I Lost 35 Kilos Is Just 6 Months

[tropo]

No carbohydrate is an essential nutrient in humans. There are "essential" fatty acids and "essential" amino acids (from protein), however there are no known essential carbohydrates..

People are touting zero carb diets. Perhaps you can stay alive without carbs, but it is not healthy and not natural. I'd like to see someone really on a zero carbs diet - just meat and fat. Perhaps an eskimo.

For normal people, carbs are the most delicious of foods. I can eat protein and fat all day long, but unless I get to enjoy at least a moderate amount of carbs I'm not happy and start craving them. Apart from that, my appetite is not satisfied unless I eat some carbs.

If I want to lose fat I'm going to exercise more. Why? Because if I exercise a lot my insulin sensitivity is good and I can enjoy carbs and still lose fat. I'm carving up right now - and eating quite a decent load of carbs everyday. As long as your insulin metabolism is good it becomes a matter of calories in - calories out. If someone has impaired insulin metabolism, then of course carbs present a problem.

[thaibeachlovers]

When I first saw the photos, I thought it was one of those weight loss jokes, as in she is 35 kg and you lost her, LOL.

Anyway, congratulations.

My biggest problem to losing weight is my wife's cooking, which is so good that I have to eat it all, even when she gives me far too much ( which is all the time ). I always say to her that she wants me fat so other women don't chase me, LOL.

I did lose 6 kg after about 3 months by working hard for about 4 hours a day outside, and not eating much in the morning ( leaves more room for her dinners ).

[thaibeachlovers]

No carbohydrate is an essential nutrient in humans. There are "essential" fatty acids and "essential" amino acids (from protein), however there are no known essential carbohydrates..

People are touting zero carb diets. Perhaps you can stay alive without carbs, but it is not healthy and not natural. I'd like to see someone really on a zero carbs diet - just meat and fat. Perhaps an eskimo.

For normal people, carbs are the most delicious of foods. I can eat protein and fat all day long, but unless I get to enjoy at least a moderate amount of carbs I'm not happy and start craving them. Apart from that, my appetite is not satisfied unless I eat some carbs.

If I want to lose fat I'm going to exercise more. Why? Because if I exercise a lot my insulin sensitivity is good and I can enjoy carbs and still lose fat. I'm carving up right now - and eating quite a decent load of carbs everyday. As long as your insulin metabolism is good it becomes a matter of calories in - calories out. If someone has impaired insulin metabolism, then of course carbs present a problem.

There was a popular zero carb diet a while back, but it could really damage your body by ketosis.

[robblok]

When I first saw the photos, I thought it was one of those weight loss jokes, as in she is 35 kg and you lost her, LOL.

Anyway, congratulations.

My biggest problem to losing weight is my wife's cooking, which is so good that I have to eat it all, even when she gives me far too much ( which is all the time ). I always say to her that she wants me fat so other women don't chase me, LOL.

I did lose 6 kg after about 3 months by working hard for about 4 hours a day outside, and not eating much in the morning ( leaves more room for her dinners ).

I think its hard for everyone to loose weight. I know that i have to sacrifice things to do it. Its the same for everyone.

Some say ketosis is good for loosing weight. I tried it for a while and i did loose some weight but i found it hard to do.

[SpoliaOpima]

No carbohydrate is an essential nutrient in humans. There are "essential" fatty acids and "essential" amino acids (from protein), however there are no known essential carbohydrates..

People are touting zero carb diets. Perhaps you can stay alive without carbs, but it is not healthy and not natural. I'd like to see someone really on a zero carbs diet - just meat and fat. Perhaps an eskimo.

For normal people, carbs are the most delicious of foods. I can eat protein and fat all day long, but unless I get to enjoy at least a moderate amount of carbs I'm not happy and start craving them. Apart from that, my appetite is not satisfied unless I eat some carbs.

If I want to lose fat I'm going to exercise more. Why? Because if I exercise a lot my insulin sensitivity is good and I can enjoy carbs and still lose fat. I'm carving up right now - and eating quite a decent load of carbs everyday. As long as your insulin metabolism is good it becomes a matter of calories in - calories out. If someone has impaired insulin metabolism, then of course carbs present a problem.

There was a popular zero carb diet a while back, but it could really damage your body by ketosis.

Not talking about zero carbs, just keeping them to a minimum. Or work out more. It's all about calorie reduction, from one side or the other.

The anti-ketosis stance is considered controversial but one can keep carbs to a low 50-150 grams a day, which is not low enough to spur ketosis.

[tropo]

Not talking about zero carbs, just keeping them to a minimum. Or work out more. It's all about calorie reduction, from one side or the other.

The anti-ketosis stance is considered controversial but one can keep carbs to a low 50-150 grams a day, which is not low enough to spur ketosis.

I disagree that carbs are not an essential nutrient. Perhaps one can get by without them for awhile but there's a difference between staying alive and living a healthy life. I think Eskimos can do it (I'm not sure if they eat some carbs depending on the season) but they are brought up on a fat/protein diet.

Sure, diabetics (type 2) who want to control their blood sugar by diet alone will need to keep them very low but if I was at the point where I couldn't eat carbs I'd prefer to take some drugs and eat at least a moderate level just to keep my sanity.

[SpoliaOpima]

Not talking about zero carbs, just keeping them to a minimum. Or work out more. It's all about calorie reduction, from one side or the other.

The anti-ketosis stance is considered controversial but one can keep carbs to a low 50-150 grams a day, which is not low enough to spur ketosis.

I disagree that carbs are not an essential nutrient.

If you mean you prefer a lot of carbs in your diet, fine. But the latest thinking in nutrition science (at least as far as I can tell from my reading) doesn't support the 'essential' view. A sampling of scientific views:

http://www.ajcn.org/content/75/5/951.2.full

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbohydrate

http://primalislandtas.blogspot.com/2011/07/there-are-no-essential-carbohydrates.html

http://lowcarb4u.blogspot.com/2010/01/essential-carbohydrates.html

Not saying these are the only views on the subject, but it's telling that Wikipedia includes the statement "Carbohydrates are a common source of energy in living organisms; however, no carbohydrate is an essential nutrient in humans."

Again, a limited amount of carbs are fine, no need to give 'em up unless you're looking for fast weight loss, in which case zero-carb works well. But even the old Atkins diet recommended re-introducing carbs as weight objectives are attained. Whichever diet you follow, it seems like a good idea to keep carb intake to 150g or less per day, to keep weight down and fend off the many diseases caused by over-consumption of grains.

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/why-grains-are-unhealthy/#axzz1rc5Sf3Z8

[tropo]

If you mean you prefer a lot of carbs in your diet, fine. But the latest thinking in nutrition science (at least as far as I can tell from my reading) doesn't support the 'essential' view.

I thought i had already made my point clear, but obviously not.

Let me put it another way:

I believe carbs are essential in the human diet because you cannot be healthy without them. I'm saying they are essential for health.

An obese person going zero carbs (debatable that anyone will) to lose a lot of excess fat is a drastic measure.

You couldn't find sufficient nutrients if you didn't eat food with carbs. Vitamins, mineral and fiber - you'd end up with multiple deficiency diseases in the long term.

Sure, if you were stuck in the Arctic and all you could find to eat is meat and blubber, that will keep you alive - but that is survival.

Edited April 10, 2012 by tropo

[Ulysses G.]

You couldn't find sufficient nutrients if you didn't eat food with carbs. Vitamins, mineral and fiber - you'd end up with multiple deficiency diseases in the long term.

Those are the facts, Jack.

[chiang mai]

The problem is in finding your own ideal weight and no amount of looking at your BMI or consulting with nutrionists will answer that question, only you can. I'm six feet two and have been 76 kilo's for most of my life, tall and lean but incredibly handsome to compensate! Despite many serious attempts to gain weight I've never been able to do so, friends, people I didn't know and even learned doctors told me, "you must gain some wieght", I tried many many times but eventually I gave up trying.

Nine months ago I relocated from Phuket back to Chiang Mai and something somewhere clicked and I started to gain weight, at first I didn't really notice it and then before long my clothes started to get very tight, eventually I had to go out and buy a larger size of trousers and shirts. I have to say I was really quite pleased with this new phenomena and I felt pretty good, my weight had gone from 76 kilo's to 85 kilo's and I said to myself, I think that's probably where I need to be. Unfortunately my body wasn't paying attention when I said that and I kept getting heavier, despite increasing my trips to and time spent at the gym. Eventually I hit 90 kilo's and I was actualy finding it difficult to do many things that I had taken for granted in the past, oddly it never ocurred to me that I was overweight because everyone had always told me I was underweight!

It's worth pointing out here that I was gaining muscle as well as generally getting bigger.

In parrallell with the above I started to have gastric problems, my stomach hurt and was distended and I developed reflux. I had all the usual tests including an endoscopy and gastritis was confirmed. I consulted with various gastroenterologists who prescribed endless medication and a disgusting regime of laxatives every night, "we must deflate the bowel" he said! Every doctor I consulted with said my weight was right for my height but this turned out to be absolutely untrue!

I even had my thyroid checked, simply because I have some known thyroid issues but this turned out to be functioning normally. Later I would have blood tests that showed my lipids, triglycerides and blood sugar and gone sky high, you're pre-diabetic one doctor said. Eventually I found something through my own research that is known as metabolic syndrome and this fitted all of my symptoms, my endocrinologist agreed so we started to treat the component parts. The most significant part of my treatment was a much changed diet with the aim of losing ten per cent of my body wieght, now, two weeks on I have lost ten pounds and I feel hugely better. Most of my symptoms have gone away and my blood counts are returning to normal, I am meant to be and forever will be, 82 kilo's. I'm embaressed to say that many of my helth problems over the past nine months can be put down to the fact that I was eating too much, but I've learned some valuable lessons as a result of all of this. Eating and drinking every day is much of the boiling frog syndrome, we increase a little here and a little there without really noticing, we don't really pay attention to things like fat content etc and eventually it gets out of control and eventually we become big, I suspect the avove may also apply in reverse when trying to lose weight, the key is to find that weight that suits your body and to ignore the aesthetics, they're really not as important as feeling healthy, happy and fit.

[tropo]

, I suspect the avove may also apply in reverse when trying to lose weight, the key is to find that weight that suits your body and to ignore the aesthetics, they're really not as important as feeling healthy, happy and fit.

I disagree, aesthetics are far more important than kg's on the scale. Waist circumference is extremely important to monitor as you age as visceral fat accumulation is a very bad sign and as in your case indicative of impaired sugar metabolism (type 2 diabetes).

I believe you're too focused on your kg weight. As you age, the percentages of muscle and fat will change even if the scales show the same weight. i.e. you're getting fatter as you age.

If your blood sugar levels showed you were pre-diabetic, then you have impaired sugar metabolism. This will not go away and you should study more about it. This is the reason why you gained visceral fat. You should get yourself a glucose meter and test regularly. Get it sorted out before it gets further advanced and drugs are required.

[chiang mai]

, I suspect the avove may also apply in reverse when trying to lose weight, the key is to find that weight that suits your body and to ignore the aesthetics, they're really not as important as feeling healthy, happy and fit.

I disagree, aesthetics are far more important than kg's on the scale. Waist circumference is extremely important to monitor as you age as visceral fat accumulation is a very bad sign and as in your case indicative of impaired sugar metabolism (type 2 diabetes).

I believe you're too focused on your kg weight. As you age, the percentages of muscle and fat will change even if the scales show the same weight. i.e. you're getting fatter as you age.

If your blood sugar levels showed you were pre-diabetic, then you have impaired sugar metabolism. This will not go away and you should study more about it. This is the reason why you gained visceral fat. You should get yourself a glucose meter and test regularly. Get it sorted out before it gets further advanced and drugs are required.

I take your point about wasteline and aging and I agree to some extent, but surely if the wasteline is so huge the bearer wont feel "healthy happy and fit" anyway, in that respect the kilo's are important although not exclusively at the cost of other factors such as feeling healthy and fit.

In my case my blood glucose levels were solely a function of my weight gain and as I have started to diet and shed the excess weight they have fallen back closer to more normal levels, I expect as I continue my diet they will normalise and stay that way. There's a series of interesting stories to be read about people who have managed to exersise and diet their way out of diabetes and mainstay medical science is now begining to accept that it can be done, it's no longer a lifetime sentence that it once was.

As far as me being preoccupied with kilo's is concerned, I accept that is true to some degree, but like many people I used to use my weight as my primary guideline and how I felt as my secondary, if my kilo's were about right and I felt unwell the cause was almost certainly something other than diet etc., this was really only because I was always a hard gainer and again, it was always instilled into me that I was underweight hence gaining a few pounds was thought desirable. Today my view is different and now I have joined everyone else in watching my wasteline, how I feel is primary and the reasons could easily include inappropriate weight gain/loss although given my determination on this front I don't expect that to be the case ever again.

[tropo]

In my case my blood glucose levels were solely a function of my weight gain and as I have started to diet and shed the excess weight they have fallen back closer to more normal levels, I expect as I continue my diet they will normalise and stay that way. There's a series of interesting stories to be read about people who have managed to exersise and diet their way out of diabetes and mainstay medical science is now begining to accept that it can be done, it's no longer a lifetime sentence that it once was.

I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but for your own sake and your future health it's better for you to come to the realisation that you're pre-diabetic so you can take precautions.

You didn't get bad blood sugar readings from getting fat. You got fat because of impaired sugar metabolism. You have insulin resistance.

Yes, it can be controlled but that is not a cure. I know this full well as I'm in the same boat. Showing normal or near-normal numbers is not a cure - it's control. If I showed you my BG levels right now you'd think I was normal. Any doctor would say I'm normal - but I know better. If I go slack on exercise and diet they'll head south again.

I am pre-diabetic with perfect BG numbers. Doesn't matter - the problem is still there and it isn't going away. There is no cure.

Most people like to believe what you believe as they cannot or won't accept that they are pre-diabetic. It's self-denial and doctor's perpetuate this belief.

The best thing you can do is get a glucometer and start testing after meals, before meals and when you wake up. Let's see how normal you really are - and get an HbA1c blood test.

Edited April 11, 2012 by tropo

[chiang mai]

In my case my blood glucose levels were solely a function of my weight gain and as I have started to diet and shed the excess weight they have fallen back closer to more normal levels, I expect as I continue my diet they will normalise and stay that way. There's a series of interesting stories to be read about people who have managed to exersise and diet their way out of diabetes and mainstay medical science is now begining to accept that it can be done, it's no longer a lifetime sentence that it once was.

I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but for your own sake and your future health it's better for you to come to the realisation that you're pre-diabetic so you can take precautions.

You didn't get bad blood sugar readings from getting fat. You got fat because of impaired sugar metabolism. You have insulin resistance.

Yes, it can be controlled but that is not a cure. I know this full well as I'm in the same boat. Showing normal or near-normal numbers is not a cure - it's control. If I showed you my BG levels right now you'd think I was normal. Any doctor would say I'm normal - but I know better. If I go slack on exercise and diet they'll head south again.

I am pre-diabetic with perfect BG numbers. Doesn't matter - the problem is still there and it isn't going away. There is no cure.

Most people like to believe what you believe as they cannot or won't accept that they are pre-diabetic. It's self-denial and doctor's perpetuate this belief.

The best thing you can do is get a glucometer and start testing after meals, before meals and when you wake up. Let's see how normal you really are - and get an HbA1c blood test.

I'm sorry to hear that you're in the same boat, I do of course mean control rather than cure. But we might be talking at crossed purpose to some degree, my FBG was 95 whereas the American Diabetes Assoc regards 100 as the entry criteria for the classification of pre-diabetic, other countries have slightly different entry points and a new field of medical thought suggests it might be as low as 89. Interestingly, some labs require an eight hour fasting period, others ten hours and some require twelve hours, varying the fasting period will impact on the results as will having consumed alcohol up to twenty four hours previously. Before my next test in six weeks time I intend to fast for twelve hours and avoid any alcohol in the days before and will be keen to compare the numbers.

http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/prevention/pre-diabetes/diagnosis.html

Only about ten per cent of pre-diabetics go on to develop diabetes in the three years following diagnosis, treatment is of course weight loss, a controlled diet and exersise, all of which I'm engaged in currently. I'm therefore hopefully that I will avoid moving past the technical entry point and that the condition will be avoided.

[tropo]

In my case my blood glucose levels were solely a function of my weight gain and as I have started to diet and shed the excess weight they have fallen back closer to more normal levels, I expect as I continue my diet they will normalise and stay that way. There's a series of interesting stories to be read about people who have managed to exersise and diet their way out of diabetes and mainstay medical science is now begining to accept that it can be done, it's no longer a lifetime sentence that it once was.

I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but for your own sake and your future health it's better for you to come to the realisation that you're pre-diabetic so you can take precautions.

You didn't get bad blood sugar readings from getting fat. You got fat because of impaired sugar metabolism. You have insulin resistance.

Yes, it can be controlled but that is not a cure. I know this full well as I'm in the same boat. Showing normal or near-normal numbers is not a cure - it's control. If I showed you my BG levels right now you'd think I was normal. Any doctor would say I'm normal - but I know better. If I go slack on exercise and diet they'll head south again.

I am pre-diabetic with perfect BG numbers. Doesn't matter - the problem is still there and it isn't going away. There is no cure.

Most people like to believe what you believe as they cannot or won't accept that they are pre-diabetic. It's self-denial and doctor's perpetuate this belief.

The best thing you can do is get a glucometer and start testing after meals, before meals and when you wake up. Let's see how normal you really are - and get an HbA1c blood test.

I'm sorry to hear that you're in the same boat, I do of course mean control rather than cure. But we might be talking at crossed purpose to some degree, my FBG was 95 whereas the American Diabetes Assoc regards 100 as the entry criteria for the classification of pre-diabetic, other countries have slightly different entry points and a new field of medical thought suggests it might be as low as 89. Interestingly, some labs require an eight hour fasting period, others ten hours and some require twelve hours, varying the fasting period will impact on the results as will having consumed alcohol up to twenty four hours previously. Before my next test in six weeks time I intend to fast for twelve hours and avoid any alcohol in the days before and will be keen to compare the numbers.

http://www.diabetes..../diagnosis.html

Only about ten per cent of pre-diabetics go on to develop diabetes in the three years following diagnosis, treatment is of course weight loss, a controlled diet and exersise, all of which I'm engaged in currently. I'm therefore hopefully that I will avoid moving past the technical entry point and that the condition will be avoided.

I am pleased to see you're doing some research. A test every now and then doesn't really give you a clear idea of where you're at. Even if your fasts are equal in length, your FBS will vary from day to day depending on what you've eaten, how much exercise you've done, what exercise you've done, how much you've done and other factors such as stress and quality of sleep will influence it too.

Don't concern yourself with artificial diagnosis thresholds. Doctors prefer to keep the thresholds higher so they're not scaring too many people with the "diabetic" word. "Pre-diabetes" is also not a popular word and doctors prefer to use "insulin resistant" as a suitable euphemism. Doctors have to be careful using the word "diabetes" as insurance companies love to hear that so they can increase premiums or not pay out on claims.

It's far more important for you to have an HbA1c test which gives an average reading of your blood sugar over the past 2 - 3 months. You should also get an OGTT to see how you handle carbohydrates because your HbA1c test might appear normal as it can average out the spikes after meals with the lower fasting levels while you're sleeping and in between meals. (like the guy who drowned crossing a river with an average depth of 2 feet). If you're armed with OGTT results, FBS and HbA1c you have tools to really know what's going on. Better yet (than OGTT), get your own meter and test after meals - at 1 hour and 2 hours - to get postprandial readings after different types of food.

It's quite possible to have a "normal" FBS but go sky high after a carbohydrate meal. You can also have reasonable post postprandial readings with high FBS. Testing FBS alone is just not sufficient.

Unless you start testing yourself you're never going to have a clue where you're at. It's the best way to take control of your own destiny.

I don't know where you're getting your info, but http://www.bloodsugar101.com/ is the best I've ever come across. Extremely enlightening and a favourite source of information for people with diabetes and pre-diabetes.

Edited April 11, 2012 by tropo

[chiang mai]

Many thanks for all that.

[tropo]

Only about ten per cent of pre-diabetics go on to develop diabetes in the three years following diagnosis, treatment is of course weight loss, a controlled diet and exersise, all of which I'm engaged in currently. I'm therefore hopefully that I will avoid moving past the technical entry point and that the condition will be avoided.

That maybe so, but most will deteriorate over the 3 years following diagnosis unless they take some action. If you're basing the stats purely on FBS, then the study is too limited because FBS usually deteriorates slower than postprandial readings. For example, let's say after 3 years one of the candidates is showing FBS of 120 mg/dl. By that time he/she may be showing postprandial reading over 200 mg/dl - which means there's a lot of cellular damage going on long before they are diagnosed as diabetic on FBS results alone.

I would hope for this study they were using a combination of FBS and OGTT results.

Edited April 11, 2012 by tropo

[tropo]

Many thanks for all that.

You're welcome. It's one of my favourite topics.

[chiang mai]

Many thanks for all that.

You're welcome. It's one of my favourite topics.

I hope it never has to become one of mine.

[thaibeachlovers]

The problem is in finding your own ideal weight and no amount of looking at your BMI or consulting with nutrionists will answer that question, only you can. I'm six feet two and have been 76 kilo's for most of my life, tall and lean but incredibly handsome to compensate! Despite many serious attempts to gain weight I've never been able to do so, friends, people I didn't know and even learned doctors told me, "you must gain some wieght", I tried many many times but eventually I gave up trying.

Nine months ago I relocated from Phuket back to Chiang Mai and something somewhere clicked and I started to gain weight, at first I didn't really notice it and then before long my clothes started to get very tight, eventually I had to go out and buy a larger size of trousers and shirts. I have to say I was really quite pleased with this new phenomena and I felt pretty good, my weight had gone from 76 kilo's to 85 kilo's and I said to myself, I think that's probably where I need to be. Unfortunately my body wasn't paying attention when I said that and I kept getting heavier, despite increasing my trips to and time spent at the gym. Eventually I hit 90 kilo's and I was actualy finding it difficult to do many things that I had taken for granted in the past, oddly it never ocurred to me that I was overweight because everyone had always told me I was underweight!

It's worth pointing out here that I was gaining muscle as well as generally getting bigger.

In parrallell with the above I started to have gastric problems, my stomach hurt and was distended and I developed reflux. I had all the usual tests including an endoscopy and gastritis was confirmed. I consulted with various gastroenterologists who prescribed endless medication and a disgusting regime of laxatives every night, "we must deflate the bowel" he said! Every doctor I consulted with said my weight was right for my height but this turned out to be absolutely untrue!

I even had my thyroid checked, simply because I have some known thyroid issues but this turned out to be functioning normally. Later I would have blood tests that showed my lipids, triglycerides and blood sugar and gone sky high, you're pre-diabetic one doctor said. Eventually I found something through my own research that is known as metabolic syndrome and this fitted all of my symptoms, my endocrinologist agreed so we started to treat the component parts. The most significant part of my treatment was a much changed diet with the aim of losing ten per cent of my body wieght, now, two weeks on I have lost ten pounds and I feel hugely better. Most of my symptoms have gone away and my blood counts are returning to normal, I am meant to be and forever will be, 82 kilo's. I'm embaressed to say that many of my helth problems over the past nine months can be put down to the fact that I was eating too much, but I've learned some valuable lessons as a result of all of this. Eating and drinking every day is much of the boiling frog syndrome, we increase a little here and a little there without really noticing, we don't really pay attention to things like fat content etc and eventually it gets out of control and eventually we become big, I suspect the avove may also apply in reverse when trying to lose weight, the key is to find that weight that suits your body and to ignore the aesthetics, they're really not as important as feeling healthy, happy and fit.

<the boiling frog syndrome>

I like that!

My downfall was Bakewell tarts. A big one every night did me in, and it's been a struggle ever since. Luckily they don't have them in Thailand!

[LeftCoaster]

Congrats! Looking healthier and fitter.

[SpoliaOpima]

If you mean you prefer a lot of carbs in your diet, fine. But the latest thinking in nutrition science (at least as far as I can tell from my reading) doesn't support the 'essential' view.

I thought i had already made my point clear, but obviously not.

Let me put it another way:

I believe carbs are essential in the human diet because you cannot be healthy without them. I'm saying they are essential for health.

An obese person going zero carbs (debatable that anyone will) to lose a lot of excess fat is a drastic measure.

You couldn't find sufficient nutrients if you didn't eat food with carbs. Vitamins, mineral and fiber - you'd end up with multiple deficiency diseases in the long term.

Sure, if you were stuck in the Arctic and all you could find to eat is meat and blubber, that will keep you alive - but that is survival.

Just checking in on the discussion after a long time. Do you have any to back up your claim? "I believe carbs are essential in the human diet because you cannot be healthy without them. I'm saying they are essential for health."

Judging from your response, you didn't bother reading any of the refereces I provided.

[SpoliaOpima]

You couldn't find sufficient nutrients if you didn't eat food with carbs. Vitamins, mineral and fiber - you'd end up with multiple deficiency diseases in the long term.

Those are the facts, Jack.

You mean opinion

[tropo]

If you mean you prefer a lot of carbs in your diet, fine. But the latest thinking in nutrition science (at least as far as I can tell from my reading) doesn't support the 'essential' view.

I thought i had already made my point clear, but obviously not.

Let me put it another way:

I believe carbs are essential in the human diet because you cannot be healthy without them. I'm saying they are essential for health.

An obese person going zero carbs (debatable that anyone will) to lose a lot of excess fat is a drastic measure.

You couldn't find sufficient nutrients if you didn't eat food with carbs. Vitamins, mineral and fiber - you'd end up with multiple deficiency diseases in the long term.

Sure, if you were stuck in the Arctic and all you could find to eat is meat and blubber, that will keep you alive - but that is survival.

Just checking in on the discussion after a long time. Do you have any to back up your claim? "I believe carbs are essential in the human diet because you cannot be healthy without them. I'm saying they are essential for health."

Judging from your response, you didn't bother reading any of the refereces I provided.

I don't care about your references. This is not a research paper where I have to do a lot of extra reading to get a clue what you mean. If you want to make a point, make it here and make it as clear as possible and reasonably brief would be a plus too.

Now go back and read my old post again. I used the words "I believe". Obviously it's my opinion, just as anything you post here is yours. I don't expect people to spend hours reading extra references. This is an informal discussion.

[BKKBobby]

Congrats man. Not only looking fit, also looking years younger.

[SpoliaOpima]

If you mean you prefer a lot of carbs in your diet, fine. But the latest thinking in nutrition science (at least as far as I can tell from my reading) doesn't support the 'essential' view.

I thought i had already made my point clear, but obviously not.

Let me put it another way:

I believe carbs are essential in the human diet because you cannot be healthy without them. I'm saying they are essential for health.

An obese person going zero carbs (debatable that anyone will) to lose a lot of excess fat is a drastic measure.

You couldn't find sufficient nutrients if you didn't eat food with carbs. Vitamins, mineral and fiber - you'd end up with multiple deficiency diseases in the long term.

Sure, if you were stuck in the Arctic and all you could find to eat is meat and blubber, that will keep you alive - but that is survival.

Just checking in on the discussion after a long time. Do you have any to back up your claim? "I believe carbs are essential in the human diet because you cannot be healthy without them. I'm saying they are essential for health."

Judging from your response, you didn't bother reading any of the refereces I provided.

I don't care about your references. This is not a research paper where I have to do a lot of extra reading to get a clue what you mean. If you want to make a point, make it here and make it as clear as possible and reasonably brief would be a plus too.

Now go back and read my old post again. I used the words "I believe". Obviously it's my opinion, just as anything you post here is yours. I don't expect people to spend hours reading extra references. This is an informal discussion.

Fair enough. You wouldn't want to strain your eyes or let the facts get in the way of your opinion

[tropo]

Fair enough. You wouldn't want to strain your eyes or let the facts get in the way of your opinion

I'm not interested in doing full research of every reference you present over an informal discussion. That can amount to a lot of extra reading. If you disagree with a specific point, then explain your problem with it in your own words. Saying - "read the book" is a very lazy way to try and get your point across. If you're going to cite a reference, then take the relevant excerpt from your reference that backs up your hypothesis.

Coming across with "obviously you didn't read all my references" to demonstrate I'm wrong, and then suggesting I'm lazy for not reading them is not helpful at all.

Having said that, it's a bit late coming back after 4 months to start the debate all over again when most of us have lost interest.

Edited August 30, 2012 by tropo

[BKKBobby]

Just to add my pov into the argument: humans doesnt need starchbased food. Humans have only eaten grains for a few thousand years.

[tropo]

Just to add my pov into the argument: humans doesnt need starchbased food. Humans have only eaten grains for a few thousand years.

Humans can survive on most anything. Have a close look at what the Eskimos eat.

Most of the world's population survives on grains. That's a fact.

Here we are discussing the healthiest way to eat. I would suggest a good variety, including whole grains, is the best way to travel.

[thaibeachlovers]

When I first saw the photos, I thought it was one of those weight loss jokes, as in she is 35 kg and you lost her, LOL.

Anyway, congratulations.

My biggest problem to losing weight is my wife's cooking, which is so good that I have to eat it all, even when she gives me far too much ( which is all the time ). I always say to her that she wants me fat so other women don't chase me, LOL.

I did lose 6 kg after about 3 months by working hard for about 4 hours a day outside, and not eating much in the morning ( leaves more room for her dinners ).

Hmmm. 4 months later, and I've lost another 4kg and 1 1/2 inches off the waist. Shows that hard work coupled with reducing sugar intake and total input does result in weight loss, as have done no exercise other than physical work.

Has anyone else noticed that if you don't eat anything in the morning except fruit ( bananas in my case ) means that you don't get hungry till evening, whereas eating breakfast leads to feeling hungry by lunchtime?

I've done it enough times to know that it's not a "one off".

Edited September 2, 2012 by thaibeachlovers