Sugar free diet?
- Thread starter dognutz
- Start date
What you're eating has the equivalent of about 3 slices of bread, reasonable in protein but a bit heavy on the salts at well over a 1000mg for both sodium (table salt) and potassium. Daily recommended salt intake (WHO) is 2300mg and you're exceeding that in one meal. In Canada the recommended salt intake is 1200-1500mg (about 1/2 teaspoon).
LTO_3
I dont know if what you said is true or false, but a lot of it sounds like Thomas DeLauer BS. lol. But that said, I agree. High sugar foods tend to make you hungry and make you want more sugary things. And a low carb diet, tends to kill that craving. I have felt it myself. So based on that sample of 1.....
Not too bad. Calorie wise it is okay. It does have trans fats which is very bad for you. And is very high in sodium. Try making it at home with less salt. Its ground beef, beans, tomatoes, onion, garlic, and spices in one pot. So why buy the canned product? Also use dried beans that you soak overnight and cook in an instant pot the next day to reduce sodium.
Last edited:
Although I wasn't thinking of him when I wrote the post but I find him evidence based and thought provoking.
What would make you think otherwise?
He is a quack. Not evidence based. He uses fancy language that sounds scientific but it isn't. DeLauer has a bachelors degree in communications. Dr. Layne Norton has a PhD in nutritional science along with some bodybuilding titles and accomplishments.
She is not an expert in thermodynamics. End of story. I taught thermodynamics courses, and especially thermodynamics of open systems. So, don’t try to tell me I am wrong with what I said about your statement on open and closed systems.
Obesity Epidemic by Zoe Harcombe
🖨️ Print post The Obesity Epidemic: What Caused It? How Can We Stop It? By Zoë Harcombe, BA, MA Columbus Publishing, 2010 Near the start of this book […]
www.westonaprice.org
Your link confirms that she doesn’t know squat about thermodynamics, nor does she understand open versus closed systems. For that matter, medical people don’t have enough understanding of thermodynamics, either. She should never try to claim expertise in a subject that she has no background in. Economics and math, or working with blue chip organisations, do not make one an expert in physical chemistry or thermodynamics.Obesity Epidemic by Zoe Harcombe
🖨️ Print post The Obesity Epidemic: What Caused It? How Can We Stop It? By Zoë Harcombe, BA, MA Columbus Publishing, 2010 Near the start of this book […]
The problem with accounting for energy in versus energy out in a human body system is that these ’experts’ have not accounted for the inputs and outputs correctly. Nor do they account properly for accumulation in the case of open systems. There are also effects of associated water with fat cells that add up to weight effects. You tend to lose about four to five kilos with every kilo of fat that you ‘burn’. So, from the point of view of a scientist and engineer, she is wrong, and so are the so-called analyses that are referred to in your link.
Last edited:
You are buying into the cons who manipulate studies to suit their wanting of clicks and followers.
Again, if you take in 3000 calories of "clean healthy food" every day for a week and your daily maintenance calories are 2500 a day. At the end of that week, you have gained 1lb. of most likely pure fat. Where it went in the body, is up to the individual's body.
I'd avoid packaged foods and drinks where possible including in cans, boxes, jars, celophane bags or bottles. You have to read labels very carefully these days especially for high fructose corn syrup, fructose, glucose, sucrose or dextrose. They're all sweeteners aka sugars. You would have to be very deligent to avoid this stuff.
If think it's safe to say that just about all packaged food has some form of sugar in them.
If think it's safe to say that just about all packaged food has some form of sugar in them.
You explain it well and what you are saying is accurate.
Here is a classic bestseller that explains the above known science in the simplest, laymans terms I've read. No cheerleading, gimmicks etc. Just biology, hormones, matabolic processes etc.
Funny that the Kindle Edition isn't on the amazon.ca site that i could find. Best $10 and three hours you will spend.
Amazon.com
www.amazon.com
A short 8 minute video explaining why counting calories in ineffective for weight loss...
I would disagree with this based on personal experience alone. By the way didnt you say calories in, calories out? How would you know how many calories to take in without counting?
Layne is great. He is a very scientific guy and has the right credentials too.
You obviously didn't watch the video so there's no point in responding at this point.
Okay I watched it now. He is saying dont eat junk and sugars instead of counting calories of bad quality food. I am saying that calorie counting and good quality food has to go hand in hand. Too much of good qualify food will also make you fat.
Please don’t make statements about thermodynamics and open versus closed systems unless you have studied thermodynamics. A an engineer, I will tell you that your statement is wrong.
Thermodynamics - Open Systems, Energy, Entropy
Thermodynamics - Open Systems, Energy, Entropy: Most real thermodynamic systems are open systems that exchange heat and work with their environment, rather than the closed systems described thus far. For example, living systems are clearly able to achieve a local reduction in their entropy as...www.britannica.com
Respectfully, engineering is inapplicable, if not outright inappropriate to human metabolism. Yes, calories in- calories out is absolutely true.
But humans are not closed systems. There is nothing more complex and involves more combinations of metabolic, neurological hormones, chemistry, thermodynamics and even variable bio-mechanical factors such as the differing lengths of everyones small intestine. Those skinny bastards and bitches often have a shorter than average small intestine and therefore absorb less calories and shit more down the toilet. Evolutionarily superior humans have longer than average small intestines and therefore take up more calories of whatever they put in their mouths. They can survive famine longer due to their superior ability to not shit out valuable calories.
This is the foundation of bariatric weight loss surgery. Surgically engineered and reduction/bypass of most of the small intestine resulting in malabsorption.
Malabsorptive Surgery & Weight Loss Procedure | UPMC
The UPMC Bariatric Surgery Center offers multiple malabsorptive surgery options to help with your weight loss. Learn more about the procedures available.
www.upmc.com
- Malabsorptive bariatric surgery limits the amount of nutrients the body absorbs by bypassing a portion of the small intestine.
Having said that, sugar and high carb diets can thwart even highly restrictive malabsorptive procedures.
If you enjoy a little sugar, you are gonna luuuuuuuuuvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv another seemingly harmlessly enjoyable white powder! A little of it goes a long way too!
You are gonna walk reeeeeeellllleeeeeeeeyyyyyyyyy fast but for a small chunk of the day....
I don’t understand what your statement about the inapplicability of engineering to the human body has to do with what I said. Your statement contradicts the entire realm of the discipline of biomedical engineering and cross-disciplinary work in the general understanding how the human body works. Whatever system within the human body you consider, science and, engineering as a part of science, can describe how it works. Your example of bariatric surgery, kidney function, cardiology, skeletal structure, eye optics, nerve functions and signal transmissions, are possible due to our scientific understanding of how the human body works.Respectfully, engineering is inapplicable, if not outright inappropriate to human metabolism. Yes, calories in- calories out is absolutely true.
But humans are not closed systems. There is nothing more complex and involves more combinations of metabolic, neurological hormones, chemistry, thermodynamics and even variable bio-mechanical factors such as the differing lengths of everyones small intestine. Those skinny bastards and bitches often have a shorter than average small intestine and therefore absorb less calories and shit more down the toilet. Evolutionarily superior humans have longer than average small intestines and therefore take up more calories of whatever they put in their mouths. They can survive famine longer due to their superior ability to not shit out valuable calories.
This is the foundation of bariatric weight loss surgery. Surgically engineered and reduction/bypass of most of the small intestine resulting in malabsorption.
.Malabsorptive Surgery & Weight Loss Procedure | UPMC
The UPMC Bariatric Surgery Center offers multiple malabsorptive surgery options to help with your weight loss. Learn more about the procedures available.
- Malabsorptive bariatric surgery limits the amount of nutrients the body absorbs by bypassing a portion of the small intestine.
Having said that, sugar and high carb diets can thwart even highly restrictive malabsorptive procedures.
Longer intestines provide greater surface area for absorption of nutrients. That is an engineering axiom of mass transport across semipermeable barriers. Surgically engineered were words you used in your post. Human metabolism is definitely an area where the physicochemical processes can be understood through engineering, physics and chemistry.
The artificial kidney, dialysis, is a medical life saver for those whose kidney function is severely compromised. It exists due to the understanding of mass transfer across a specific type of semipermeable membrane, and was invented by using chemical engineering principles. Just read what you wrote about all the complex processes that occur in the human body with respect to metabolism. Just because it is a very complex system doesn’t mean engineering and science can’t be applied to it. God’s greatest creation is the human body. He is the ultimate engineer.
There are many who work in this area. Don’t belittle their work. That reference to closed-system thermodynamics earlier on demonstrated how ignorant that person was to science, as she tried to sound really smart. It was inapplicable to the subject of weight loss.
