. Recently accrued fat often seems to burn quickly aswell, though there's debate on why and how.

However, this doesn't mean overindulge in fat, but you're better off eating a bun-less burger than a lean turkey sandwich, because the carb intake is greater than the fat content of the meat.

why is the word m-o-n-e-y censored on the forum?

not really much of a taboo topic.

also because it's funny just like happy=pop flyin', ass=booty, damn=daisies

Yeah, all wordfilters are just there for fun, dun worry about it.

You can turn of the wordfilter easily as well. I haven't haven't had it enabled for months now.

Man, have you ever stopped thought about how weird it is that one of the biggest religions represents itself with a depiction of its patron saint suffering on a cross?

All religion is weird when you think about it objectively. Besides, the crucification was a defining moment.

Both the cross and the crucifixion are extremely important to Catholicism and Christianity.
I'm not sure how that can be considered weird.

I can kind of see why. The Christian church is not supposed to have any graven images of God. That was a fairly big thing if I recall, since people might forget the intent behind it and start worshiping the image instead.

This is the problem I have with Catholicism and Mary.