08 Feb 11
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFI have never really struggled with my weight as I keep it within some fixed boundaries. On a few occasions I have lost weight after crossing such a boundary by eating less.
Now that I've told you that on the three occasions I followed the Hay Diet, my body quite swiftly moved towards its 'ideal weight', it won't work for you. Psychosomatics are in the eye of the beholder.
I would like to also point out explicitly that I'm not saying the diet doesn't work, I'm just curious why it works for you.
08 Feb 11
1 edit
Originally posted by PenguinPerhaps because the types of food are digested more efficiently if they are digested separately? i.e. more is extracted from eating less, explaining why I never get hungry and why I am able eat as much as I feel I want, which cannot be said for a calorie-counting approach (in my case).
I still think the most likely mechanism is that following this particular diet is making you subconsciously choose quantities and types of food that end up with you eating fewer calories, without you being aware of it.
08 Feb 11
Originally posted by twhitehead"I've done my 30 minutes walk, now I deserve a chocolate bar". End result: weight gain.
I actually don't know how many calories are burnt for each type of exercise.
My point was that although exercise does burn calories and can lead to weight loss, we often over estimate how many calories it burns and many people then reward themselves by taking on more calories eg "I've done my 30 minutes walk, now I deserve a chocolate bar". End result: w ...[text shortened]... han exercise). I am not saying 'don't exercise' as there are many health benefits to it.
That's the nail hit on the head. People don't know how to exercise. They go to a commercial gym get shown all these different shiny machines so the gym management can tick the health and safety box and then off they go. They don't know their Rectus femoris from their Subscapularis. It would be like me saying to someone here's a keyboard, a mouse, a monitor and a computer case with all it's components..........now write me a computer program. It's ridiculous.
09 Feb 11
Originally posted by PenguinI disagree. A few misunderstandings here and there are a small price to pay for not allowing the mildly thought-provoking and oblique commentary - that deadpan irony makes possible - to be rendered bland and foolproof by facile and compressing emoticons. If you thought that I really thought that KazetNagorra was really saying I was "insane", that is a problem that you have with the sum effect of talking to all the other people on the internet, and not a problem that is caused by you talking to me. And, no, I will not now insert an emoticon here.
British though we both appear to be, I think the web medium does demand some way of indicating non-verbal cues.
09 Feb 11
Originally posted by FMFIn my experience, some foods make you want to eat more, and some foods leave you satisfied. I believe the foods that make you want to eat more, are the ones that give you an energy rush. This includes foods with high sugar content (immediate rush) or those high in carbohydrates (delayed rush). Proteins generally do not give a rush.
Perhaps because the types of food are digested more efficiently if they are digested separately? i.e. more is extracted from eating less, explaining why I never get hungry and why I am able eat as much as I feel I want, which cannot be said for a calorie-counting approach (in my case).
So, if you separate your foods, then for your protein meal, you have no rush and eat less. If you mix your foods you get a rush at each meal and eat more. The order of you meals may also have a lot to do with it. If you have the proteins earlier in the day and the sugars and carbohydrates late in the day then much of the day you will not feel hungry.
I got most of the above ideas from reading about the Atkins diet a few years ago and the concepts there made sense then and I have been observing the effects closely ever since and I think it hits the nail on the head.
So my advice: avoid carbohydrates and sugars for breakfast and keep them to a minimum at lunch. You could also go for slow release carbohydrates for lunch such as what is called "Low GI" bread here in SA (I don't know if it exists elsewhere).
Also, if you notice a particular food that makes you hungry or foods that are addictive (soft drinks, chocolate etc) then stop taking them altogether.
With addictions the best solution is always total avoidance. Too many people try to keep the quantities low but then have trouble dealing with the cravings (and give in to them). If you allow yourself one bar of chocolate a week, you will soon be having more than that (or will struggle not to). If you totally stop having any, the cravings go away.
09 Feb 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadTWhiteheads suggestion does make a lot of sense to me and would explain why that diet works for you when a traditional diet did not. It would be interesting to see whether the trial that found not extra benefit of the Hay over the traditional followed that meal sequence.
In my experience, some foods make you want to eat more, and some foods leave you satisfied. I believe the foods that make you want to eat more, are the ones that give you an energy rush. This includes foods with high sugar content (immediate rush) or those high in carbohydrates (delayed rush). Proteins generally do not give a rush.
So, if you separate ...[text shortened]... re than that (or will struggle not to). If you totally stop having any, the cravings go away.
--- Penguin
09 Feb 11
Originally posted by PenguinThe trial had all the subjects eating a fixed amount of foods in total. It therefore did not in any way investigate the effect of hunger or desire. Participants were not allowed to eat as much as they like.
TWhiteheads suggestion does make a lot of sense to me and would explain why that diet works for you when a traditional diet did not. It would be interesting to see whether the trial that found not extra benefit of the Hay over the traditional followed that meal sequence.
--- Penguin
09 Feb 11
Originally posted by FMFBut what we don't know is whether or not 'what you like' is less, more, or the same as you ate before going on the diet.
I eat as much as I like and I have lost 15 kgs. It's insane! Or, I'm insane - one or the other.
So we don't know whether the weight loss is due to consuming less calories, or how the body digests the food.
10 Feb 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadWell I have stated that I eat the same foods and I eat more or less the same amounts (I should know as I do most of the grocery shopping). I don't 'go hungry'. I know my testimony is not exactly scientific. All diets in the past that involved consciously "consuming less calories" fizzled out because of hunger and the prerequisite fussiness. Your (and others) interesting doubts notwithstanding, I have reached the pencilled-in conclusion that my marked weight loss is due to how the body digests the food.
But what we don't know is whether or not 'what you like' is less, more, or the same as you ate before going on the diet.
So we don't know whether the weight loss is due to consuming less calories, or how the body digests the food.
10 Feb 11
Originally posted by FMFYou could be right, though you seem to be under the impression that the body digests food better with your diet, yet it needs to digest food worse for you to experience weight loss.
I have reached the pencilled-in conclusion that my marked weight loss is due to how the body digests the food.
It is possible that if all the sugar producing foods are eaten at once, it overloads the system and the body doesn't have time to convert the sugars to fats (before some of the excesses are excreted in the urine. If this is the case, then I would be concerned about the effects of high sugar levels in the blood (quite damaging).
10 Feb 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadI have been using the word "efficient", for the most part. You are using the words "better" and "worse", as I regret doing earlier. What is "good" and "better" and "bad" and "worse", I suppose, is in the eye of the beholder. Pardon me if I copy and paste and slightly reword something I posted earlier: Perhaps [...] the types of food are digested more efficiently if they are digested separately meaning more is extracted [from less food] ...or there is less weight-gaining impact from the same amount of food eaten as the digestion is more effective at extracting benefit and discarding that which is not beneficial. What does 'better digestion' mean for you? Digestion where the benefit of the food is not extracted?
You could be right, though you seem to be under the impression that the body digests food better with your diet, yet it needs to digest food worse for you to experience weight loss.
It is possible that if all the sugar producing foods are eaten at once, it overloads the system and the body doesn't have time to convert the sugars to fats (before some of t ...[text shortened]... then I would be concerned about the effects of high sugar levels in the blood (quite damaging).
10 Feb 11
1 edit
Suspending reality [in terms of nutrition etc.] for a moment, if we may, how about this scenario:
One person eats a slice of cheese on toast three times a day, spacing them out as breakfast, lunch and supper.
Another, let's say of the same weight, eats three slices of cheese and three slices of toast a day, spacing them out so that each intake of food has been more or less fully digested before the next one is consumed.
Would it surprise you if, after a period of time, the two people's weight to began to differ?
10 Feb 11
Originally posted by FMFOn the basis of what have you reached this conclusion?
Well I have stated that I eat the same foods and I eat more or less the same amounts (I should know as I do most of the grocery shopping). I don't 'go hungry'. I know my testimony is not exactly scientific. All diets in the past that involved consciously "consuming less calories" fizzled out because of hunger and the prerequisite fussiness. Your (and others) int ...[text shortened]... pencilled-in conclusion that my marked weight loss is due to how the body digests the food.
10 Feb 11
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThe 'success' when following the diet, three times, and similar results for relatives and friends who have followed it. Indeed I personally know of noone for whom it hasn't worked to a degree. I have seen no evidence that the weight loss is psychosomatic and plenty of evidence that supports in detail what the diet's proponents say about it. Either way, there is 15kg less of me.
On the basis of what have you reached this conclusion?
If you were able to convince me that it's psychosomatic, and therefore change my attitude towards the diet, do you think that I would start putting that weight back on, even if I continued to separate my food?