Two Large Meals a Day Tops Six Mini-Meals for Weight Loss

[BAllen]

Another factor, of course, is the amount of work one does in a day's march. I watched mountain men the other night. Eustace Conway eats 5,000 calories a day with his lifestyle, and he ain't fat!

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Another factor, of course, is the amount of work one does in a day's march. I watched mountain men the other night. Eustace Conway eats 5,000 calories a day with his lifestyle, and he ain't fat!

Bingo! Michael Phelps eats an amazing amount of food too...but he's a world class athlete.

 

[angelatc]

I have been reading this thread. Let me guess. Angelic is arguing prescriptions are the best way to lose weight.

So you *weren't* actually reading the thread.

 

[Nobexliberty]

2 Litres of coke for drink. A big mac and a medium fries for food, my body has given payback by giving me aspergers.

 

[sratiug]

This is simply not true. Experimental results show that complex carbs only slow insulin release by 15 minutes compared to starches and sugar. Although the peak insulin release will be very slightly and insignificantly lowered, the resting blood sugar post meal actually remains higher for a high glycemic meal than for a low glycemic meal. That is why the diabetes association has rescinded their advice to eat low glycemic and admitted that only total carb intake matters.

The textbook of medical physiology states that fiber (cellulose), whether soluble or insoluble cannot be considered food for humans as their are no enzymes in humans capable of breaking cellulose bonds. Studies show fiber increases colon cancer and depletes the body of minerals thus causing osteoporosis.

Oops, I stated that backwards. A low glycemic index meal actually leaves a higher resting blood sugar level, which is bad.

 

[BAllen]

Oops, I stated that backwards. A low glycemic index meal actually leaves a higher resting blood sugar level, which is bad.

I believe glycemic load is a better gauge. It tells the sugar spike in food. Low number means low spike.

http://www.alsearsmd.com/glycemic-index/

 

[sratiug]

da fuq? What studies show that?

Fiber causing osteoporosis was reported in the New England Journal of Medicine and The Lancet in 1999 and 2000. And a massive study on some 20,000 health professionals over a 20 year period showed fiber increasing colon cancer, which should be logical as physiology textbooks tell you it is indigestable for humans. I will try to get you the references.

Eating fiber to prevent constipation is unnecessary, constipation is nearly always a symptom of dehydration.

 

[sratiug]

I believe glycemic load is a better gauge. It tells the sugar spike in food. Low number means low spike.

http://www.alsearsmd.com/glycemic-index/

No, that's what I'm saying. The glycemic load means nothing. All carbs except indigestable fiber turn to sugar and the total carb intake is the only thing that matters. Low glycemic doesn't help at all, in fact you are likely better off eating starches because your resting blood sugar will be lower afterward compared to complex carbs and you won't have the fiber leaching minerals and fluid from your body.

 

[sratiug]

I think you may have part of the picture here but are also missing part.

Paleo theory says that modern man has a omega 3:6 ratio of 1:10 whereas paleo man was closer to 1:1... but even then paleo man is getting "more" omega 6 than omega 3, as you said is optimal.. so what's the problem? Even wikipedia says that:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linoleic_acid

So yes, it's very likely that not all omega 6's are equal, but you're ALWAYS going to be getting more omega 6 than omega 3 because that is the nature of fats and so I can see the benefit of focussing omega 6s on maybe hempseed oil, but chicken and eggs supposedly contain pretty good concentrations of linoleic acid as well.. but even if you're getting the high concentration linoleic acid oils you still don't want to have EXCESSIVE omega 6 in ratio with omega 3.. a 1:10 ratio is insane.. even if some or all of the linoleic gets converted to omega 3 by your body which I think you may have mentioned in another thread, they have concentrations of other omega fatty acids as well, so you have to consider that in how much of these oils you are getting.

I agree with what you are saying. But a lot of people take omega 3 supplements but do not get any unadulterated omega 6 parent oil. Most people take fish oil for omega 3 also which has zero parent omega [edit oops again its 3 not 6] 3 alpha-linolenic acid.

If you get a couple of grams of good parent omega 6 and a gram of good parent omega 3, the theory is that the body is smart enough to burn the adulterated oils in your food and use the good oils for cell structure.

I am confused as to whether linoleic acid can be converted to alpha-linolenic acid. Dr. Brian Peskin says no, and most of the medical community thinks you need the omega 3 in your diet or a supplement, but the physiology textbook I'm reading says your body can make every fat it needs from linoleic acid.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

I'd like to see a similar study done on people that are relatively healthy.

Good point. It's quite a popular belief among runners that eating more frequently helps you lose excess fat so you can be lean and mean. There's a name for it, but I'm not sure what it is... it's the idea that you should eat at least 300 calories every 3 hours until about 3 or 4 hours before bedtime. The idea is that your body goes into starvation mode and starts storing fat if you go without food for more than 3 hours.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Yes, it is sort of like a religion. People ate a certain way for millions of years, it was like a tradition sort of like religion is, our bodies were actually evolved to eat that way... Then in the last 10,000 years something happened.. we slowly began to lose our way as we depended more and more on grains - and then industry changed the grains we ate even more at the expense of our health and made harvesting grains even easier and exacerbated the problem many fold. Then we started feeding the animals we ate nothing but grains!! Now pretty much everybody dies from heart disease and cancer or gets diabetes, conditions that were very rare or didn't even exist before grains. If we went back to our 'religion', or our traditional way of eating, we would be much better off.. Though it is very hard to do in our society because the government subsidizes grains so they are pretty much free and the availability of healthy food is very low.

The problem is the assumption of evolution.

 

[dannno]

Good point. It's quite a popular belief among runners that eating more frequently helps you lose excess fat so you can be lean and mean. There's a name for it, but I'm not sure what it is... it's the idea that you should eat at least 300 calories every 3 hours until about 3 or 4 hours before bedtime. The idea is that your body goes into starvation mode and starts storing fat if you go without food for more than 3 hours.

That only really happens if you're on a carb cycle. Decrease your carbs to 60-80g/day or less for a couple weeks or so and your body will stop with the roller coaster bs.

Gotta make sure and get some good healthy fats in your diet, as that will be your new energy source. Grassfed animals/butter/pastured animals/coconut oil.

 

[dannno]

The problem is the assumption of evolution.

So if there is a city of people that have newly discovered grain farming and 15% of them have a genetic mutation that allows their body to thrive long enough to procreate while the others become sick with diabetes after 10 years and the 15% are more successful and procreating and their kids have a higher chance of having this genetic mutation, and over several generations this genetic mutation becomes more predominant, that doesn't exist to you?

Can evolution exist without the assumption that we evolved from a specific mammal species?

What if evolution follows the laws of God and that is how God created everything, through his laws of evolution?

 

[angelatc]

So if there is a city of people that have newly discovered grain farming and 15% of them have a genetic mutation that allows their body to thrive long enough to procreate while the others become sick with diabetes after 10 years and the 15% are more successful and procreating and their kids have a higher chance of having this genetic mutation, and over several generations this genetic mutation becomes more predominant, that doesn't exist to you?

Can evolution exist without the assumption that we evolved from a specific mammal species?

What if evolution follows the laws of God and that is how God created everything, through his laws of evolution?

So if we evolved, how is the Paleo aspect of your diet of choice even relevant? Not that it doesn't work, but how does it matter if that's how our ancestors ate if we've evolved biologically to adapt to changing environments?

And what does the fact that the genetic mutation became predominant tell us?

 

[dannno]

So if we evolved, how is the Paleo aspect of your diet of choice even relevant? Not that it doesn't work, but how does it matter if that's how our ancestors ate if we've evolved biologically to adapt to changing environments?

And what does the fact that the genetic mutation became predominant tell us?

I explained it in a previous post, but essentially the issue is that there are still portions of society who cannot handle grains... either they get diabetes or the gluten destroys their intestines over time. There are still portions of society who cannot handle pasteurized milk (Most people who are lactose intolerant who try raw milk products have no issue with dairy - hence why primal says raw dairy can be ok). Any diet with any significant carb component is going to cause type 2 diabetes in a significant portion of the population. But here's the problem - you often don't KNOW you are that portion of the population which can or cannot handle any of these items, which they are and why you can't handle them until it is too late.

I had a friend who lived the first 30 years of his life eating a lot of bread. Trust me, I used to live with him and we ordered pizza all the time.. Now he has a gluten intolerance, he gets very sick if he eats gluten. It was caused by eating gluten. If he had reduced his gluten intake earlier in life he could probably still eat it once in a while without any issues, but eventually it eats away at your intestines.

Then on top of that you have heart disease and cancer, which are more longterm issues that come with eating a diet rich in carbs, especially grains and definitely sugar as well.

The idea is that EVERBODY's body is still genetically designed to handle a paleo diet - nobody became predispositioned NOT to eat the foods that we have been eating for millions of years.

 

[dannno]

bump

 

[angelatc]

I explained it in a previous post, but essentially the issue is that there are still portions of society who cannot handle grains... either they get diabetes or the gluten destroys their intestines over time. There are still portions of society who cannot handle pasteurized milk (Most people who are lactose intolerant who try raw milk products have no issue with dairy - hence why primal says raw dairy can be ok). Any diet with any significant carb component is going to cause type 2 diabetes in a significant portion of the population. But here's the problem - you often don't KNOW you are that portion of the population which can or cannot handle any of these items, which they are and why you can't handle them until it is too late.

I had a friend who lived the first 30 years of his life eating a lot of bread. Trust me, I used to live with him and we ordered pizza all the time.. Now he has a gluten intolerance, he gets very sick if he eats gluten. It was caused by eating gluten. If he had reduced his gluten intake earlier in life he could probably still eat it once in a while without any issues, but eventually it eats away at your intestines.

Then on top of that you have heart disease and cancer, which are more longterm issues that come with eating a diet rich in carbs, especially grains and definitely sugar as well.

The idea is that EVERBODY's body is still genetically designed to handle a paleo diet - nobody became predispositioned NOT to eat the foods that we have been eating for millions of years.

That doesn't make sense. Why would a gene that made us weaker become predominant? That seems counter-evolutionary.

 

[dannno]

That doesn't make sense. Why would a gene that made us weaker become predominant? That seems counter-evolutionary.

What gene that makes us weaker did I say became predominant? Eating grains only became predominent because they prevent starvation in larger communities - but paleo people could not handle them very well and had a period of adaptation. Admittedly we handle them better now, but still not optimally. Handling a wider variety of diets would make a person stronger - the problem is that grains only give us the illusion of becoming stronger as a species because they prevent starvation in the short term - but they can only can sustain people for so long before they start to become detrimental to health. In some people it will be detrimental more quickly than others, and some may live their entire lives without experiencing the effects, especially if they choose the types of grains wisely, method of preparation, use it sparingly and eat a lot of fruits and veggies.

I'm not for eradicating grains completely form society, they are a tool that should be used to sustain people for a short while over hard times.

 

[angelatc]

What gene that makes us weaker did I say became predominant? Eating grains only became predominent because they prevent starvation - but paleo people could not handle them very well and had a period of adaptation. Admittedly we handle them better now, but still not optimally. Handling a wider variety of diets would make a person stronger - the problem is that grains only give us the illusion of becoming stronger as a species because they prevent starvation in the short term - but they can only can sustain people for so long before they start to become detrimental to health. In some people it will be detrimental more quickly than others, and some may live their entire lives without experiencing the effects, especially if they choose the types of grains wisely, method of preparation, use it sparingly and eat a lot of fruits and veggies.

So doubling and tripling the average lifespan is only an illusion of becoming stronger?

All this talk of carbs and grains is making me crave Italy.

 

[dannno]

Tonight - Paleo BBQ sauce w pastured bacon grassfed cheese grassfed burger no bun and leftover home made grassfed tri tip chili on top