[JayJuanGee]

(07-22-2016 10:49 AM)Balkan Wrote:  

(07-22-2016 10:23 AM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  

[edited out]

I've gone ketogenic several times, which by default is at least 70%+ calories from fat.

Some foods that you didn't mention that might help. Avocado's are huge. When I was in the height of low-carb dieting I would have 2 avocado's every day with lemon & pink himalayan sea salt. A big issue with eating high fat/low carb is getting adequate electrolytes as low carb dieting, upregulates your kidney's excretion of water and with it electrolytes (potassium, sodium, magnesium). 2 avocado's will surpass your daily need for potassium.

I do not have a link for you, but I think that the issue with the kidney problems from low carbs comes from eating too much protein, rather than eating too much fat, so there has been some misleading discussion attempting to denigrate low carb by suggesting that it causes kidney problems, when the kidney problems most likely come from the high protein and not enough fat to offset the high protein.

Otherwise, I do think that avocados can be a good addition to include in the diet for fat. My problem with avocados mostly comes with keeping track of their ripeness, which probably contributes to my not eating as many of them as I should, which I can probably work on strategies to keep better track.

[JayJuanGee]

(07-22-2016 01:56 PM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  

(07-22-2016 10:49 AM)Balkan Wrote:  

I get where you're coming from. Eating a significant amount of calories from fat easily gets repetitive. I found a system that works for me but I'd be lying if I said it didn't get boring.

Yes, that is exactly my point (just stated another way). I would have no problem constructing a temporary ketogenic diet (for a few weeks or even a few months) to meet short-term goals. For example, for a few months (for therapeutic brain health) I ate 17 ounces of coconut cream per day, which provided me with about 100 grams of healthy fat per day (and, unfortunately, about 1,000 extra calories).

I do think that you are continuing to place way too much emphasis on calories.

The below linked article is interesting, even though I may not agree with the exact explanation, but think about it, in the 1940s, US farmers were going to attempt to fatten up a bunch of pigs by using coconut oil, and they thought that were going to get a competitive advantage with fatty pigs, but instead they got lean and mean pigs (so they switched back to feeding the pigs corn and grain so they could get fatter).

https://physicalculturestudy.com/2014/12...-for-pigs/

I think that the digestion of humans is a lot like pigs in that we are both omnivores, and grains and carbs are going to fatten us up, while fats are going to slim us up (especially good fats like coconut oil).

(07-22-2016 01:56 PM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  

But Dr. Mercola obviously means this as a permanent long-term healthy diet: "most people actually need upwards of 50-70 percent healthful fats in their diet for optimal health! My personal diet is about 60-70 percent healthy fat." I just do not see how such a diet is maintained on a long-term basis.

I think that if you are maintaining a decent weight, then you just continue with aspiring to certain fat levels, and if you are getting bored, then of course you likely are going to have to mix up your diet a bit, yet if that is causing weight gain, then you are doing something wrong.

Of course, we can have some carbs in our diet and we even need to have some carbs to feed the healthy gut bacteria (which is also including some resistance starches in our diet).., and so sometimes, we can mix up the various levels of carbs and the kinds of carbs in our diet while still keeping the carb levels below 30% maybe preferably to keep carbs below 20%, but we can still play around with the range.

Regarding the range, this need not be a daily focus, but may be more healthy and practical to consider on a weekly basis to shoot for maybe keeping fats between 40% to 60% (and shoot for the higher end of the range when possible), proteins 20 to 30% (nothing wrong with keeping these at the lower end of the range as long as good quality proteins and getting adequate amount of protein, maybe getting more protein when exercising a lot), and carbs shooting for 15% to 30% (shooting for the lower end of the range and keeping in mind that probably need at least 10% or more in the diet just to feed the healthy gut bacteria, and sometimes can still splurge a bit more with natural food carbs that can just be parts of other foods including vegetables, nuts, dairy, and even rice and potatoes and some other night shades such as squash... fruits can be included here, but really small amounts of fruits overall, yet any of these carbs can be mixed up and mixed in to keep things more interesting as long as kind of within the limits)

[Balkan]

(07-22-2016 02:46 PM)JayJuanGee Wrote:  

(07-22-2016 10:49 AM)Balkan Wrote:  

(07-22-2016 10:23 AM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  

[edited out]

I've gone ketogenic several times, which by default is at least 70%+ calories from fat.

Some foods that you didn't mention that might help. Avocado's are huge. When I was in the height of low-carb dieting I would have 2 avocado's every day with lemon & pink himalayan sea salt. A big issue with eating high fat/low carb is getting adequate electrolytes as low carb dieting, upregulates your kidney's excretion of water and with it electrolytes (potassium, sodium, magnesium). 2 avocado's will surpass your daily need for potassium.

I do not have a link for you, but I think that the issue with the kidney problems from low carbs comes from eating too much protein, rather than eating too much fat, so there has been some misleading discussion attempting to denigrate low carb by suggesting that it causes kidney problems, when the kidney problems most likely come from the high protein and not enough fat to offset the high protein.

Otherwise, I do think that avocados can be a good addition to include in the diet for fat. My problem with avocados mostly comes with keeping track of their ripeness, which probably contributes to my not eating as many of them as I should, which I can probably work on strategies to keep better track.

Perhaps I should have worded it more clearly. I don't think there's a kidney problem at all with keto diets. I would be very skeptical of literature that said that. Yes, super high protein would be more likely to damage your kidneys, but ketogenic diets aren't abnormally high in protein.

Getting avocado's at peak ripeness is a pain in the ass. My local grocery store sells them rock hard and I wait days for them to ripen, only to discover half of them are significantly bruised I usually get a bunch of avocado's in varying stages of ripeness and when I have a plethora that are ripe, I refrigerate them where they last for several days before browning.

[JayJuanGee]

(07-22-2016 04:17 PM)Balkan Wrote:  

(07-22-2016 02:46 PM)JayJuanGee Wrote:  

(07-22-2016 10:49 AM)Balkan Wrote:  

(07-22-2016 10:23 AM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  

[edited out]

I've gone ketogenic several times, which by default is at least 70%+ calories from fat.

Some foods that you didn't mention that might help. Avocado's are huge. When I was in the height of low-carb dieting I would have 2 avocado's every day with lemon & pink himalayan sea salt. A big issue with eating high fat/low carb is getting adequate electrolytes as low carb dieting, upregulates your kidney's excretion of water and with it electrolytes (potassium, sodium, magnesium). 2 avocado's will surpass your daily need for potassium.

I do not have a link for you, but I think that the issue with the kidney problems from low carbs comes from eating too much protein, rather than eating too much fat, so there has been some misleading discussion attempting to denigrate low carb by suggesting that it causes kidney problems, when the kidney problems most likely come from the high protein and not enough fat to offset the high protein.

Otherwise, I do think that avocados can be a good addition to include in the diet for fat. My problem with avocados mostly comes with keeping track of their ripeness, which probably contributes to my not eating as many of them as I should, which I can probably work on strategies to keep better track.

Perhaps I should have worded it more clearly. I don't think there's a kidney problem at all with keto diets. I would be very skeptical of literature that said that. Yes, super high protein would be more likely to damage your kidneys, but ketogenic diets aren't abnormally high in protein.

Seems like we largely agree here, and part of the point that I was attempting to make, and not necessarily aimed at you, is that a lot of times various kinds of keto or low carb are whatever are attempted in a kind of hybrid model to say that I am going to do everything in this keto diet, except since I believe this bullshit mainstream dogma about low fat being better, I am going to convert all these nutritious foods to low fat, and therefore, I am going to get more bang for the buck.. blah blah blah...

And, a lot of people believe the dogma about fat being bad and cholesterol being bad, and really it is hard to avoid and it is even difficult to purchase full fat foods in a large number of stores.

Anyhow, the ultimate result of cutting fat from foods (whether keto or not) is to cause the food to have more inflammatory effects because it either ends up being higher in various kinds of carbs or it ends up being higher in protein, and either way you get gluconeogenesis effects from the food, and with high protein negative kidney affect from my understanding.

(07-22-2016 04:17 PM)Balkan Wrote:  

Getting avocado's at peak ripeness is a pain in the ass. My local grocery store sells them rock hard and I wait days for them to ripen, only to discover half of them are significantly bruised I usually get a bunch of avocado's in varying stages of ripeness and when I have a plethora that are ripe, I refrigerate them where they last for several days before browning.

I'm probably going to need to step up my avocado game to a certain extent.. because they are not a bad food and fairly portable but just gotta figure out a way to maybe pay more attention to maybe one a day or something (or at least a few a week). They do tend to be a bit expensive though for how small they are.

[eatthishomie]

Try the Rapid Fat Loss diet (thread stays on the first page of the W&F forum most of the time) and supplement a Yohimbine HCL/caffeine/L-Tyrosine stack as recommended by the RFL handbook (read the book before attempting RFL).

One of the things Yohimbine HCL does is it mobilizes belly fat, but it has to be taken properly to work.

[Tail Gunner]

(07-22-2016 03:04 PM)JayJuanGee Wrote:  

The below linked article is interesting, even though I may not agree with the exact explanation, but think about it, in the 1940s, US farmers were going to attempt to fatten up a bunch of pigs by using coconut oil, and they thought that were going to get a competitive advantage with fatty pigs, but instead they got lean and mean pigs (so they switched back to feeding the pigs corn and grain so they could get fatter).

https://physicalculturestudy.com/2014/12...-for-pigs/

I think that the digestion of humans is a lot like pigs in that we are both omnivores, and grains and carbs are going to fatten us up, while fats are going to slim us up (especially good fats like coconut oil).

That article is pure gold. I had been meaning to ingest a tablespoon of coconut oil three times a day. This just spurred me to do so. I already cook with coconut oil 90% of the time (the rest of the time with butter). I had never before seen coconut oil identified as a thyroid stimulator. Very interesting.

[JayJuanGee]

(07-22-2016 04:33 PM)eatthishomie Wrote:  

Try the Rapid Fat Loss diet (thread stays on the first page of the W&F forum most of the time) and supplement a Yohimbine HCL/caffeine/L-Tyrosine stack as recommended by the RFL handbook (read the book before attempting RFL).

One of the things Yohimbine HCL does is it mobilizes belly fat, but it has to be taken properly to work.

First can you provide links to your references?

Second, have you tried this yourself? If so explain some of your experiences such as how long and the effects on you and why this would be preferable to some kind of more natural approach, such as diet, sleep and exercise?

Third, it seems a bit problematic if you are referring us to potential commericial sources outside of RVF, so in that regard, it may be better it you were to present some kind of objective analysis regarding the service, otherwise the whole situation may appear that you are attempting to divert RVF guys off the RVF website for commercial gain, rather than providing info to guys in order that they can decide for themselves whether and/or the extent to pursue what you are suggesting.

[JayJuanGee]

(07-22-2016 05:07 PM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  

(07-22-2016 03:04 PM)JayJuanGee Wrote:  

The below linked article is interesting, even though I may not agree with the exact explanation, but think about it, in the 1940s, US farmers were going to attempt to fatten up a bunch of pigs by using coconut oil, and they thought that were going to get a competitive advantage with fatty pigs, but instead they got lean and mean pigs (so they switched back to feeding the pigs corn and grain so they could get fatter).

https://physicalculturestudy.com/2014/12...-for-pigs/

I think that the digestion of humans is a lot like pigs in that we are both omnivores, and grains and carbs are going to fatten us up, while fats are going to slim us up (especially good fats like coconut oil).

That article is pure gold. I had been meaning to ingest a tablespoon of coconut oil three times a day. This just spurred me to do so. I already cook with coconut oil 90% of the time (the rest of the time with butter). I had never before seen coconut oil identified as a thyroid stimulator. Very interesting.

Three tablespoons really is not too much and is likely to be very manageable for most guys, and along with your other cooking and consumption blending of coconut oil, there could be opportunities to add coconut oil even more in your foods order to really increase your fat with a non-controverted beneficial fat.

I have been a bit random with my coconut oil because sometimes I am eating other oils (such as pork and beef fat), but when I am exposed to this kind of discussion, I may be caused to include more of coconut oil.

Actually, one thing that I do with coconut oil from time to time is to add it to chocolate chips (simply mix them in a quasi liquid form of coconut oil and then freeze the mix), and therefore, I consider that mixture to be a kind of desert (break a chunk off here and there when feeling a bit hungry). My chocolate chips that I get from Costco are only 51% cacao, and maybe there are other affordable higher cacao brands that I could use? I do tend to mix about 2/3 coconut oil and about 1/3 chocolate chip, so I do consider that snack to be a lot more fat than it is sugar (maybe ends up being approximately 17% sugar-ish? and 83% coconut oil and cacao?)

[Brown Pride]

I have a huge belly. Feel I cant get it to shrink. I assume eating less and exercising.

[JayJuanGee]

(07-22-2016 08:55 PM)Brown Pride Wrote:  

I have a huge belly. Feel I cant get it to shrink. I assume eating less and exercising.

You assume? Have you read anything in this thread beyond the title?

Yes, mainstream media asserts that the solution is to fatness is eat less and to exercise more, have you tried that? Have you tried anything? What have been your results?

Do you have any concerns about the eat less and exercise more approach or do you have any other ideas, or are you trolling by attempting to get guys in this thread to do all of the work in terms of providing answers while you have not said anything about your situation, except that you have a big gut?

[Tail Gunner]

(07-22-2016 08:55 PM)Brown Pride Wrote:  

I have a huge belly. Feel I cant get it to shrink. I assume eating less and exercising.

It is not necessarily how much you eat or how much you exercise, as opposed to what you eat. For example, in post number 509, I describe how I lost nearly forty pounds by simply changing what I eat.

As JayJuanGee already suggested, read through the thread. Your post indicates, quite strongly, that you have not done so. The answers are there. Good luck.

[JayJuanGee]

(07-22-2016 09:39 PM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  

(07-22-2016 08:55 PM)Brown Pride Wrote:  

I have a huge belly. Feel I cant get it to shrink. I assume eating less and exercising.

It is not necessarily how much you eat or how much you exercise, as opposed to what you eat. For example, in post number 509, I describe how I lost nearly forty pounds by simply changing what I eat.

I think that lot of RVF guys tout various benefits of exercise, and I think that there are studies to support that exercise provides a lot of benefits in terms of stamina, tone and even possibly testosterone production (though testosterone production may also be more about diet and getting good fats).

I know also that exercise has been argued as a method of losing weight, but there is really not a lot of evidence to support that concept (even though exercise is touted as a means to lose weight), especially probably a guy who is already chubby when starting exercise and if that chubby guy maintains some bad aspects of his diet like eating lots of carbs and processed foods and possibly not modifying his fat intake to good fats and eliminating bad fats and possibly also if he is not getting adequate sleep.

[Rawmeo]

I had a beer belly that I wasan't able to diet out. I got it sucked out, I'll probably make a thread or datasheet on that.

[JayJuanGee]

(07-23-2016 12:15 AM)Rawmeo Wrote:  

I had a beer belly that I wasan't able to diet out. I got it sucked out, I'll probably make a thread or datasheet on that.

You should probably link it here, too, if you make a separate thread.

I would be interested in what kinds of measures you took prior to resorting to liposuction (right?), and then the procedure itself and then the follow-up effects.


I think that I saw some statistics on stomache staplings in that they are not really very good because a large number of folks gain the weight back, and complications can be very bad too... but yeah, liposuction is likely a lot less invasive, but I wonder if the long term results are good. At least it is probably not like plastic surgery of the face, which can have some very artificial negative effects causing people have to continue to repeat the procedure down the road.

[Hell_Is_Like_Newark]

For anyone who hasn't seen this movie yet... It is relevant to the discussion in this thread:

[JayJuanGee]

(07-26-2016 09:03 AM)Hell_Is_Like_Newark Wrote:  

For anyone who hasn't seen this movie yet... It is relevant to the discussion in this thread:

Thanks for that link.

I watched the whole thing from start to end, and it is interesting that it has about 8 parts (15 minutes each), so the total is about 2 hours.

I agree with pretty much everything except for two things that Mcnaughton seemed to be doing and not really addressing in any kind of way.


1) He kind of implied that there could be some kind of value in eating fruits and vegetables and even kind of suggesting that they are in the same category. Fruits definitely have a much greater sugar effect, and there is a danger in eating a lot of them both in terms of fatty liver disease (like drinking too much wine from the fructose) and just the potential for causing future cravings (by their sweetness).

2) He frequently was ordering or drinking diet soda. Maybe not all the time, but there is some kind of implication that diet soda does not harm. I personally think that diet sodas are problematic for at least a couple of reasons:

a) frequently harmful chemicals or sweetners, such as aspertame

b) may cause additional cravings because of the sweetness

[Captain Gh]

(07-22-2016 04:33 PM)eatthishomie Wrote:  

Try the Rapid Fat Loss diet (thread stays on the first page of the W&F forum most of the time) and supplement a Yohimbine HCL/caffeine/L-Tyrosine stack as recommended by the RFL handbook (read the book before attempting RFL).

One of the things Yohimbine HCL does is it mobilizes belly fat, but it has to be taken properly to work.

I can vouch for Yohimbe all day everyday! That supplement really targets those B2 receptors, and makes Belly fat release way way easier, as long as you eat right. If you stack it with ephedra...and your diet is tight... that's a clear path to success.

Even without the ephedra, I would recommend it for someone that's already pretty lean, and looking for more definition. If you got more than 10 Lbs to loose, stick to taking no fat aid to boost your metabolism and thyroid naturally

[Tail Gunner]

You can shrink your stomach just by shrinking the size of your dinner plate:

Quote:

The study found that reducing plate size from 12 inches to 10 inches typically results in 22% less calories being served, as the smaller plate makes a normal serving seem more filling. However, the study found a lower limit for the effect; once plate size went below 9.5 inches "people begin to realize they're tricking themselves and go back for seconds and thirds."

The study predicted that using a 10 inch plate for a year would lead to a weight loss of 18 pounds for the average adult.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smaller_Plate_Study

[JayJuanGee]

(07-26-2016 05:29 PM)Captain Gh Wrote:  

(07-22-2016 04:33 PM)eatthishomie Wrote:  

Try the Rapid Fat Loss diet (thread stays on the first page of the W&F forum most of the time) and supplement a Yohimbine HCL/caffeine/L-Tyrosine stack as recommended by the RFL handbook (read the book before attempting RFL).

One of the things Yohimbine HCL does is it mobilizes belly fat, but it has to be taken properly to work.

I can vouch for Yohimbe all day everyday! That supplement really targets those B2 receptors, and makes Belly fat release way way easier, as long as you eat right. If you stack it with ephedra...and your diet is tight... that's a clear path to success.

Even without the ephedra, I would recommend it for someone that's already pretty lean, and looking for more definition. If you got more than 10 Lbs to loose, stick to taking no fat aid to boost your metabolism and thyroid naturally

Are we really talking about a supplement that likely works to reduce fat by only adding the supplement and making no other changes to your diet or lifestyle. Otherwise, if people have not done that, and if they make other changes, then we cannot know whether the fat loss was due to the supplement or due to the other changes that were made, no?

[JayJuanGee]

(07-26-2016 06:25 PM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  

You can shrink your stomach just by shrinking the size of your dinner plate:

Quote:

The study found that reducing plate size from 12 inches to 10 inches typically results in 22% less calories being served, as the smaller plate makes a normal serving seem more filling. However, the study found a lower limit for the effect; once plate size went below 9.5 inches "people begin to realize they're tricking themselves and go back for seconds and thirds."

The study predicted that using a 10 inch plate for a year would lead to a weight loss of 18 pounds for the average adult.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smaller_Plate_Study

Aren't you asserting something different, here, than what you had asserted earlier?


Let me see if I get this correct. Earlier you said that you could pretty much eat as much as you want, as long as you shrink the carbs in your diet (and make sure that you are eating good fats)... or at least, you seemed to have been saying that you could eat to satiety, and that you would likely become satiated at an earlier point (than previously) after having had cut the carbs in your diet and making sure to eat good fats. So now, you are asserting something a bit different, no? Do you really believe this nonsense about blindly engaging in dietary restrictions?

[Tail Gunner]

(07-26-2016 06:34 PM)JayJuanGee Wrote:  

(07-26-2016 06:25 PM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  

You can shrink your stomach just by shrinking the size of your dinner plate:

Quote:

The study found that reducing plate size from 12 inches to 10 inches typically results in 22% less calories being served, as the smaller plate makes a normal serving seem more filling. However, the study found a lower limit for the effect; once plate size went below 9.5 inches "people begin to realize they're tricking themselves and go back for seconds and thirds."

The study predicted that using a 10 inch plate for a year would lead to a weight loss of 18 pounds for the average adult.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smaller_Plate_Study

Aren't you asserting something different, here, than what you had asserted earlier?


Let me see if I get this correct. Earlier you said that you could pretty much eat as much as you want, as long as you shrink the carbs in your diet (and make sure that you are eating good fats)... or at least, you seemed to have been saying that you could eat to satiety, and that you would likely become satiated at an earlier point (than previously) after having had cut the carbs in your diet and making sure to eat good fats. So now, you are asserting something a bit different, no? Do you really believe this nonsense about blindly engaging in dietary restrictions?

I am not asserting anything. I simply posted the results of one particular study for the benefit of forum members who may wish to try to duplicate the results of that study in their own lives.

Secondly, even if I had asserted the study as fact (which I did not) it is not in conflict with my earlier statements about eating a healthy diet as a method of natural weight control. Why? I assume that the Cornell study applied to people eating a typical unhealthy Standard American Diet. There are many ways to lose weight and some methods are obviously much more healthy than others. Not everyone here has the same degree of wisdom, will power, or life experience.

[JayJuanGee]

(07-26-2016 06:44 PM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  

(07-26-2016 06:34 PM)JayJuanGee Wrote:  

(07-26-2016 06:25 PM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  

You can shrink your stomach just by shrinking the size of your dinner plate:

Quote:

The study found that reducing plate size from 12 inches to 10 inches typically results in 22% less calories being served, as the smaller plate makes a normal serving seem more filling. However, the study found a lower limit for the effect; once plate size went below 9.5 inches "people begin to realize they're tricking themselves and go back for seconds and thirds."

The study predicted that using a 10 inch plate for a year would lead to a weight loss of 18 pounds for the average adult.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smaller_Plate_Study

Aren't you asserting something different, here, than what you had asserted earlier?


Let me see if I get this correct. Earlier you said that you could pretty much eat as much as you want, as long as you shrink the carbs in your diet (and make sure that you are eating good fats)... or at least, you seemed to have been saying that you could eat to satiety, and that you would likely become satiated at an earlier point (than previously) after having had cut the carbs in your diet and making sure to eat good fats. So now, you are asserting something a bit different, no? Do you really believe this nonsense about blindly engaging in dietary restrictions?

I am not asserting anything. I simply posted the results of one particular study for the benefit of forum members who may wish to try to duplicate the results of that study in their own lives.

Secondly, even if I had asserted the study as fact (which I did not) it is not in conflict with my earlier statements about eating a healthy diet as a method of natural weight control. Why? I assume that the Cornell study applied to people eating a typical unhealthy Standard American Diet. There are many ways to lose weight and some methods are obviously much more healthy than others. Not everyone here has the same degree of wisdom, will power, or life experience.

Fair enough that you are not trying to assert anything, and really I am not trying to be argumentative merely for the sake of being argumentative.

Nonetheless, I found your earlier post (509) to be valuable (even though you now are saying that you were not asserting anything).

I don't disagree with you that there are a lot of ways that guys can lose weight and even lose belly weight, but I also think that a lot of us (at least hopefully that is the case) recognize the assertions of Gary Taubes to be fair assertions and that is that mainstream weight remedies seem to distract in a lot of ways by blaming people for eating too much and exercising too little.

Whether valid or not, when studies seem to harp on such mainstream theories (such as a simply reduce your plate theory) I believe that they are playing into disinformation, and not really attempting to help to inform us about distinctions between good eating and bad eating.

I personally believe that humans can tolerate the eating of a lot of bad food, yet it does not really tell us much of anything if we suggest to just eat a little bit of everything and try to cut back on some of the things that are worse, but overall just cut back.. blah blah blah..

I find those "cut back" messages to be misleading and distractions and even contrary to what I had thought that you were saying earlier (even if you now say that you were not asserting anything).

[Tail Gunner]

(07-26-2016 07:01 PM)JayJuanGee Wrote:  

(07-26-2016 06:44 PM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  

(07-26-2016 06:34 PM)JayJuanGee Wrote:  

(07-26-2016 06:25 PM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  

You can shrink your stomach just by shrinking the size of your dinner plate:

Quote:

The study found that reducing plate size from 12 inches to 10 inches typically results in 22% less calories being served, as the smaller plate makes a normal serving seem more filling. However, the study found a lower limit for the effect; once plate size went below 9.5 inches "people begin to realize they're tricking themselves and go back for seconds and thirds."

The study predicted that using a 10 inch plate for a year would lead to a weight loss of 18 pounds for the average adult.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smaller_Plate_Study

Aren't you asserting something different, here, than what you had asserted earlier?


Let me see if I get this correct. Earlier you said that you could pretty much eat as much as you want, as long as you shrink the carbs in your diet (and make sure that you are eating good fats)... or at least, you seemed to have been saying that you could eat to satiety, and that you would likely become satiated at an earlier point (than previously) after having had cut the carbs in your diet and making sure to eat good fats. So now, you are asserting something a bit different, no? Do you really believe this nonsense about blindly engaging in dietary restrictions?

I am not asserting anything. I simply posted the results of one particular study for the benefit of forum members who may wish to try to duplicate the results of that study in their own lives.

Secondly, even if I had asserted the study as fact (which I did not) it is not in conflict with my earlier statements about eating a healthy diet as a method of natural weight control. Why? I assume that the Cornell study applied to people eating a typical unhealthy Standard American Diet. There are many ways to lose weight and some methods are obviously much more healthy than others. Not everyone here has the same degree of wisdom, will power, or life experience.

Nonetheless, I found your earlier post (509) to be valuable (even though you now are saying that you were not asserting anything).

* * *

I find those "cut back" messages to be misleading and distractions and even contrary to what I had thought that you were saying earlier (even if you now say that you were not asserting anything).

You are oddly beginning to sound like RagnarLothbrok. Perhaps I just bring that out in people.

When I stated that "I am not asserting anything" I was referring to post 543, not post 509. I stand by all the first-hand information I provided in post 509.

By analogy, I might believe that a particular type of weight training exercise is not all that great, but I could still teach someone how to do it. That does not mean that I endorse it.

[JayJuanGee]

(07-26-2016 07:19 PM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  

(07-26-2016 07:01 PM)JayJuanGee Wrote:  

[edited out]

You are oddly beginning to sound like RagnarLothbrok. Perhaps I just bring that out in people.

What's the Ragnar Lothbrok connection?

(07-26-2016 07:19 PM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  

When I stated that "I am not asserting anything" I was referring to post 543, not post 509. I stand by all the first-hand information I provided in post 509.

o.k. Maybe I read too much into it?

(07-26-2016 07:19 PM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  

By analogy, I might believe that a particular type of weight training exercise is not all that great, but I could still teach someone how to do it. That does not mean that I endorse it.

I understand what you are saying here that you could post about something without endorsing it, and I don't necessarily want to attempt to hold anyone to any kind of standard or assertion that they do not embrace... so in that regard, I may have attributed too much to your 509 post.

Anyhow, there can be some tensions and contradictions in the dietary world and even in our own thinking, and I post to attempt to clarify more than to argue, yet I stand by my own assertion that calorie restriction and even food quantity restriction approaches tend to be misleading and distracting.

[N°6]

Has any post in this thread worked out for anyone?

I'm just finishing a very stressful period at work and this coincided partly with drinking during Euro2016 and phases of depression.

Now the measurement of my belly past the belly button is 36" which is the most it has ever been. Traditionally I measure 33-34" but that still gave me some flab over the lower abs.

Will cut out the beer to stop things getting worse.