Why do people still believe in....

[hiitdogs]

>This is true, however, I try to eat reduced fat dairy (never
>fat free, other than skim milk) and the leanest meats and such
>I can find. But as far as anything processed that is fat
>free, forget it!
>
>I despise foods with high fructose corn syrup!

I eat 2 % dairy products and drink 2 % milk, the only way I can stomach skim milk is in a Starbucks Latte , otherwise it makes me gag.

I never ate any processed foods that were low-fat, it was just eating dairy non-fat and drinking skim milk and cutting anything fat (including good fats) to a level of 20 to 30g per day that totally screwed up my metabolism and lead to uncontrolable hunger pangs.

It's kind of funny even my cholesterol levels were screwed up. Now that I am eating 2 % dairy again, and even "gasp" butter every once in a while my good cholestorol has significantly come up and the bad has come down. Incidentially I read recently that saturated fat increases the good cholesterol. I am trying to keep my saturated fat intake under 10 % and my total fat intake between 60 and 90 g per day. So it's not that I am just consuming fat at high levels, just a lot more than what was advocated by the clinical dietician, nutritionists and many of the diets.

Interestingly enough I have no more hunger attacks, I have more energy, I actually make it through my workouts - consistently AND my weight is coming down consistently at a rate of 2 to 4 lbs per week.

Carola

 

[hiitdogs]

>>>>obesity epidemic in the US started after everyone was
>eating low-fat.
>
>I didn't realize that McDonald's and other fast food chains
>part of the typical American diet were low fat

I would say the fast-food chains like McDonalds were there LONG before the low-fat craze (McD started in 1954) and there certainly was no obesity epidemic back then like we have now.

I realize there are more factors that play into that, but I do think and that is backed up by a lot of research and published even through the American Journal of Medicine that the low-fat craze has contributed to the obesity epidemic.

I agree with you 100 % that people will fall for the next craze because most people are looking for a quick fix, whereas it is really simple, EAT RIGHT AND EXERCISE.
However, in my case, I was put on a particular diet by a clinical dietician and it turned out it started a vicious circle for me, that I never imagined could happen to me.

Carola

 

[kathryn]

Well, there are low fat diets, and there are low fat diets. The 10% fat diet that Caldwell Essenstyn and Dean Ornish promote for reversing and preventing heart disease is based on REAL FOOD, not artificially fat-reduced food.

A low fat diet based on processed food (ie: Snackwells cookies, reduced fat junk) is as bad as any processed-food-based diet, IMO.

 

[hiitdogs]

>Well, there are low fat diets, and there are low fat diets.
>The 10% fat diet that Caldwell Essenstyn and Dean Ornish
>promote for reversing and preventing heart disease is based on
>REAL FOOD, not artificially fat-reduced food.
>
In my experience even based on real food, and no junk food that is too low to be sustained over a longer period of time and a recipe for disaster.

For most people that would mean between 15 to 25 g of fat per day. 10 % on a 2,000 kcal diet would be 20 g of fat. 20g of fat is 1.5 Tbsp. of olive oil and that's the total allowance for 1 day. Heck, I am already there with a tablespoon of fishoil or 8 oz of grilled salmon.

Actually our bodies need some fat to metabolize and to absorb vitamins.

I don't advocate Atkins, South Beach or the like, I think it is the other extreme! To me, the only thing that works is everything in moderation and that's something that I can sustain in the long haul.

Low fat - high carbs, high fat - low carbs, etc. really is hogwash to me, invented by the diet industry to make money and to keep making money. And the diet industry certainly is not the least bit interested in keeping us at a healthy weight, otherwise they would be out of business.

Carola

 

[hiitdogs]

Didn't
>even Cathe make a workout called "Leaner Legs"? I've heard it
>mentioned, but don't know what series it is part of. I was
>surprised, because it's not like Cathe to use titles like
>that.) It's a myth that will never die.
>

Yeah, but I think she wanted to name it Meaner Legs, but then no one would have bought it }( :+

Carola

 

[red_mct]

Mine: the idea that out there, somewhere, if only we could figure out the magical ingredients, is a MIRACLE CURE that will give you the "perfect" body. I don't know why people can't just accept that losing weight means taking in fewer calories and exercising regularly!

 

[hiitdogs]

I
>am trying to keep my saturated fat intake under 10 % and my
>total fat intake between 60 and 90 g per day.

Ooops, typo, it's between 50 and 80 g per day.

Carola

 

[mspina]

>>the 'fat burning zone'?? You know, when you workout at a
>>lower intensity supposedly to use fat as fuel? I keep
>reading
>>about this myth on these forums and it surprises me
>everytime.
>
>
>Because it's actually not a myth, just misinterpreted.
>
>You do burn a higher percentage of fat than carbs when
>exercising at a certain level. But you burn an even higher
>percentage of fat vs. carbs when sleeping. The problem is
>that people then interpret this as meaning you burn more
>calories at a lower level, or it being a recommendation to
>work out at the lower levels at all times (not realizing that,
>even though the percentage of fat may be higher, the total
>number of calories burned during exercise is less, so there
>will be less weight loss overall).

Thank you Kathryn! It's actually a VERY important concept if you are (gasp) not working out to lose weight, but are actually training. Low intensity, aerobic workouts are an incredibly important aspect of endurance training (as are high intensity workouts - you do both, with the specific purpose of training the two very different energy systems). What drives me particularly crazy is the notion that women are only interested in burning the most calories possible, because as women, of course all we are interested in is losing weight. Grrrrrrrrr......

 

[Aquajock]

A discussion on "Cellulite", reprinted from Quackwatch.com

"Cellulite" Removers
Stephen Barrett, M.D.

Cellulite is a term coined in European salons and spas to describe deposits of dimpled fat found on the thighs and buttocks of many women. Widespread promotion of the concept in the United States followed the 1973 publication of Cellulite: Those Lumps, Bumps and Bulges You Couldn't Lose Before, by Nicole Ronsard, owner of a New York City beauty salon that specialized in skin and body care. Cellulite is alleged to be a special type of "fat gone wrong," a combination of fat, water, and "toxic wastes" that the body has failed to eliminate. Alleged "anticellulite" products sold through retail outlets, by mail, through multilevel companies, and through the Internet have included "loofah" sponges; cactus fibers; special washcloths; horsehair mitts; creams [A, B, C] and gels to "dissolve" cellulite; supplements containing vitamins; minerals and/or herbs [A, B, C]; bath liquids; massagers [A, B]; rubberized pants; exercise books; brushes; rollers; body wraps; and toning lotions. Many salons offer treatment with electrical muscle stimulation, vibrating machines, inflatable hip-high pressurized boots, "hormone" or "enzyme" injections, heating pads, and massage. Some operators claim that 5 to 15 inches can be lost in one hour. A series of treatments can cost hundreds of dollars.

"Cellulite" is not a medical term. Medical authorities agree that cellulite is simply ordinary fatty tissue [1]. Strands of fibrous tissue connect the skin to deeper tissue layers and also separate compartments that contain fat cells. When fat cells increase in size, these compartments bulge and produce a waffled appearance of the skin. Many years ago, Neil Solomon, M.D., conducted a double-blind study of 100 people to see whether cellulite differed from ordinary fat. Specimens of regular fat and lumpy fat were obtained by a needle biopsy procedure and given to pathologists for analysis and comparison. No difference between the two was found.

More recently, researchers at Rockefeller Institute used ultrasonography, microscopic examinations, and fat-metabolism studies to see "affected" and unaffected skin areas differed in seven healthy adult subjects (five women, two men; four affected, three unaffected). The researchers concluded: (a) certain characteristics of skin make women more prone than men to develop cellulite; (b) the process is diffuse rather than localized; and (3) there were no significant differences in the appearance or function of the fatty tissue or the regional blood flow between affected and unaffected sites within individuals [2].