|
2002/12/07, 11:48 AM
An article I found that I think is interesting....
Low-fat diets have been preached by nutritionists and health officials for the past 20 years. It seems that every person in this country knows that dietary fat is “bad” and should be minimized to prevent unwanted weight gain. In fact, some research statistics show that Americans do eat less fat than they did 10 years ago. However, obesity rates continue to skyrocket at an alarming rate. So, even though we eat less fat, we keep getting fatter.
A group of Harvard researchers, headed by Dr. W.C. Willet, recently reviewed the research on low-fat diets and weight loss and they’ve come up with some surprising conclusions. In their report (published in Obesity Research 3:59-68, 2002) the scientists concluded that in the short term, people who go on low-fat diets do lose weight. However, in weight loss research that lasted at least one year, the amount of fat within the diet had little bearing on overall weight loss.
Dr Willet’s group recommended that while reducing fat is important (per gram it contains the most calories), it is the total amount of calories consumed on a daily basis that counts.
The bottom line regarding fat loss seems to be: consume slightly fewer calories than you burn (metabolize) each day and you will lose weight.
When you avoid all processed foods and fill your meals with only lean proteins and vegetables it becomes virtually impossible to consume excessive amounts of calories – its that simple.
Therefore you can eat a lot of nutritious (tasty) food while shedding body fat in the process. Unfortunately, not many people are willing to accept this simple, universal principle of fat loss. Too many look for a more complex approach that involves spending tons of money on weight loss programs, counseling, bogus diet pills, potions and stupid machines.
----------------------------
The only place success comes before work is in the dictionary!
|
|
|
|
2002/12/07, 12:57 PM
Just out of curiousity what does everyone think of the Atkin's diet? My mom is doing it and she loves it. She can eat as much as she wants and doesn't gain a pound... For those that don't know, Atkin's diet is mostly fat and protein - very few carbs. It seems strange to me, and I couldn't live without my carbs, but it seems to be working for her.
|
|
2002/12/07, 04:31 PM
Thats truth bb1fit.
I eat alot (very clean) and have to throw in mrp's just to get the calories up. If I didn't have the mrp's i would only be consuming about 1700 calories a day!
--------------
The trouble with jogging is that, by the time you realize you are not in shape for it, it is too far to walk back! Franklin P. Jones
Ivan Montreal Canada
|
|
2002/12/08, 01:28 AM
hey_yoda, much has been posted in the nutrition section about the atkins diet. It is not healthy for the long term. You can also go to yahoo.com and type in "atkins diet good" or atkins diet bad" to find all kinds of crap for both sides.
Bottom line, its an illogical diet, and as most people knwo that study nature, everything in nature is logical.
|
|
2002/12/09, 02:18 PM
Carivan,
I'm interested...what's your daily menu look like? Maybe it could help me out. Thanks.
============
Quoting from carivan:
Thats truth bb1fit.
I eat alot (very clean) and have to throw in mrp's just to get the calories up. If I didn't have the mrp's i would only be consuming about 1700 calories a day!
=============
--------------
What lies behind us and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us
----- William Morrow
|
|
2002/12/11, 05:25 PM
Actually there is very little or no long term data on an Atkins type diet. Any thing that claims poor long term health results is simply speculating, just like those that rail against high-protein diets.
The Atkins diet works - plain and simple. But keep in mind it works for what it is intended: losing fat. It is a very poor diet for an active person, particularly weightlifter and certainly endurance athletes (though they probably wouldn't need it anyway.) Think about it this way: Most of our carbs in the day come from grains - breads, rice, etc. These types of foods were not available until the advent of agriculture (not long ago on the life-on-earth timeline). Insulin responses tend to be high with grain products when compared to fruits and veggies with similar GI's. I've read articles that say this might indicate that our bodies haven't evolved to efficiently handle grains. Also, all grain products are processed in some way in the final product. This is not true of fruits and veggies. If you cut out all the grain products in your day, you're probably going to be much lower on carbs. Now, it makes sense that our bodies were designed to live off meats, fruits and veggies. Fruits and veggies, though they're primarily carbs are mostly water and don't carry a lot of calories (read g of carbs) for their weight and size. So taking that into account, the Atkins diet starts to make a lot more sense and suddenly becomes logical.
Most prevailing reseach has gone against opponents of the Atkins diet. The more studies that come out, the more it shows that it works. There was a time when nutrition 'experts' tried to tell us that fat was bad for us and that steroids didn't work. It is these same people that argue against the Atkins diet.
That being said, would I ever use it? No. It doesn't suit my goals. However, if someone is interested in losing weight the 'easy' way (no working out) and not concerned with muscle or tone, it works.
--------------
"Don't follow leaders and watch your parking meters!"
-- Bob Dylan
|
|
2002/12/27, 04:56 PM
u need fat to burn fat :)
--------------
(¯`·.¸¸.·´¯The trouble with life is there’s no background music¯`·.¸¸.·´¯)
(¯`·.¸¸.·´¯Some people are alive only because it’s illegal to kill them¯`·.¸¸.·´¯)
(¯`·.¸¸.·´¯God must love stupid people, he made so many of them¯`·.¸¸.·´¯)
(¯`·.¸¸.·´¯Life ain't short, your just dead for too frick'n dam long!`·.¸¸.·´¯)
(¯`·.¸¸They know what is what, but they don't know what is what, they just strut,WTF!¸.·´¯)
|
