Dumb Diets: KETO

[RhyssaFireheart]

Fucking men. 

 


Related to what Chimpy said though - good gods, is sugar everywhere in our food once you start being conscious of it.  And learning to tolerate (I doubt I'll ever like it) drinking hot tea without sugar is freaking hard.

[Trippy]

Don't worry, most of us who have been drinking plain hot tea all of our lives don't really "like" it either.

[Nebu]

Related to what Chimpy said though - good gods, is sugar everywhere in our food once you start being conscious of it.  And learning to tolerate (I doubt I'll ever like it) drinking hot tea without sugar is freaking hard.

When I teach Biochemistry, I challenge my students to find a product in the center of a grocery store that doesn't contain something that chemically originates from corn.  The only way to safely avoid chemicals, sugar, and calories concentration is to make everything from scratch.  Meat, Dairy, and produce.  Avoid all of the pre-packaged shit.  

[schild]

Related to what Chimpy said though - good gods, is sugar everywhere in our food once you start being conscious of it.  And learning to tolerate (I doubt I'll ever like it) drinking hot tea without sugar is freaking hard.

When I teach Biochemistry, I challenge my students to find a product in the center of a grocery store that doesn't contain something that chemically originates from corn.  The only way to safely avoid chemicals, sugar, and calories concentration is to make everything from scratch.  Meat, Dairy, and produce.  Avoid all of the pre-packaged shit.   

As a note, this is basically, at its core, what Keto is. Meat, dairy, and produce. It just emphasizes fat over protein. Which means every meal doesn't taste like utter horseshit.

[apocrypha]

Fucking men. 

Is apparently not nearly as good at burning excess calories as people would have you believe, no matter how energetic you are about it.

[RhyssaFireheart]

Fucking men. 

Is apparently not nearly as good at burning excess calories as people would have you believe, no matter how energetic you are about it.

LOL!  Okay, that was a good comeback.

The husband does the majority of the cooking around the house (actually, pretty much all of it) but I really, really need to push him to start with veggies as a base for dinners and then add some meat, not the other way around.  That's if he even makes a veggie.  *sigh*

[schild]

If only there was a veggie that actually tasted good before you added a bunch of shit to it.

[lamaros]

There is, you just can't taste it as you have saturated your taste for a long time with lots of sugar and salt and etc.

I grew up without being allowed to have processed white sugars pretty much ever (along with a bunch of other stuff, some good some bad). To this day I feel sick or do not enjoy many processed foods or other things that others do, simply because they are too sweet, strong, or rich for me.

I enjoy eating broccoli just steamed with a small amount of salt or balsamic vinegar, or just by itself. I like eating carrots raw, etc.

Lots of things taste good and have good flavours, but it you are accustomed to everything being sweetened and flavoured to death you can't notice it.

I've only been to a few places in America, but even there I've noticed that your general level of processed foods are worse than they are in Australia, which is already too much.

Go on a proper diet, change your life. Take diet to mean "what you eat", not "what you eat temporarily before going back to the usual" and eat whole foods, vegetables, lightly processed grains, and moderate amounts of meat, with a balance of seafood.

You will change, not only in regard to your physical shape and feeling, but your taste, idea of what food is and should be, and your wholistic relationship with 'self'.

[angry.bob]

There is, you just can't taste it as you have saturated your taste for a long time with lots of sugar and salt and etc.

I grew up without being allowed to have processed white sugars pretty much ever (along with a bunch of other stuff, some good some bad). To this day I feel sick or do not enjoy many processed foods or other things that others do, simply because they are too sweet, strong, or rich for me.

I enjoy eating broccoli just steamed with a small amount of salt or balsamic vinegar, or just by itself. I like eating carrots raw, etc.

Lots of things taste good and have good flavours, but it you are accustomed to everything being sweetened and flavoured to death you can't notice it.

I've only been to a few places in America, but even there I've noticed that your general level of processed foods are worse than they are in Australia, which is already too much.

Go on a proper diet, change your life. Take diet to mean "what you eat", not "what you eat temporarily before going back to the usual" and eat whole foods, vegetables, lightly processed grains, and moderate amounts of meat, with a balance of seafood.

You will change, not only in regard to your physical shape and feeling, but your taste, idea of what food is and should be, and your wholistic relationship with 'self'.

[angry.bob]

It pains me to agree with Lamaros, but that was what I was going to say in a less fruity way. I stopped using any added sugar or salt and stopped eating highly processed foods a while ago. After a couple of months if I tried anything sugary or salty I was disappointed and lost my appetite over how vulgar it tasted. Also, individual food items that previously tasted bland start to develop very distinct, pleasant flavors. Especially vegetables. By comparison, something like a candy bar will make you wonder why you wasted your money on it.

[Pennilenko]

On the subject of veggies, our first instinct is to roast them with a bit of olive oil and salt. Even our four year old loves his veggies.

[Bunk]

Stopped at a grocery store with a friend to grab something to eat on the way to game night. He starts walking down the chip aisle so I jokingly told him to buy a gross flavour so it won't tempt me.
He bought some Lays "Slider" flavoured chips. I tried one. I appreciated his effort, as they were truly gross. Tasted like a random mixing of condiments.

Over the last few months I've pretty much eliminated the worst of the junk food from my diet, and it doesn't really bother me. Still let myself have the odd bit of candy if someone brings it out, or grab an icecream if I'm out somewhere on a hot day - but I don't find myself craving those sweets the way I used to. Let myself have McDonalds fries every couple of weeks, and it satisfies the urge.

I don't think I could take Bob's approach -- I'm using salty in a lot of cases to replace the sweet urge. I can't imagine cooking without salt. Grilled veggies with olive oil, salt and pepper.

For those who mentioned tea earlier - you can get used to it without sugar. I've been drinking coffee an tea unsweetened for 30 years. If someone stirs my coffee with a spoon that stirred a sweetened one earlier I can taste it and it's gross.

Just weighed myself now - 13 pounds in 4 months. Yay me.

[KallDrexx]

Stopped at a grocery store with a friend to grab something to eat on the way to game night. He starts walking down the chip aisle so I jokingly told him to buy a gross flavour so it won't tempt me.
He bought some Lays "Slider" flavoured chips. I tried one. I appreciated his effort, as they were truly gross. Tasted like a random mixing of condiments.

[Cyrrex]

Probably a few days late, but as Nebu says, diets do not work...because the whole idea of a diet is that it is a temporary thing.  People think they can just do it for X number of months, and then do some "maintenance", which usually means going back and doing the same shit as before.  Lifestyle change is what works, not diets.  Your entire relationship to food has to change at least a little bit, but that is just the start.

But even if you have more willpower than average, you are still likely going to put it all back on.  Why?  Because of math.  You got fat because you eat 3000 calories (or whatever) a day.  So let's say 3000 is your magical "maintenance" number on Day 0.  You go on a sensible diet that gets you eating 2500 a week and maybe even doing a bunch of cardio.  When you do this, regardless of your actual numbers, a big chunk of what you are losing is actually muscle mass, together with the fat and water mass.  Your diet is eating it away, and so is your cardio.  After some time, you have lost a nice amount of weight, but you start to plateau.  Because now your magic number is not 3000, it is 2500, because you have dropped a LOT of lean muscle mass.  Fat people have tons (hah) of lean muscle mass.  But you're still a fatty, so you have to drop down to 2000 a week in order to keep progressing.  Now we are getting somewhere, right?  Eventually you get down to 2000 as your magic number, but because you have killed off so much muscle you are probably still fat and are at another plateau.  Maybe you drop down to 1600 for a while, and boy oh boy is this getting tough...that is half of the caloric intake of where you started, after all.  Finally, one day you hit your ideal weight, and you did it at that super low calorie diet and all the cardio where you killed all your lean mass.  But you look good, sorta, and it only took a year!  Yay!

So here's the problem.  You now have a skinny ass frame that only takes about 1700 to 1800 to support (again, the actual numbers do not matter).  But your diet is over, and now you are going to "maintain".  Let's be generous and say you don't go back to 3000 a day where you started, because now you are being sensible.  Maybe 2500, and hell, maybe you'll do a little cardio.  That is how you gain it back.  You have not built a body that can support the calories you are going to give it, and you will soon be right back where you were.  Sometimes, you make it even worse, because you will often end up putting back fat at a higher rate than you lost it (compared to muscle mass).  And then you despair and go right back to 3000 calories, because fuck it.

There is nothing mysterious about this process. 

 

[schild]

k, still gonna diet

[Trippy]

That's fine except you've stacked the already poor odds against yourself by going on a fad diet, which are by design extremely difficult to stay on long-term, instead of eating a diet that you can sustain for the long-term.

[schild]

Poor odds is a lifestyle choice, says the guy selling e-juice.

[Trippy]

True, true.

[Goreschach]

In the long run, everyone's odds are zero.

If you really just want to eat whatever, I'd recommend the squats and milk diet. You'd be surprised just how much you can get away with if you spend half an hour doing heavy weightlifting around five or so times a week.

[Cyrrex]

Yeah, that's me.  I lift four days a week for about an hour and a half, and can eat pretty much whatever.  It is both easier and more comfortable than a diet/cardio regimen (well, maybe not initially), you definitely look better as well.  People talk about raising their metabolism, but rarely do they understand what it really means.  Going on most diets means lowering your metabolism, which is almost the entire reason they do not work.

[Sky]

People who diet tend to take the elevator.

[Trippy]

Which is fine cause exercise has proven to be a poor way to lose weight.

[Nebu]

Which is fine cause exercise has proven to be a poor way to lose weight.

What?

I'll agree that aerobic exercise is a poor way to lose weight.  Weight training, however, is among the best ways to boost your metabolism.

[Trippy]

But boosting your metabolism is constrained. I.e. your body adapts to the increased activity:

http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(15)01577-8

At a macro level there are 4 things that are working against people trying to lose weight through exercise:

* They increase their caloric intake more than their exercising is burning

* They reduce their other physical activity during the day

* They adopt a "healthier" lifestyle (like cutting down on junk food) which is actually the source of the weight loss

* Their bodies adapt to the increased physical activity so the benefits plateau

Which is not to say you can't lose significant amounts weight by exercising alone (just like you can lose weight by dieting). I did it in High School when I took up running and joined the cross-country and track teams and my sister did it by becoming a competitive runner after college despite having (and continues to have) a horrible horrible diet. However at a population level increased physical activity tends to at best lead to a very modest amount of weight loss. Which is also not to say you shouldn't be exercising more cause the health benefits are there independent of any weight loss.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/5939896_Weight-Loss_Outcomes_A_Systematic_Review_and_Meta-Analysis_of_Weight-Loss_Clinical_Trials_with_a_Minimum_1-Year_Follow-Up

http://www.theptdc.com/2014/09/is-exercise-for-weight-loss-really-effective/

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/jan/28/study-reveals-that-exercise-alone-wont-cause-weight-loss?CMP=share_btn_tw

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/28/health/weight-loss-exercise-plateau/

[Nebu]

It's very simple:  If calories in < calories burned; you lose weight. 

Weight training increases calories burned most efficiently.  You still have to watch your macros, but weight training allows for a larger margin of error. 

Working out is worthless if you don't also monitor your diet.  Raising your BMR followed by eating more is a silly thing to do if your goal is to lose weight.  This is simple math.

[lamaros]

Not to mention that simply being fitter has its own value.

[Cyrrex]

I don't really want to go through those attached studies to verify it, but I'd wager that they are using the word "exercise" fairly loosely, and for most people this means light to medium cardio activity.  In which case, I would agree with the conclusion that it is not very effective.  Nothing new about that.  But again, resistance training lets you keep and/or add lean muscle mass, and that categorically WILL be effective in the long run.  Upgrading your engine will require more fuel to run it. 

But there's a big problem.  To be blunt...I have spent thousands of hours in what you would call normal family type gyms over the last many years, and most people (90%+) are simply doing it wrong.  Half the people are doing stuff that isn't remotely effective in the first place.  Most of the other half are sorta doing the right things, but not remotely with the required intensity.  As in, not even close.  People love to make excuses to themselves for why they can't or won't do certain things, from having bad knees, bad backs, not wanting to look too bulky, not having time, etc.  Most of it is nonsense.  It isn't terribly surprising that they accomplish very little. 

Goreschach said milk and squats.  I'll go one further.  Show me someone who can correctly squat their bodyweight 10 times (let's say 90% BW for a female), and I will show you someone who is in good shape and probably looks pretty damn good too.  One simple goal to solve all your weight related problems, and it is totally achievable.

[Nebu]

But there's a big problem.  To be blunt...I have spent thousands of hours in what you would call normal family type gyms over the last many years, and most people (90%+) are simply doing it wrong.  Half the people are doing stuff that isn't remotely effective in the first place.  Most of the other half are sorta doing the right things, but not remotely with the required intensity.  As in, not even close.  People love to make excuses to themselves for why they can't or won't do certain things, from having bad knees, bad backs, not wanting to look too bulky, not having time, etc.  Most of it is nonsense.  It isn't terribly surprising that they accomplish very little. 

I agree completely.  I laugh every time I see someone on an exercise bike or a treadmill reading. 

[KallDrexx]

It's very simple:  If calories in < calories burned; you lose weight.  

Weight training increases calories burned most efficiently.  You still have to watch your macros, but weight training allows for a larger margin of error.  

Working out is worthless if you don't also monitor your diet.  Raising your BMR followed by eating more is a silly thing to do if your goal is to lose weight.  This is simple math.

I really hate when people say this, because while at a very very very very very high level sure it's that "simple".  In reality it's not very simple at all.  It's analogous to someone complaining that they are poor and and you replying "just make more money".

How well your metabolism works is MUCH more complex than that simple formula and it heavily depends on what you eat, how often you eat, how often you expend energy, what ways you expend energy, how often you change the ways in which you expend energy, your sleep schedule, the temperature of your environment (some studies show that being cold burns more calories),  genetics / DNA, etc....  

There have also been studies that show that once you get fat many things are working against you from that point on.  For example, one thing I read a long time ago was how when you lose fat you aren't losing the fat cells themselves but the contents stored inside, which means that once you start getting things out of balance again those fat cells quickly refill.  It's a lot easier for the body to refill existing fat cells than to create new fat cells to store contents.

Which is why I get annoyed at some of the skinny people I know because they eat more than me, they eat shittier than me, they exercise less than me, and somehow I'm the overweight one

[Nebu]

I really hate when people say this, because while at a very very very very very high level sure it's that "simple".  In reality it's not very simple at all.  It's analogous to someone complaining that they are poor and and you replying "just make more money".

I'm happy to discuss endochrine effects, genetics, diet, etc.  They are among my favorite topics.  All of those things determine your BMR.  Losing weight still boils down to determining your BMR in Cal and then eating less/exercising more.  The factors you mention really revolve around caloric use and metabolic demand.  Yes, they are complex and not the same for everyone.  I completely agree.

[Signe]

I don't even know what a fucking body squat is let alone how to do it.  I refuse to look up something called a body squat, too, in case it's a trap.

[Goreschach]

Really? You must spend all your time working on your snatch.

[schild]

3/10

[Strazos]

Are we really going to argue with the PhD on this one?

[Nebu]

Are we really going to argue with the PhD on this one?

You should.  Having a PhD doesn't mean that I'm always right.  I enjoy the discussion.