Diets

Discuss anything interesting but not remotely Countdown-related here.

Moderator: Jon O'Neill

Post Reply
User avatar
Jon O'Neill
Ginger Ninja
Posts: 4145
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:45 am
Location: London, UK

Diets

Post by Jon O'Neill » Mon Apr 11, 2011 3:27 pm

I guess this ties in with the Holiday thread somewhat, as I'm dieting/exercising ahead of my holiday next month. I've been reading a lot about eating, exercise, calories, carbs, micros, macros, glucose, glycogen and all that stuff, and it's pretty interesting that a lot of the fundamental things I knew about diet seem to be completely wrong. So let's discuss all that.

My current diet is based on eating less and doing more, which is probably the best way to lose fat. In particular, I'm limiting myself to 1800 cals a day and avoiding pretty much all carbs that you'd find in stuff like white bread, crisps, pasta and the like, and trying to replace them with protein like tuna and steak so that I can get the most value out of my 2-month gym subscription. At the gym I'm doing weights only, no cardio.

Basically I've been doing this for a week, and I haven't had a poo the whole time.*

So what's your diet (even if you're not "on") and exercise (even if you don't "do" any) like?

* Slight exaggeration.

User avatar
Matt Morrison
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 7345
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 2:27 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Diets

Post by Matt Morrison » Mon Apr 11, 2011 4:19 pm

WHat the fuck? You're the skinniest ginger here apart from Ryan, why are you trying to lose weight? (seriously)
unless you've got fat in the last couple of months, which I doubt.

Ryan Taylor
Postmaster General
Posts: 3662
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2009 6:18 pm

Re: Diets

Post by Ryan Taylor » Mon Apr 11, 2011 4:29 pm

Matt Morrison wrote:WHat the fuck? You're the skinniest ginger here apart from Ryan
Very true. I actually lost some weight when I had the old tonsilitis the first time round and didn't eat for three days. My 32 inch waist jeans were too big for me!

My diet is poor, like pretty bad and I always mean to sort of look at it and improve my diet but I think it's just the effort in doing so that mans I never do. I would like to get to a point were I wasn't gaining or losing weight but just eating helathy, like eliminating chocolate/sugary snacks (which I eat many of throughout a day).

Current diet is eating a bowl of cereal for breakfast then not really having any lunch (I just snack on toast, biscuits, crisps and drink tea) then I try have a main meal on the night. This is often something with chips or simply just a large pizza. I've started to buy fruit every now anad again but sometimes I just forget to buy it and then when I feel twinges down the left side of my chest I think to myself that it's probably time to buy fruit again.

So, bit of a shit answer from me since I don't have a strict diet and I won't ever be concerned with trying to make my body look good like you Jono since a) it won't ever look good and b) I don't have much self-respect. I should have got my brother to reply to this thread since he was as skinny as me about 18 months ago but now he has bulked out mainly due to protein shakes, large carb and protein meals regularly throughout the day and doing weights. Are you just trying to lose weight or are you attempting to become like muscly and masculine? Like Matt says, you don't need to lose weight you eejit!!

User avatar
Kai Laddiman
Fanatic
Posts: 2314
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2008 3:37 pm
Location: My bedroom

Re: Diets

Post by Kai Laddiman » Mon Apr 11, 2011 4:46 pm

Matt Morrison wrote:You're the skinniest ginger here apart from Ryan
:(
16/10/2007 - Episode 4460
Dinos Sfyris 76 - 78 Dorian Lidell
Proof that even idiots can get well and truly mainwheeled.

User avatar
Jon O'Neill
Ginger Ninja
Posts: 4145
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:45 am
Location: London, UK

Re: Diets

Post by Jon O'Neill » Mon Apr 11, 2011 8:03 pm

No not losing weight, replacing fat with muscle innit. Weight is fine. I'm guessing Brother Taylor did something similar but with loads of fat and protein to bulk up. I can't imagine a situation where I have to force myself to eat, I just love eating. I will almost certainly be obese when I'm 50. My parents are fat, and all my grandparents, but they were all skinny as when they were young.

User avatar
Jon O'Neill
Ginger Ninja
Posts: 4145
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:45 am
Location: London, UK

Re: Diets

Post by Jon O'Neill » Mon Apr 11, 2011 8:04 pm

Ryan Taylor wrote:This is often something with chips or simply just a large pizza. I've started to buy fruit every now anad again but sometimes I just forget to buy it and then when I feel twinges down the left side of my chest I think to myself that it's probably time to buy fruit again.
This will not end well.

Actually that's a joke. For example, this guy seemed to improve his health by eating food that you'd think would absolutely destroy his body.

User avatar
Charlie Reams
Site Admin
Posts: 9377
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
Location: Cambridge
Contact:

Re: Diets

Post by Charlie Reams » Mon Apr 11, 2011 8:32 pm

Jon O'Neill wrote:
Ryan Taylor wrote:This is often something with chips or simply just a large pizza. I've started to buy fruit every now anad again but sometimes I just forget to buy it and then when I feel twinges down the left side of my chest I think to myself that it's probably time to buy fruit again.
This will not end well.

Actually that's a joke. For example, this guy seemed to improve his health by eating food that you'd think would absolutely destroy his body.
Seems like a weird experiment. Obviously if you eat less energy than you burn then you lose weight, that's basic thermodynamics. But the effect on his health is totally clouded by the fact that he was taking a multivitamin, eating vegetables and drinking protein shakes.

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 8233
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Diets

Post by Gavin Chipper » Mon Apr 11, 2011 8:36 pm

Jono, is this all about posing on the beach?

User avatar
Jon O'Neill
Ginger Ninja
Posts: 4145
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:45 am
Location: London, UK

Re: Diets

Post by Jon O'Neill » Mon Apr 11, 2011 9:30 pm

Charlie Reams wrote:
Jon O'Neill wrote:
Ryan Taylor wrote:This is often something with chips or simply just a large pizza. I've started to buy fruit every now anad again but sometimes I just forget to buy it and then when I feel twinges down the left side of my chest I think to myself that it's probably time to buy fruit again.
This will not end well.

Actually that's a joke. For example, this guy seemed to improve his health by eating food that you'd think would absolutely destroy his body.
Seems like a weird experiment. Obviously if you eat less energy than you burn then you lose weight, that's basic thermodynamics. But the effect on his health is totally clouded by the fact that he was taking a multivitamin, eating vegetables and drinking protein shakes.
Thing is, it flies in the face of the anti-fat doctrine of dieticians for years, which is that fat is bad. So people go around eating loads of high-cal high-carb low-fat stuff thinking they can lose weight but they can't.
Gavin Chipper wrote:Jono, is this all about posing on the beach?
Pretty much.

User avatar
Brian Moore
Devotee
Posts: 582
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2009 6:11 pm
Location: Exeter

Re: Diets

Post by Brian Moore » Mon Apr 11, 2011 10:20 pm

Jon O'Neill wrote:Thing is, it flies in the face of the anti-fat doctrine of dieticians for years, which is that fat is bad. So people go around eating loads of high-cal high-carb low-fat stuff thinking they can lose weight but they can't.
I seem to remember Ranulph Fiennes & Mike Stroud survived on a diet of sugar and butter on their unaided attempt to get to the South Pole - and like the above experiment ended up with better indicators of health (cholesterol etc.) than when they started, because of the enormous amounts of energy they were expending. (They chose the diet for its energy density.)

My own diet is pretty unhealthy at times (too much chocolate & processed foods), but I do loads of exercise, as I don't think I could bear to be fat, but do enjoy eating lots. And lots.

User avatar
Charlie Reams
Site Admin
Posts: 9377
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
Location: Cambridge
Contact:

Re: Diets

Post by Charlie Reams » Mon Apr 11, 2011 10:31 pm

Jon O'Neill wrote:Thing is, it flies in the face of the anti-fat doctrine of dieticians for years, which is that fat is bad. So people go around eating loads of high-cal high-carb low-fat stuff thinking they can lose weight but they can't.
Really? I've never heard of that, but then I don't really follow this stuff all that closely.

User avatar
Jon O'Neill
Ginger Ninja
Posts: 4145
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:45 am
Location: London, UK

Re: Diets

Post by Jon O'Neill » Mon Apr 11, 2011 11:25 pm

Without actually thinking about it, that's what.I've always thought. Fat makes you fat. Clue's in the name. Another indicator is how fat and saturated fat are.on the colour wheel thing on.most foods. But.not carbohydrate?

Look around the shelves in a supermarket and it will all say 'low fat'. Weird that you don't see it.

User avatar
Lesley Hines
Kiloposter
Posts: 1250
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 9:29 pm
Location: Worcester

Re: Diets

Post by Lesley Hines » Tue Apr 12, 2011 12:04 am

Jon O'Neill wrote:Without actually thinking about it, that's what.I've always thought. Fat makes you fat. Clue's in the name. Another indicator is how fat and saturated fat are.on the colour wheel thing on.most foods. But.not carbohydrate?

Look around the shelves in a supermarket and it will all say 'low fat'. Weird that you don't see it.
Sugars = carbohydrate.

Not all fats are bad; you need them for warmth, storage of vitamins A, D, E, and K, protection of vital organs like your kidneys (e.g. suet), and other good stuff. The bad fats tend to be the artificially produced ones like trans fats. Coconuts (for example) get a really bad press as they're quite high in saturated fat but it's the same type of fat produced in human breast milk, and isn't the type of stuff that'll clog up your arteries. Similar with dairy, although some won't and some will, depending on the production process.

Cholesterol's produced from saturated fats (the bad sort, not the nice friendly sort that you need as an essential part of your diet) rather than being the baddie that erroneously stops people eating eggs.

Low fat food's often complete garbage - there're so many additives in there to make it taste half decent and it's often rammed with sugar and sweeteners.

Loads of additives in food are the baddies - stuff like glucose-fructose syrup that the body doesn't know what to with so converts it into fat (NB only one example). The problem with stuff like that is it's almost impossible to prove what effect they're having on the obesity epidemic as it's always such a combined effect. It's not hard to work out though that if you have lots of sweeteners your body doesn't need for immediate effect it's gonna store the rest until it does for a time of famine. There's also loads of interesting stuff about the evolutionary advantage people with diabetes have as their genetic insulin-resistance (only recently surfaced as times have allowed them to become obese) have allowed them to better survive times of famine.

Eat your five a day as a minimum starting point and everything else in moderation and you won't go too far wrong :)
Lowering the averages since 2009

User avatar
Charlie Reams
Site Admin
Posts: 9377
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
Location: Cambridge
Contact:

Re: Diets

Post by Charlie Reams » Tue Apr 12, 2011 12:36 am

Jon O'Neill wrote:Without actually thinking about it, that's what.I've always thought. Fat makes you fat. Clue's in the name. Another indicator is how fat and saturated fat are.on the colour wheel thing on.most foods. But.not carbohydrate?

Look around the shelves in a supermarket and it will all say 'low fat'. Weird that you don't see it.
I've never heard any dietician say that high calories is fine provided it's all carbs and no fat. The colour wheel in Sainsbury's (the only one I have to hand) shows calories, which wraps up carbs and fats into one easily digestible (ha ha!) number.

(I don't really have any point to make, I just wanted to post that amazing pun.)

User avatar
Jon O'Neill
Ginger Ninja
Posts: 4145
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:45 am
Location: London, UK

Re: Diets

Post by Jon O'Neill » Tue Apr 12, 2011 9:05 am

Lesley Hines wrote:
Jon O'Neill wrote:Without actually thinking about it, that's what.I've always thought. Fat makes you fat. Clue's in the name. Another indicator is how fat and saturated fat are.on the colour wheel thing on.most foods. But.not carbohydrate?

Look around the shelves in a supermarket and it will all say 'low fat'. Weird that you don't see it.
Sugars = carbohydrate.
Amongst other things? Is sugar to non-sugar ratio of carbohydrates the same in most foods?
Lesley Hines wrote:Not all fats are bad; you need them for warmth, storage of vitamins A, D, E, and K, protection of vital organs like your kidneys (e.g. suet), and other good stuff. The bad fats tend to be the artificially produced ones like trans fats. Coconuts (for example) get a really bad press as they're quite high in saturated fat but it's the same type of fat produced in human breast milk, and isn't the type of stuff that'll clog up your arteries. Similar with dairy, although some won't and some will, depending on the production process.

Cholesterol's produced from saturated fats (the bad sort, not the nice friendly sort that you need as an essential part of your diet) rather than being the baddie that erroneously stops people eating eggs.

Low fat food's often complete garbage - there're so many additives in there to make it taste half decent and it's often rammed with sugar and sweeteners.

Loads of additives in food are the baddies - stuff like glucose-fructose syrup that the body doesn't know what to with so converts it into fat (NB only one example). The problem with stuff like that is it's almost impossible to prove what effect they're having on the obesity epidemic as it's always such a combined effect. It's not hard to work out though that if you have lots of sweeteners your body doesn't need for immediate effect it's gonna store the rest until it does for a time of famine. There's also loads of interesting stuff about the evolutionary advantage people with diabetes have as their genetic insulin-resistance (only recently surfaced as times have allowed them to become obese) have allowed them to better survive times of famine.

Eat your five a day as a minimum starting point and everything else in moderation and you won't go too far wrong :)
Owned my thread.
Charlie Reams wrote:
Jon O'Neill wrote:Without actually thinking about it, that's what.I've always thought. Fat makes you fat. Clue's in the name. Another indicator is how fat and saturated fat are.on the colour wheel thing on.most foods. But.not carbohydrate?

Look around the shelves in a supermarket and it will all say 'low fat'. Weird that you don't see it.
I've never heard any dietician say that high calories is fine provided it's all carbs and no fat. The colour wheel in Sainsbury's (the only one I have to hand) shows calories, which wraps up carbs and fats into one easily digestible (ha ha!) number.

(I don't really have any point to make, I just wanted to post that amazing pun.)
I think the point I'm trying to make is (not that I care about it that much) that people think fat makes you fat. Why do we hear "low in fat" or "low in saturated fat" more than we hear "low in calories" even though the latter would be better for people watching their weight? I think advertising "low in fat" is pandering to the misconception that fat makes you fat.

User avatar
Marc Meakin
Postmaster General
Posts: 3096
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Diets

Post by Marc Meakin » Tue Apr 12, 2011 9:19 am

IME nothinng works better for an overweight man (i was 18 stone you know!) than the cambridge diet.
I lost 4 stones in as many months by having 4 shakes/soups a day litres of water and walking and i mean walking 15 miles a day minimum it helps if you have aq dog.
Now Lesley, (for it is sure to be she) the reason it is better for a man is because a woman is only allowed 3 soups/shakes a day.
It was invented to get obese patients in hospital to lose enough weight to be operated on as your body kind of eats itself.
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT

User avatar
Matt Morrison
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 7345
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 2:27 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Diets

Post by Matt Morrison » Tue Apr 12, 2011 9:44 am

I'll send out a request for Matthew Green.

User avatar
Charlie Reams
Site Admin
Posts: 9377
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
Location: Cambridge
Contact:

Re: Diets

Post by Charlie Reams » Tue Apr 12, 2011 10:11 am

Jon O'Neill wrote: I think the point I'm trying to make is (not that I care about it that much) that people think fat makes you fat. Why do we hear "low in fat" or "low in saturated fat" more than we hear "low in calories" even though the latter would be better for people watching their weight? I think advertising "low in fat" is pandering to the misconception that fat makes you fat.
I'm sure some people think that, but you said it was dieticians' advice that was being turned over. I can't imagine dieticians really thought that, except maybe the kooky Atkins-esque ones.

User avatar
Jon O'Neill
Ginger Ninja
Posts: 4145
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:45 am
Location: London, UK

Re: Diets

Post by Jon O'Neill » Tue Apr 12, 2011 10:59 am

Charlie Reams wrote:
Jon O'Neill wrote: I think the point I'm trying to make is (not that I care about it that much) that people think fat makes you fat. Why do we hear "low in fat" or "low in saturated fat" more than we hear "low in calories" even though the latter would be better for people watching their weight? I think advertising "low in fat" is pandering to the misconception that fat makes you fat.
I'm sure some people think that, but you said it was dieticians' advice that was being turned over. I can't imagine dieticians really thought that, except maybe the kooky Atkins-esque ones.
Aye, ok.
Weightwatchers wrote:Weight loss beyond calories...
Traditional weight loss plans are based on the calories on a food label. But the new ProPoints system incorporates the very latest science that shows there is a more accurate way to assess the impact a food has on your weight loss efforts.
I wonder what metric they use?

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 8233
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Diets

Post by Gavin Chipper » Tue Apr 12, 2011 5:16 pm

Jon O'Neill wrote:I think the point I'm trying to make is (not that I care about it that much) that people think fat makes you fat. Why do we hear "low in fat" or "low in saturated fat" more than we hear "low in calories" even though the latter would be better for people watching their weight? I think advertising "low in fat" is pandering to the misconception that fat makes you fat.
It shouldn't just be about losing weight or we'd all become heroin addicts. Too much saturated fat is bad for you!

Also, stuff like good/bad cholestrol and other measurable things are only part of the picture. As I understand it, eating lots of fruit and vegetables will reduce your lifetime risk of getting cancer and other bad things. There might not be an instant measure for how well you're doing in this regard, so if someone goes on a diet that looks shit and certain indicators still look good for them, it doesn't mean that they still aren't gunning for an early grave. Obviously you want to aim to be be doing well in the measurable things, but let's not pretend it's the whole picture (see if there's long term data for certain types of diet).

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 8233
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Diets

Post by Gavin Chipper » Tue Apr 12, 2011 5:31 pm

Also I was wondering if everyone knows what cholesterol level really is. I only wonder because of what I used to think it was and found out I wasn't alone. I used to think that it was the measure of how clogged up your arteries are with cholesterol. When actually it's just the measure of cholesterol in your bloodstream.

I was thinking of atherosclerosis. So if you have a low cholesterol level, it doesn't even mean you're winning. And while the link between them may be disputed, if there is one, then cholesterol level would probably best be seen as your current gradient on the atherosclerosis curve.

Ryan Taylor
Postmaster General
Posts: 3662
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2009 6:18 pm

Re: Diets

Post by Ryan Taylor » Tue Apr 12, 2011 5:52 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote:Also I was wondering if everyone knows what cholesterol level really is. I only wonder because of what I used to think it was and found out I wasn't alone. I used to think that it was the measure of how clogged up your arteries are with cholesterol. When actually it's just the measure of cholesterol in your bloodstream.

I was thinking of atherosclerosis. So if you have a low cholesterol level, it doesn't even mean you're winning. And while the link between them may be disputed, if there is one, then cholesterol level would probably best be seen as your current gradient on the atherosclerosis curve.
I didn't know what cholesterol was until the Benecol advert opened my eyes.

User avatar
Lesley Hines
Kiloposter
Posts: 1250
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 9:29 pm
Location: Worcester

Re: Diets

Post by Lesley Hines » Tue Apr 12, 2011 11:50 pm

I was going to post some groovy stuff, but being currently absolutely knacked (Legoland - awesome) I found this site that's got pretty much everything I as going to post in it about fats and cholesterol. Cholesterol and homeostatic mechanisms would be worth a search too (I haven't done this so good luck) - there's no such thing as good / bad cholesterol. A spade actually is a spade.

All sugars are carbohydrates - it then depends on how the individual units (saccharides) are arranged. After that what they put on labelling can be used to suit themselves :)
Lowering the averages since 2009

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 8233
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Diets

Post by Gavin Chipper » Wed Mar 07, 2018 6:45 pm

So then, Britain needs to go on a diet. Should we have a referendum on which diet we should go on though?

There's a lot of bollocks about this though. Apparently, we should have 400 calories for breakfast and 600 each for lunch and tea (dinner/supper/whatever). But seriously, fuck off. For a start that adds up to just 1600 calories, and as far as I understand the 2000 daily calories for a woman and 2500 for a man advice still stands, so someone needs to buy a calculator. Unless they're encouraging lots of snacking.

Also, they want lots of products, including takeaways, to be reduced in calories. Again, fuck off. Eating a takeaway is supposed to be a treat, and it isn't comparable with your everyday meals. And when you have a takeaway, you indulge. It's what it's for. Reduce the calories, and I'm going to have to start ordering two of everything.

User avatar
Marc Meakin
Postmaster General
Posts: 3096
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Diets

Post by Marc Meakin » Wed Mar 07, 2018 7:12 pm

I think the point is to burn more calories than you consume.
So rather than just eat less, excercise more!
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests