|
On April 22 2013 21:27 Keniji wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2013 14:53 Polis wrote:On September 03 2011 03:53 eshlow wrote:2. Quality of foods. The quality of foods approach is focused on eliminating caloric dense foods with little nutritional value and replacing them with calorically sparse foods with high nutritional value.
For example, a quality of foods approach would focus on eliminating all junk foods and drinks -- juices, sodas, sports drinks, chips, cookies, donuts, candies, etc. -- and replace them with nutrient rich foods such as fruits, vegetables, meat, birds, fish, eggs, etc. which also have considerably more nutrients than the former.
Basically, the rule is to eliminate processed foods and replace them with real foods.
This is my preferred approach because of a couple of key reasons. First, you can eat 'til you're full. Satiety is a big reason why we eat, and people don't like to be hungry. Since we are eating less calorically dense foods, we can eat 'til we are full and still lose weight. Second, we are getting more nutrients and thus improving our health.
Sorry if that was commented already, but I wanted to say that this is a myth. Eggs on beacon is a calorie dense food, but it is great for weight loss, satiety isn't regulated by the volume of food that you are eating, but by its effects on hormone production. If you would try to eat only fat (keto fast on coconut oil) you will find it hard to eat more then 600kcal a day despite eating the most calorie dense food that there is. he writes "eliminating caloric dense foods with little nutritional value". (you didn't highlight the last part and therefore took it out of context). eggs and bacon for example don't fall into that catogerie, he even specifically names meat and eggs later as good/quality food.
Later on he writes:
"replacing them with calorically sparse foods with high nutritional value."
So I didn't put it out of context, my point is that caloric density of food isn't a criteria that you should use when choosing what to eat. It isn't a secondary criteria either it isn't a criteria at all.
On April 22 2013 21:18 mordek wrote:Yeah, you could nitpick or read the rest of the section. It's apparent to me he's referring to calorically dense/low nutritional value foods like juices, sodas, sports drinks, chips, cookies, donuts, candies because he says to eliminate... "juices, sodas, sports drinks, chips, cookies, donuts, candies". Feel free to eat calorically dense foods if they have high nutritional value obviously. If you're hung up on satiety, yeah hormones play a role but he a) recommends to eat the very foods that help satiety with hormone production and b) eating 3 heads of broccoli is going to feel like a ton psychologically but is only 600cal. If you're just trying to make things more clear for people reading, that's cool 
Eating broccoli is good, especially if you put some butter on them, but if you look at controlled trials then low carb hi fat wins with hi carb low fat despite being more calorie dense.
From my experience I had lost 20kg on hi fat low carb diet (max 60g/day) in a month, and I did loose 2kg in a week eating real food without worrying about macros (so it was less dense in calories). I often could only eat breakfast on low carb hi fat so that is pretty remarkable difference from being hungry every hour I literally couldn't force myself to eat more. It is also interesting how perception of how much you eat is influenced by how often hungry you are, when you forget to eat for big parts of the day, and you eat to satiety when you are hungry you might eat little but it can feel like you had eaten allot, I had days when it seem to me that I had to eaten allot that day, but when I had plugged the calories it was 1.8kcal max.
|
I honestly don't think you disagree with eshlow at all when it comes to diet lol. It's probably a matter of presentation really. The primary focus was quality whole foods. This is good and something people taking their diet seriously should care about and it seems you agree. When trying to lose weight, it certainly doesn't hurt to lower caloric intake within reason. Calorically sparse and high nutritional value foods would be the focus of such a diet
|
On April 23 2013 06:41 mordek wrote:When trying to lose weight, it certainly doesn't hurt to lower caloric intake within reason. Calorically sparse and high nutritional value foods would be the focus of such a diet
This is where I disagree, eating food sparse in calories doesn't lead to eating less calories. Broccoli might have 200 kcal but I will be hungry an hour after eating it or sooner, if I eat 700kcal in eggs on beacon I will be feed for half a day or longer.
|
On April 23 2013 23:34 Polis wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 06:41 mordek wrote:When trying to lose weight, it certainly doesn't hurt to lower caloric intake within reason. Calorically sparse and high nutritional value foods would be the focus of such a diet This is where I disagree, eating food sparse in calories doesn't lead to eating less calories. Broccoli might have 200 kcal but I will be hungry an hour after eating it or sooner, if I eat 700kcal in eggs on beacon I will be feed for half a day or longer.
Well this is all subjective. I'm always hungry so I avoid eating calorie dense food so I can eat as often and as big portions as possible.
|
On April 23 2013 23:34 Polis wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 06:41 mordek wrote:When trying to lose weight, it certainly doesn't hurt to lower caloric intake within reason. Calorically sparse and high nutritional value foods would be the focus of such a diet This is where I disagree, eating food sparse in calories doesn't lead to eating less calories. Broccoli might have 200 kcal but I will be hungry an hour after eating it or sooner, if I eat 700kcal in eggs on beacon I will be feed for half a day or longer.
you'd be hungry after eating 200kcal of eggs and bacon in an hour too (lol like 1 egg 1 piece of bacon) and wouldn't be able to eat 700kcal of broccoli. That being said they're both good things to eat so we're really just splitting hairs at this point. The point is to avoid doing shit like eating 1000kcal of cheetos and sticking to real foods.
|
On April 23 2013 23:53 KOVU wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 23:34 Polis wrote:On April 23 2013 06:41 mordek wrote:When trying to lose weight, it certainly doesn't hurt to lower caloric intake within reason. Calorically sparse and high nutritional value foods would be the focus of such a diet This is where I disagree, eating food sparse in calories doesn't lead to eating less calories. Broccoli might have 200 kcal but I will be hungry an hour after eating it or sooner, if I eat 700kcal in eggs on beacon I will be feed for half a day or longer. Well this is all subjective. I'm always hungry so I avoid eating calorie dense food so I can eat as often and as big portions as possible.
Had you tried real food that is calorie dense? I was hungry all the time when I was eating junk foods like wheat. This is why I had commented on calorie density, people avoid real food because they think that they need to eat less calorie dense food to loose weight without hunger, but that isn't the case. Hi fat low carb diets are more effective then plant based vegetarian diets (both unrestricted in calories).
|
On April 24 2013 01:11 Polis wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 23:53 KOVU wrote:On April 23 2013 23:34 Polis wrote:On April 23 2013 06:41 mordek wrote:When trying to lose weight, it certainly doesn't hurt to lower caloric intake within reason. Calorically sparse and high nutritional value foods would be the focus of such a diet This is where I disagree, eating food sparse in calories doesn't lead to eating less calories. Broccoli might have 200 kcal but I will be hungry an hour after eating it or sooner, if I eat 700kcal in eggs on beacon I will be feed for half a day or longer. Well this is all subjective. I'm always hungry so I avoid eating calorie dense food so I can eat as often and as big portions as possible. Had you tried real food that is calorie dense? I was hungry all the time when I was eating junk foods like wheat. This is why I had commented on calorie density, people avoid real food because they think that they need to eat less calorie dense food to loose weight without hunger, but that isn't the case. Hi fat low carb diets are more effective then plant based vegetarian diets (both unrestricted in calories).
Yes, I have tried eating bacon before in my life. I don't eat wheat or grains anymore and my stomach loves me for it. Big portions of food make me full so I eat big portions of food that isn't calorie dense.
|
So basically you're arguing about minor aspects of my wording. I'd go change it if I could but alas I can't edit posts more than a couple months old.
This is why I generally say "don't eat processed foods"... and I'd probably add in non-perishable into that category as well. Easier to just say that. "Eat real foods",... whatever you want to say.
|
got myself a bigass pork shoulder cuz it was on sale at the local giant for a dollar a pound. any good ideas on what to make with it? i was gonna use the bone to make soup/broth, and throw in carrots, celery, onions, tomatoes, and chives. but that still leaves me with a ton of meat. what are your favorite ways to cook pokr?
|
On April 28 2013 22:43 ieatkids5 wrote:
got myself a bigass pork shoulder cuz it was on sale at the local giant for a dollar a pound. any good ideas on what to make with it? i was gonna use the bone to make soup/broth, and throw in carrots, celery, onions, tomatoes, and chives. but that still leaves me with a ton of meat. what are your favorite ways to cook pokr?
Crock pot it IMO... heck you can throw in some of the meat with that stew you're going to cook as well
|
|
|
haha crockpot it is. well, half of it at least. and not actually a crock pot, cuz i don't have one.... but using a pot on a stove will do..
the other half is gonna be oven roasted with garlic, black pepper, and cilantro.
|
infinity21
Canada6683 Posts
Anyone have experience with ECA stack? It seems to be pretty safe but some first-hand accounts would be appreciated.
|
|
|
Zurich15364 Posts
|
|
|
Zurich15364 Posts
Hahaha nice website. Although what they write about him is mostly about (bad) surgery and tax evasion as it seems, nothing really on the topic.
|
yesterday:
breakfast - 2 clementines, a banana, oatmeal / quinoa blend, milk
lunch - collard greens steamed with garlic, canned tuna, kimchi, white rice, bit of olive oil
snack - homemade guacamole with chips
dinner - chicken thighs slow simmered with onions, chives, and black pepper; white rice, spinach and spring mix veggies,
|
Ok so I know this is one of the more iffy questions, but about to start working out again and am wondering what my approach should be to eating as I am starting out. I have been working out on and off for a few months at the time over the last year or so, and even though I am currently in pretty bad shape, I guess I am not as bad as I used to be before when I had never worked out before.
The main thing I am wondering is if I should aim to lose weight first or try go up in weight, or at least stay same weight\gain muscles? I am currently about as fat as I have ever been (T_T) but still not actually that fat I guess. Am at 83~ kg and 181~182 cm tall. I mean if I could choose my optimal long long term body If that matters, would probably be still be weighing a bit more than I am now (closer to 90kg I guess). But then again definitely have a large amount of excess fat I could\should be getting rid of.
Edit: I Guess if it matters, currently I am sort of leaning towards losing weight, first, have gained a decent amount of weight lately where i am guessing most of it is fat, so think I would feel overall better by getting rid of some of this before I go on to hardcore building strength\muscle. Though I am not set in stone with this so if its a better idea to keep on eating lots and going up in weight some more before I start focusing on going down again, I am all ears.
|
You can find information in the OP, but anyway I think you should just focus eating right (w/lots of protein) and lifting right, and just forget about the scale. You'll probably lose weight from eating better and the increased metabolism from lifting, but you will look bigger anyway from an increased muscle to fat ratio.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
