Discussion in 'Dancers Anonymous' started by pygmalion, Apr 11, 2010.
And after workout, LGS!
My take? If you still remember enough/still have the literature from the WW that worked for you, use it.
I think the WW scientists are definitely onto something with hedonic hunger, although I have to say this is no surprise to me. A pint of Cherry Garcia in the freezer trumps "I ate all my points already and feel full" any day of the week. lol. Uhh ... Who didn't know that?
I have to say I wonder about PointsPlus. Maybe it didn't work for a lot of people. I've never seen a WW program get revamped so quickly.
LGS in the morning before working out works best for me...no heavy protein for me at that time. Adding coconut oil and fresh fruit with the greens gives sufficient energy to workout.
Without exception, I have found the high-protein/low-fat fitness approach to have an aging effect, giving bad skin and a drawn or haggard appearance. I had an SIL who was a competitive fitness professional who ate this way and, although I was older by ten years, she looked older than me by 10. That's the pattern I've noticed for years - I can generally tell those who eat that way just from appearance. And if it's doing that to someone's face and skin, I have to ask, what is it doing to the inner terrain?
I have some lbs. to lose and it's back to the high-raw way for me. I know that not only does the weight fall off, but in 3 month's time I'm likely to look and feel 10 years younger, to boot.
Also, a lot of weight isn't associated with excess calories, either - it is related to inflammation, toxicity and acidity, with the body holding onto water and creating mucus to help ameliorate the situation and "protect" one's organs and cells from an imbalanced state. A dense high-protein diet only worsens this state, while a diet high in living foods easily repairs the condition and drains bloat, mucus and toxins from the body.
Am reminding myself...it's just what I need at this time.
I am not a believer in high protein (meaning heavy on meat and eggs) diets, period. I just can't see how all that saturated fat and (a lot of the time) sodium and cholesterol can be good for you. But, since I've never tried one of those diets, I don't feel qualified to be a detractor.
Based on what I've experienced, seen and read, if I had to pick an eating plan for the rest of my life, I would go mostly veggie, with MAYBE limited eggs, fish and chicken. (Kinda the way I was raised by Depression era soul food cooks -- aka Mom, Grandmom, and Great-Grandmom. Lots of veggies. Very little meat. Very low rates of obesity, until Black folk became prosperous enough to buy more meat.) If I wanted lots of early morning protein, I'd go with Peaches' lentil soup for breakfast. Beans and rice = good stuff. Very little if any fat. Low or no cholesterol. High fiber. Yummy. Tons of varieties. You can cook it in a crock pot. Seriously. What more do you need?
ETA: I guess I should stress that this was not considered a diet. It was a lifestyle. You ate a farm diet because you lived on a farm. There was not a lot of meat because animals were raised to either provide eggs and milk or because they were being saved to go to market. Farmers ate veggies from their gardens. Done and done.
That's what I'm after -- not a tool to help me lose weight. A lifestyle that i can live for the rest of my life without having to think too much about it. That would work for me.
Yes to this. The fattest I ever was in my life was early last year, just before my strokes. That just happened to coincide with the time that I was eating the least I ever had, both in volume and calories. It wasn't eating too much that made me sick. My metabolism was sluggish because of lack of exercise and poor hydration, true. But, more importantly, IMO, I was FULL of toxins -- environmental, dietary, mental, spiritual and emotional.
Yep, that's "heavy" stuff.
Losing weight is definitely not just about the typical caloric equation (how much in, how much out) most consider the bottom line.
ETA: It's especially evident when one exerts & exerts, and restricts & restricts, and still things don't change...
I got fat when I was on a high-carb, mostly vegetarian diet. I'm kind of in control now, because while I still eat some carbs, I try to keep the bread, pasta, and sugar under control. My doctor recommended I do a South Beach diet, which as far as I can tell is a low carb diet with "healthy" proteins and fats.
WRT WW: as far as I can tell, it was in part a response to the growing popularity of low-carb diets. Many people develop metabolic issues simply because they don't get enough protein in their diet to maintain healthy muscle. But it was a little too undefined for my mom. She lost weight steadily under the old program. She has a problem, though, in being addicted to fruit. Fruit is free on the new program, and once you get beyond the "balanced" diet portion of five fruit servings per day, she might as well be gorging on chocolate.
That's not hunger, it's appetite. The result, alas, is the same.
Apparently, it was a bomb; iirc more complaints about that iteration of WW than any other in memory.
Yeah. One of the pet peeves I've always had with Weight Watchers has been that you can find loopholes and "cheat" the program by eating an unbalanced diet. There's always a way. With the first incarnation of WW I tried, the cheat was in eating foods that had lots of fiber. Even if those foods were high in calories or fat, fiber was an offset, by the way points were calculated back then. There is a cheat, if you're so inclined. I think that's one of the reasons the program keeps evolving -- that and the fact that WW powers that be have some very sophisticated scientists doing cutting edge research.
WW was founded in 1963, btw. Not sure how that relates to when low carb diets came into vogue. What I do know is that the WW program my Mom did back in the late 70s/early 80s had the same basic philosophy as the program today -- with the goal being a balance across all food groups. The way it was implemented was incredibly different than today's program though, with calorie counting and lists of forbidden foods.
One thing that I perceive to be different (although I won't be sure until I ask my Mom) is that, back then, the program was more of a "diet" whatever that means and today, it's pitched as more of a maintainable, lifelong, lifestyle change.
Either way, I know to take heed when DS tells me he's "hungry for Cheetos." Now I know it's possible. I'm still going to ignore him, mind you, but at least I'll know he's telling the truth. lol.
That explains a lot.
I guess I should add that my folks, at least, didn't have unlimited milk or eggs either. They sold a lot of their eggs and they only had one milking cow to provide milk for however many people happened to be around, which, given my great-grandmom's open house policy, could often be a LOT of people. She never let anyone go hungry, so she was VERY popular during the years between the beginning of The Great Depression and the end of WWII. People weren't sitting around drinking a gallon of milk apiece, and that's for sure.
I missed this. The diet I'm talking about is really, really heavy on dark, leafy greens -- collards, mustard, turnip, kale, spinach. Also lots of cabbage. Even though cabbage is not dark, it is green, and it's in the garden.
re: beans and rice. Although this is a completely different diet discipline, I have heard from more than a few sources (including my colon therapist and my traditional Chinese medicine practitioner) that beans and rice, albeit high in carbs, if prepared properly, is the only completely digestible food combination. It leaves your digestive system clean. I don't expect anyone else to buy that, but I have to say that I find it more than just plausible, based on my own experience. The tricks, from what I've been told, are to not use nutrition-less processed rice and to not adulterate the beans with excess fat, etc. Carbs != processed, stripped carbs, IMHO.
I don't buy this, I'm afraid, regarding rice and beans. Neither legumes nor grains are intended for consumption by animals (unlike fruits), and have plenty of anti-nutrients to discourage consumption. When humans became farmers, part of the faustian bargain was the consequences of eating such foods. I also don't buy that meats make people fat. Another benefit of affluence is that people can afford white bread, white rice, and sugar.
While I don't practice it out of laziness, gustatory, and practical considerations, I would consider the best diet to consist of only foods that could be digested if eaten raw, and a wide variety of them. (Not that I would eat them raw.) Your basic hunter-gatherer diet. Rice and beans both fail on that requirement. Of course, if I'm living paycheck to paycheck, rice and beans could sustain me just fine.
As to the dark, leafy greens diet, yes, that provide plenty of micronutrients and fiber, but is that where the bulk of the calories is coming from? For my parents and their peers, bread and pasta provided the calories, meat, cheese, and veggies provided flavor. I can't see a diet of only greens keeping a body working all day in the fields.
I agree with toothless re beans and rice. An inferior source of protein, better than gluten but more like starch in a body compared to the rich amino acids in living foods. That's why beans and rice make one pasty and puffy like carbs do after extended consumption, in my view.
Hemp protein and hemp seeds are far superior, and there are pumpkin, chia and flax seeds, and the rich pool of amino acids generated by a diet full of varied fresh fruit, vedge and greens.
Green juices and kale smoothies would share the throne for being exceptional sources of the amino acids which are the building blocks our bodies require for protein.
And saturated fats are the healthiest of all because they are the most stable -- cold-pressed coconut oil and rich-in-EFAs clarified butter (ghee) from grass-fed cows. It's the poly-uns to watch out for (except for minimally processed, nonrancid EFAs) if one is concerned about heart disease and cholesterol. Rich-in-EFAs quality eggs don't raise cholesterol, either, despite the hype. There's a lot of misinfo out there...
Anyway...just another perspective.
ETA, since I know this is a group that likes references.... http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2002/08/17/saturated-fat1.aspx
Fats, nuts & seeds...that's what gives sustenance. We have such a collective phobia of them, though, that we have stripped the good sustenance out of our diets, leaving us eternally starved for the crap that's left to choose from.
Thanks for the link. Shall read, of course. But, just for the sake of stating the obvious,, the folks participating in this mini-conversation are not the ones who demand you provide references. I can google as well as the next guy.
Agreed. If my family had been asked to eat only greens, there'd have been a revolt. WRT the farm diet that my family ate, I didn't say only greens nor did I say anything about how the greens were prepared or served, as in with a "healthy" dose of fat for seasoning and in large supply -- calcium, fiber, all sorts of nutrients and filling. People did work in the fields all day and believe me when I tell you they didn't do it hungry.
I was thinking about this last night and had to wonder out loud. Were the complaints about the program itself or about the fact that all the WW-related goodies (point calculators, recipe books, etc) all had to be re-purchased? I know that, if I were a purveyor of packaged foods that partners with WW (like whoever makes Progresso soups or Smart Ones frozen entrees,) all of that extremely expensive re-packaging and re-labeling would not have made me a happy camper.
I know that, in my WW days, I had a heap of paraphernalia. Having to re-buy everything would not have made me happy. And I bet the people at dottisweightlosszone** are exploding right about now.
** A website that provides nutrition info for hundreds of chain restaurants and give you the WW points for many dishes.
And, just since I don't care about whether people provide links, I'll provide one.
The folks at US News do this survey every so often. They ask a group of nutrition professionals to assess commercial diet plans on a bunch of different criteria. Then they come up with lists of diets that are best overall, best for weight loss, best for heart health, etc. I find it kind of interesting to see how the diet ratings differ, depending on your goal.
Separate names with a comma.