|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Poltergeist
Joined: 03 Sep 2010
|
 Posted: Tue Dec 27, 2011 5:01 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Genetically modified diet? General Motors diet?
I'm not sure I want to know ...  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
tottenhamtaipeinick
Joined: 05 Sep 2010
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 27, 2011 7:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Cutting out carbs for a quick fix solution can have problems. Energy levels go down and the body will consume protein and other groups for energy. Not only that if you starve your body from carbs then the moment you consume just a small amount your body will hold on to that and store it as fat knowing to well it doesn�t get much. If you just cut down on the amount of simple carbs (sugar carbs) your body consumes in the long run you will tend to lose weight and the MOST IMPORTANT THING keep it off. No point slimming down to have your friends say 2 mths later you look round in the face.
If you suck at sticking to a diet like a lot of people these days thanks to parents bringing them up on crap and failures in the kitchen, I suggest you try to have soup with dinners and consume green tea to help metabolism and ease stress levels to stop you from over eating. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NYC_Gal 2.0
Joined: 10 Dec 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 27, 2011 9:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| tottenhamtaipeinick wrote: |
Cutting out carbs for a quick fix solution can have problems. Energy levels go down and the body will consume protein and other groups for energy. Not only that if you starve your body from carbs then the moment you consume just a small amount your body will hold on to that and store it as fat knowing to well it doesn�t get much. If you just cut down on the amount of simple carbs (sugar carbs) your body consumes in the long run you will tend to lose weight and the MOST IMPORTANT THING keep it off. No point slimming down to have your friends say 2 mths later you look round in the face.
If you suck at sticking to a diet like a lot of people these days thanks to parents bringing them up on crap and failures in the kitchen, I suggest you try to have soup with dinners and consume green tea to help metabolism and ease stress levels to stop you from over eating. |
This is very true. My dad's severely overweight, and he tries all of these quick fixes. He always gains it back and then some. Moderation is key. Cut down the processed carbs. Eat small portions of the good ones (VERY SMALL PORTIONS) to keep your body used to it so it doesn't go crazy if you have a few crackers at a holiday party, and eat plenty of high-fiber fruit and veg. Protein is very important, but don't go nuts like my dad did. I still can't stand the smell of bacon, after his failed attempt at Atkins years ago. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
12ax7
Joined: 07 Nov 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 29, 2011 2:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
I think we all can agree that the best diet is the one which has the best long term effects/one that you can stick to.
http://www.emaxhealth.com/1024/1/35892/low-fat-diet-better-low-carb-diet-long-run.html
Note the length of this study. After three years the low fat dieters were more successful at keeping the weight lost off while the low carb dieters were trending upwards again. That means a majority of the low carb dieters were gaining weight again. Yes people lost the weight the fastest with a low carb diet and in this society of instant gratification that's a plus and attracts many people. But it would seem that a low fat diet is better for KEEPING the pounds off and losing MORE.
Most articles that I've seen that promote the low carb diet trumpet the results of this study or that...but they only list the effects for six months or a year...this one (which was fairly recent 2010) might provide a clue why. |
It's no surprise. Dieting doesn't work.
(Dieting and following a healthy diet are two different thing.)
If someone's trying to lose weight, then that person needs to increase their energy output and control their energy input. Sitting on one's butt won't burn fat unless they starve themselves.
Eat healthy and stay active. It's that simple...But most people don't want to do that since it's too much of a change.
Yes, quick fixes don't work. If you want to lose more than a couple of pounds, you're in need of a major change in lifestyle. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
eamo
Joined: 08 Mar 2003
Location: Shepherd's Bush, 1964.
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 29, 2011 3:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm more inclined to believe that the diet our ancestors ate while evolving and adapting for about 2 million years is the one we should be eating rather than the one we developed less than 10,000 years ago.
The weight of time is on the side of the low-carb argument..........of course, if we keep on eating the modern processed high-carb foods we just might evolve to suit those in a million or so years!
The day our forefathers realized that they could harvest certain seeds and plant them to create more food than they needed may have been the beginnings of modern civilization, but it also kicked off the Age of the Fatty!!
As for studies into Low-carb Vs Low-fat diets.....well, one should never just post ONE study! That's not very representative, is it?
Diet studies are carried out in many different contexts, and by people with varied agendas.
This wiki page surmises over 20 studies and brings up a wide range of results...........
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_research_related_to_low-carbohydrate_diets |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Many of those studies were either poorly done (not adhering to proper procedure) or have caveats like "preliminary" attached to them.
Others support the high carb diet.
| Quote: |
Journal of the American College of Nutrition: 2002
Bowman et al., 2002[30] completed a survey study of 10,014 adults correlating carbohydrate intake to body mass index in addition to other measurements in the diet. The subjects surveyed had not necessarily been dieting per se. The authors concluded the following.
...diets high in carbohydrate were both energy restrictive and nutritious and may be adopted for successful weight management." |
| Quote: |
Reddy et al., 2002[29] studied ten subjects consuming a low-carbohydrate high-protein (LCHP) diet over six weeks. The patients were found to have substantially increased calcium loss compared to their conventional diet among other negative health indicators. The authors conclude the following.
Consumption of an LCHP diet for 6 weeks delivers a marked acid load to the kidney, increases the risk for stone formation, decreases estimated calcium balance, and may increase the risk for bone loss. |
| Quote: |
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2006
Johnston et al., 2006[49] completed a study of 20 subjects over a 6-week period comparing ketogenic low-carbohydrate diets (i.e. very low carbohydrate) and non-ketogenic low-carbohydrate diets (i.e. moderate carbohydrate). The authors of the paper concluded the following.
KLC and NLC diets were equally effective in reducing body weight and insulin resistance, but the KLC diet was associated with several adverse metabolic and emotional effects. The use of ketogenic diets for weight loss is not warranted.
This study suggests that ketosis has no real benefit and is potentially harmful in a diet regimen. |
And on and on it goes. And like I said before most studies that show improvement on a low carb-diet tend to be short term. Longer term studies like the one below and the one I posted above tend to show different results.
| Quote: |
Foster et al., 2003[32] performed a study with 63 obese subjects randomly assigned either to low-carbohydrate or conventional low-fat diets for one year. Their conclusion was the following.
The low-carbohydrate diet produced a greater weight loss (absolute difference, approximately 4 percent) than did the conventional diet for the first six months, but the differences were not significant at one year. |
(bolding mine) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
eamo
Joined: 08 Mar 2003
Location: Shepherd's Bush, 1964.
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So the 28 studies I linked were all poorly done or have caveats, but the one you link was done just right and is the one we should all believe?
Okay...... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| eamo wrote: |
So the 28 studies I linked were all poorly done or have caveats, but the one you link was done just right and is the one we should all believe?
Okay...... |
Except I never said they were "all" poorly done or have caveats. I also pointed out that some of these studies you linked to SUPPORT my position and that of the study I linked.
Nor did I say we should all believe my study or one study. I specifically quoted THREE studies from YOUR link which supported mine.
Please don't distort or fabricate what I said. It doesn't help your credibility when everyone can see what I said. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
eamo
Joined: 08 Mar 2003
Location: Shepherd's Bush, 1964.
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 29, 2011 5:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| eamo wrote: |
So the 28 studies I linked were all poorly done or have caveats, but the one you link was done just right and is the one we should all believe?
Okay...... |
Except I never said they were "all" poorly done or have caveats. I also pointed out that some of these studies you linked to SUPPORT my position and that of the study I linked.
Nor did I say we should all believe my study or one study. I specifically quoted THREE studies from YOUR link which supported mine.
Please don't distort or fabricate what I said. It doesn't help your credibility when everyone can see what I said. |
Yeah. As I said, the wiki page throws up a wide range of results. Which is where I think the scientific community is at right now regarding Low-carb diets. Most scientists in the field are saying more long-term studies need to be done.
What I was doing was highlighting the fact that we shouldn't just believe one study. Many studies need to be looked at to get a good view of a subject.
| Quote: |
| Nor did I say we should all believe my study |
You don't think we should all believe the study you posted? I'm confused. Doesn't that study come out with results that support what you believe? I don't think I'm distorting what you're saying....I think you're distorting what you're saying!
If you're going to post a link to support your argument then stick by it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 29, 2011 5:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| eamo wrote: |
[
You don't think we should all believe the study you posted? I'm confused. Doesn't that study come out with results that support what you believe? I don't think I'm distorting what you're saying....I think you're distorting what you're saying!
If you're going to post a link to support your argument then stick by it. |
As you pointed out it is only one study. I don't think people should (as in MUST) believe it...but if they are low-carb only, they should at least consider it. It's not so black and white as "carbs bad, fat good." After all fiber is a carb and nobody thinks THAT'S bad...
And the title of the thread IS "Myths spread by low carbers" not "Are low-carb or high carb diets better?"
I posted one link as an EXAMPLE of the dissenting view on low-carb diets.... I was NOT implying that it was the be-all and end-all of the discussion.
Food (sorry for the pun) for thought as it were. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adam Carolla
Joined: 26 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 29, 2011 8:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| eamo wrote: |
So the 28 studies I linked were all poorly done or have caveats, but the one you link was done just right and is the one we should all believe?
Okay...... |
Except I never said they were "all" poorly done or have caveats. |
Pedantic. It was clearly implied. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
12ax7
Joined: 07 Nov 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 30, 2011 8:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| eamo wrote: |
I'm more inclined to believe that the diet our ancestors ate while evolving and adapting for about 2 million years is the one we should be eating rather than the one we developed less than 10,000 years ago.
The weight of time is on the side of the low-carb argument..........of course, if we keep on eating the modern processed high-carb foods we just might evolve to suit those in a million or so years!
The day our forefathers realized that they could harvest certain seeds and plant them to create more food than they needed may have been the beginnings of modern civilization, but it also kicked off the Age of the Fatty!!
As for studies into Low-carb Vs Low-fat diets.....well, one should never just post ONE study! That's not very representative, is it?
Diet studies are carried out in many different contexts, and by people with varied agendas.
This wiki page surmises over 20 studies and brings up a wide range of results...........
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_research_related_to_low-carbohydrate_diets |
Well, yeah. Fruits, vegetables, and nuts should be the staple of any diet. Meat is fine in moderation. It's easier to gather than to hunt, and so it's safe to assume that our ancestors did, logically, more of the former than the latter. That's the kind of diet our are bodies adapted to consume. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 01, 2012 7:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Adam Carolla wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| eamo wrote: |
So the 28 studies I linked were all poorly done or have caveats, but the one you link was done just right and is the one we should all believe?
Okay...... |
Except I never said they were "all" poorly done or have caveats. |
Pedantic. It was clearly implied. |
Since I clearly cited THREE of the studies that Mr. eamo linked to as SUPPORTING the study I linked to...it was neither stated nor implied.
| Quote: |
I also pointed out that some of these studies you linked to SUPPORT my position and that of the study I linked.
Nor did I say we should all believe my study or one study. I specifically quoted THREE studies from YOUR link which supported mine. |
Why in the world would I imply that all these studies are flawed and then CITE THREE OF THEM AS EVIDENCE?
The logic in your world must be something special indeed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 01, 2012 7:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 12ax7 wrote: |
| eamo wrote: |
I'm more inclined to believe that the diet our ancestors ate while evolving and adapting for about 2 million years is the one we should be eating rather than the one we developed less than 10,000 years ago.
The weight of time is on the side of the low-carb argument..........of course, if we keep on eating the modern processed high-carb foods we just might evolve to suit those in a million or so years!
The day our forefathers realized that they could harvest certain seeds and plant them to create more food than they needed may have been the beginnings of modern civilization, but it also kicked off the Age of the Fatty!!
As for studies into Low-carb Vs Low-fat diets.....well, one should never just post ONE study! That's not very representative, is it?
Diet studies are carried out in many different contexts, and by people with varied agendas.
This wiki page surmises over 20 studies and brings up a wide range of results...........
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_research_related_to_low-carbohydrate_diets |
Well, yeah. Fruits, vegetables, and nuts should be the staple of any diet. Meat is fine in moderation. It's easier to gather than to hunt, and so it's safe to assume that our ancestors did, logically, more of the former than the latter. That's the kind of diet our are bodies adapted to consume. |
Re: its easier to gather than to hunt
The fruits, nuts, and even vegetables our ancestors ate were nowhere near what we eat today. We've selected the very largest crops from thousands of generations of harvests/fruitings, and so the fruits and nuts we eat today are massive. Certainly, we've selected domesticated animals the same way. But you can get a good sense of what wild game provided back then by looking at wild game today. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adam Carolla
Joined: 26 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 01, 2012 7:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Adam Carolla wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| eamo wrote: |
So the 28 studies I linked were all poorly done or have caveats, but the one you link was done just right and is the one we should all believe?
Okay...... |
Except I never said they were "all" poorly done or have caveats. |
Pedantic. It was clearly implied. |
Since I clearly cited THREE of the studies that Mr. eamo linked to as SUPPORTING the study I linked to...it was neither stated nor implied.
| Quote: |
I also pointed out that some of these studies you linked to SUPPORT my position and that of the study I linked.
Nor did I say we should all believe my study or one study. I specifically quoted THREE studies from YOUR link which supported mine. |
Why in the world would I imply that all these studies are flawed and then CITE THREE OF THEM AS EVIDENCE?
The logic in your world must be something special indeed. |
Let's check the record:
| Quote: |
Many of those studies were either poorly done (not adhering to proper procedure) or have caveats like "preliminary" attached to them.
Others support the high carb diet. |
So, the studies come in three flavors A) poorly done B) preliminary C) support the high carb diet.
And according to you, the low-carb studies all fall into the categories of A and B, and the high-carb studies fall into the category C, well, that pretty much adds up to all of them.
Let's put this another way, you claim that 89% of the studies (coincidentally the low-carb ones) posted were poorly done or preliminary.
BUT...magically the three you link are above reproach?
So, yes, I would say when you dismiss ALL the studies that support your opponent's position you are clearly making an implication. And honestly, the fact that you are even arguing over whether 100% or 89% really means "stated all" or "implied all" just proves how pedantic you are. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
