Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

Trying to Eat Better - Getting Fatter

2456

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,013 ✭✭✭generic2012


    Bruno26 wrote: »
    Read it before. I believe Taubes. I'd read it again but I was busy doing weights for golf (have you seen woods/mcilroy) (casual golfer now I've finished with competitive ball games) and reading about unicorns 😄

    But that article shows his flawed logic and outright lies. How can you 'believe' him? You're attracted to a charismatic persona, so you attach yourself to their theories. You should separate the two. We are not trying to get you to dislike these men, we're talking about their theories.

    Just say why you think the theory is correct and the other is wrong, nothing about the men.

    Sarcasm and bad jokes are still just avoiding confronting the issue, a sign of cluelessness on the issue.

    There are many things I am clueless about but because I am sane I don't preach to other people about them.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 979 ✭✭✭Bruno26



    There are many things I am clueless about but because I am sane I don't preach to other people about them.

    Indeed there are. Are we you implying I am insane?

    Saying you are a golf player or talking about unicorns have zero to do with topic. Stop trying to create an argument with sly digs.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,013 ✭✭✭generic2012


    Bruno26 wrote: »
    Indeed there are. Are we you implying I am insane?

    Saying you are a golf player or talking about unicorns have zero to do with topic. Stop trying to create an argument with sly digs.

    Talking about unicorns was to highlight that fact that once you make proposing claims without evidence acceptable, you are allowing claims about unicorns, and other things that don't happen in reality, the be part of argument. I just think that stuff that is not proven to exist should be left out of the debate.
    Bruno26 wrote: »
    Majority say check calories. I say count grams of carbohydrate initially (under 150 g daily) and eat as much real food as satisfies your appetite.

    Again, it's not about who thinks what or how many thinks what. It's what is true that matters.

    Saying that counting carbohydrates (a noakesesque turn-around for you!) and then eating as much as want will prevent you from gaining weight is not based in evidence at all. And the fact that you won't even debate your views just makes anything you say redundant.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 979 ✭✭✭Bruno26


    Talking about unicorns was to highlight that fact that once you make proposing claims without evidence acceptable, you are allowing claims about unicorns, and other things that don't happen in reality, the be part of argument. I just think that stuff that is not proven to exist should be left out of the debate.



    Again, it's not about who thinks what or how many thinks what. It's what is true that matters.

    Saying that counting carbohydrates (a noakesesque turn-around for you!) and then eating as much as want will prevent you from gaining weight is not based in evidence at all. And the fact that you won't even debate your views just makes anything you say redundant.

    You see everything I say is true. How do I know this? I know because this is what I've been doing for 12-24 months (science backed or not). If I was in this forum 4 years ago and read similar stuff to what I write, I would think the poster was insane! I would think fat is bad, carbs are good, the best breakfast was cereal etc.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,013 ✭✭✭generic2012


    Bruno26 wrote: »
    You see everything I say is true. How do I know this? I know because this is what I've been doing for 12-24 months (science backed or not). If I was in this forum 4 years ago and read similar stuff to what I write, I would think the poster was insane! I would think fat is bad, carbs are good, the best breakfast was cereal etc.

    You're not eating excess calories. Simple as. You're high fat diet satiates you, so you don't eat over calories. Nothing magic, just maths.

    You're claiming that you and anyone can eat excess calories and not gain weight. Then in the next sentence you say you don't count calories. So how can you say you eat excess calories if you don't even know how much you're eating?

    What do you say to the argument that you are actually full from the high fat diet before you can eat excess calories and by this token you don't gain weight? And that the same is true for diets high in high satiating carbs too?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 979 ✭✭✭Bruno26


    You're not eating excess calories. Simple as. You're high fat diet satiates you, so you don't eat over calories. Nothing magic, just maths.

    You're claiming that you and anyone can eat excess calories and not gain weight. Then in the next sentence you say you don't count calories. So how can you say you eat excess calories if you don't even know how much you're eating?

    What do you say to the argument that you are actually full from the high fat diet before you can eat excess calories and by this token you don't gain weight? And that the same is true for diets high in high satiating carbs too?

    I am. Days I eat in or around 4000-4500 (I know from using myfitnessapp) . Weights 2/3 times a week. Carbs aren't satiating.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,435 ✭✭✭ixus


    I'm sure your bickering is of great use to the OP.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,013 ✭✭✭generic2012


    ixus wrote: »
    I'm sure your bickering is of great use to the OP.

    Getting truthful information out there and getting rid of bull, fairy tale nutrition would help everyone.

    So you don't think that dissuading someone who promotes a high fat diet 4,000 - 4,500 calorie high fat diet, which is very very dangerous is a good idea? It is common and medical knowledge that nearly doubling your daily calorie requirements and getting as much as possible of them from fat is lethal in the long run. High fat diets on and below maintenance I could handle but would like to debate.

    If it wasn't so cruel that this dangerous disinformation arising from zealotry and the maniacal fervour by which this indoctrination is spouted is allowed on a Health & Fitness forum.

    It absolutely sickens me that people who come to this forum for advice can often leave it being worse off than when they came.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 979 ✭✭✭Bruno26


    Getting truthful information out there and getting rid of bull, fairy tale nutrition would help everyone.

    So you don't think that dissuading someone who promotes a high fat diet 4,000 - 4,500 calorie high fat diet, which is very very dangerous is a good idea? It is common and medical knowledge that nearly doubling your daily calorie requirements and getting as much as possible of them from fat is lethal in the long run. High fat diets on and below maintenance I could handle but would like to debate.

    If it wasn't so cruel that this dangerous disinformation arising from zealotry and the maniacal fervour by which this indoctrination is spouted is allowed on a Health & Fitness forum.

    It absolutely sickens me that people who come to this forum for advice can often leave it being worse off than when they came.

    Jeez you spout some rubbish. I'm not promoting that at all.

    I'm promoting they eat real food, while lowering intake of carbohydrate as their diet is carb heavy.

    Talk about the op not me!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,013 ✭✭✭generic2012


    Bruno26 wrote: »
    Jeez you spout some rubbish. I'm not promoting that at all.

    I'm promoting they eat real food, while lowering intake of carbohydrate as their diet is carb heavy.

    Talk about the op not me!

    And that if they reduce carbs below some arbitrary amount that they will lose weight no matter how much they eat?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 979 ✭✭✭Bruno26


    And that if they reduce carbs below some arbitrary amount that they will lose weight no matter how much they eat?

    For the op: Everything will take care of itself. The appetite will be self regulating controlled by the appestat. You will only eat when hungry and stop when full. You will no longer crave certain foods and you will never have to count calories or portion sizes. You will never have to be "on a diet" again. You will eat and enjoy food the way it's meant to be without punishing yourself and viewing foods as a number.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,013 ✭✭✭generic2012


    Bruno26 wrote: »
    For the op: Everything will take care of itself. The appetite will be self regulating controlled by the appestat. You will only eat when hungry and stop when full. You will no longer crave certain foods and you will never have to count calories or portion sizes. You will never have to be "on a diet" again. You will eat and enjoy food the way it's meant to be without punishing yourself and viewing foods as a number.

    For the op: Follow what's true, not what you wish was true.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 225 ✭✭HazelBee


    Bruno26 wrote: »
    For the op: Everything will take care of itself. The appetite will be self regulating controlled by the appestat. You will only eat when hungry and stop when full. You will no longer crave certain foods and you will never have to count calories or portion sizes. You will never have to be "on a diet" again. You will eat and enjoy food the way it's meant to be without punishing yourself and viewing foods as a number.



    Agreed. Clean eating real food without the 'processed' carbs absolutely works. No need to spend your life counting calories.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 979 ✭✭✭Bruno26


    Calorie counting began around the 1920s. Before this people ate as I've described above. Very few people were overweight before this. They ate real food and there was no fear of fat unlike the last 50 years. The popularity of calorie counting has coincided with the increase in processed carbohydrate based foods. Calorie counting along with processed food suits industry. It's worth billions yearly. Does it suit people? There has never been as many overweight people in the world as there is now. Ask yourself is calorie counting and a carbohydrate based diet working?


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 23,016 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    ixus wrote: »
    I'm sure your bickering is of great use to the OP.

    I 100% agree with this.

    To sum up:

    Eat less calories than you use(huge amount of scientific evidence behind this, not to mention basic thermodynamics.)

    Or

    Eat less that 150g of carbs a day and eat whatever you want.(Bruno does this and it works for him. Tim something or other invented this diet.)


    I'd be interested to see which works better for you OP.

    they/them/theirs


    The more you can increase fear of drugs and crime, welfare mothers, immigrants and aliens, the more you control all of the people.

    Noam Chomsky



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,013 ✭✭✭generic2012


    Bruno26 wrote: »
    Calorie counting began around the 1920s. Before this people ate as I've described above. Very few people were overweight before this. They ate real food and there was no fear of fat unlike the last 50 years. The popularity of calorie counting has coincided with the increase in processed carbohydrate based foods. Calorie counting along with processed food suits industry. It's worth billions yearly. Does it suit people? There has never been as many overweight people in the world as there is now. Ask yourself is calorie counting and a carbohydrate based diet working?

    That is very interdasting indeed. Also:

    kaBa96.png


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 979 ✭✭✭Bruno26


    Brian? wrote: »
    I 100% agree with this.

    To sum up:

    Eat less calories than you use(huge amount of scientific evidence behind this, not to mention basic thermodynamics.)

    Or

    Eat less that 150g of carbs a day and eat whatever you want.(Bruno does this and it works for him. Tim something or other invented this diet.)


    I'd be interested to see which works better for you OP.

    Nobody invented this diet. It's how people have eaten for thousands of years. It's just seen a resurgence in recent years.


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 23,016 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    Bruno26 wrote: »
    Calorie counting began around the 1920s. Before this people ate as I've described above. Very few people were overweight before this. They ate real food and there was no fear of fat unlike the last 50 years. The popularity of calorie counting has coincided with the increase in processed carbohydrate based foods. Calorie counting along with processed food suits industry. It's worth billions yearly. Does it suit people? There has never been as many overweight people in the world as there is now. Ask yourself is calorie counting and a carbohydrate based diet working?

    Not to be unkind, but this is nonsense. You've built a towering straw man so big it can be seen from space.

    Carbohydrate based foods did not only become popular after the 20s. They were always popular. In fact most poor people could not afford much protein, they subsisted on carbs; rice in Asia, wheat in most of Europe, corn in S America, corn and wheat in N America.

    I have no doubt the high % of processed carbs people eat in the "west" has a lot to do with obseity. But to blame calorie counting is nonsense of the highest order. Obseity has increased because people can afford more calories.

    they/them/theirs


    The more you can increase fear of drugs and crime, welfare mothers, immigrants and aliens, the more you control all of the people.

    Noam Chomsky



  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 23,016 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    Bruno26 wrote: »
    Nobody invented this diet. It's how people have eaten for thousands of years. It's just seen a resurgence in recent years.

    No, it's not how people have eaten for thousands of years. It's how some people ate and in fact some people still eat.

    For thousands of years people have eaten whatever they can to stay alive.

    they/them/theirs


    The more you can increase fear of drugs and crime, welfare mothers, immigrants and aliens, the more you control all of the people.

    Noam Chomsky



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,911 ✭✭✭✭ShadowHearth


    Brian? wrote: »
    I 100% agree with this.

    To sum up:

    Eat less calories than you use(huge amount of scientific evidence behind this, not to mention basic thermodynamics.)

    Or

    Eat less that 150g of carbs a day and eat whatever you want.(Bruno does this and it works for him. Tim something or other invented this diet.)


    I'd be interested to see which works better for you OP.

    The simple rule of eat less calories then you use really works. Throw in some sort of excersise on top of it and you are golden.
    It is really mind blowing how big of an industry "weight loss" is and the most normal and simplest way to actually loss weigh is just eat less and eat normal food.
    I found myself that cutting out on bread, pasta and potato helps a lot. When you dont eat those, you can really load on yummy veg!
    There are a lot of pitfalls though, some stuff is healthy and good for you, but people over load on it. Or Sometimes you think it should be healthy, but it can be really loaded with bad stuff. Something like dried fruit and nut mixes can be really BAD!


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 979 ✭✭✭Bruno26


    Brian? wrote: »
    Not to be unkind, but this is nonsense. You've built a towering straw man so big it can be seen from space.

    Carbohydrate based foods did not only become popular after the 20s. They were always popular. In fact most poor people could not afford much protein, they subsisted on carbs; rice in Asia, wheat in most of Europe, corn in S America, corn and wheat in N America.

    I have no doubt the high % of processed carbs people eat in the "west" has a lot to do with obseity. But to blame calorie counting is nonsense of the highest order. Obseity has increased because people can afford more calories.

    Be whatever you want! I'm talking about processed carbohydrate foods. That includes all grains by the way, I'm also talking about insulin resistant people who always struggle with weight. A lot of people are IR to different degrees. I didn't blame calorie counting. It doesn't work as a sustainable method for weight loss for insulin resistant people. Stop counting and the weight goes back on.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 979 ✭✭✭Bruno26


    Brian? wrote: »
    No, it's not how people have eaten for thousands of years. It's how some people ate and in fact some people still eat.

    Your confusing yourself here. You've disagreed but then agreed!


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 23,016 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    Bruno26 wrote: »
    Your confusing yourself here. You've disagreed but then agreed!

    No, I did not. You stated people ate a certain way for thousands of years, I took this to mean all people. Am I incorrect, that wasn't your meaning?

    they/them/theirs


    The more you can increase fear of drugs and crime, welfare mothers, immigrants and aliens, the more you control all of the people.

    Noam Chomsky



  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 23,016 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    Bruno26 wrote: »
    Be whatever you want! I'm talking about processed carbohydrate foods. That includes all grains by the way, I'm also talking about insulin resistant people who always struggle with weight. A lot of people are IR to different degrees. I didn't blame calorie counting. It doesn't work as a sustainable method for weight loss for insulin resistant people. Stop counting and the weight goes back on.

    So you agree calorie counting is a good way to lose weight and once discipline is maintained its a good way to keep the weight off?

    they/them/theirs


    The more you can increase fear of drugs and crime, welfare mothers, immigrants and aliens, the more you control all of the people.

    Noam Chomsky



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 979 ✭✭✭Bruno26


    Brian? wrote: »
    So you agree calorie counting is a good way to lose weight and once discipline is maintained its a good way to keep the weight off?

    No. I believe its the wrong way to do it. Choose the right foods in the first place instead of having to count calories.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 979 ✭✭✭Bruno26


    There is a very real connection between counting calories and processed food. For example Google images weight watchers ice cream.

    Processed food
    Calories on box
    Low fat.
    Made by a company that makes its money from overweight people counting calories.
    Eaten by overweight people trying to lose weight.
    There is a link between counting calories and processed food.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,013 ✭✭✭generic2012


    @Bruno26 You eventually gave a loose definition of 'real food', as 'unprocessed food' (itself a misnomer that warrants definition to be usable in any real sense in conversation), would you care to define insulin resistant? As in 'people who have an x level of y or over/under are insulin resistant and how many people are IR in the general population.

    Words with loose subjective means, such as the ones you choose to hide behind, can ruin conversations like these. I'm sure if yu gave some real definitions we would all realise how correct you actually are.

    Of course you could use the reliable sarcastic response that just avoids answering the question.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 979 ✭✭✭Bruno26


    @Bruno26 You eventually gave a loose definition of 'real food', as 'unprocessed food' (itself a misnomer that warrants definition to be usable in any real sense in conversation), would you care to define insulin resistant? As in 'people who have an x level of y or over/under are insulin resistant and how many people are IR in the general population.

    Words with loose subjective means, such as the ones you choose to hide behind, can ruin conversations like these. I'm sure if yu gave some real definitions we would all realise how correct you actually are.

    Of course you could use the reliable sarcastic response that just avoids answering the question.

    I explained it before. I'm surprised you aren't familiar with it. Check my history or a quick google search.

    http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/insulin-sensitivity-blast-fat-for-good.htm


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,013 ✭✭✭generic2012


    Bruno26 wrote: »
    I explained it before. I'm surprised you aren't familiar with it. Check my history or a quick google search.

    http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/insulin-sensitivity-blast-fat-for-good.htm

    You never explained it, you mentioned it, there's a big difference. I am familiar with insulin resistance, that's why I want you to give your definition of it, the way you talk about it doesn't logically follow from its true definition.

    Perhaps if you answered my question, just to show that you know what some of the words you are dropping mean rather than continuing to avoid it. Links to websites that sell things aren't regarded as reliable sources of information.


  • Advertisement
  • Subscribers Posts: 19,421 ✭✭✭✭Oryx


    Bruno26 wrote: »
    I explained it before. I'm surprised you aren't familiar with it. Check my history or a quick google search.

    http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/insulin-sensitivity-blast-fat-for-good.htm

    You've given this response a few times when challenged, and it is a lazy response. I'm actually going to pull rank here and insist as a mod, that if you explained something before, YOU find it in your post history and link back to it rather than telling others to.


Advertisement