A few words about the real DIR guys...

[O-ring]

Since you cats know so much about nutrition, how bad are Lean Cuisines and other frozen "diet/low cal" meals?

 

[detroit diver]

It's been about 2 years now. I go off of it on occasion (vacations, birthday parties, etc), but it's very easy for me to get back on to it.

My energy level is much higher than before the diet. And when I go off of it, I feel like crap. Stiff, draggy, lethargic. Within 48 hours of getting back on, all of the rough spots are gone.

 

[Genesis]

If you get the sugars and refined "wheat-like" products out of your diet, your energy level will greatly improve, because the "spikes" will go away.

You'll also find sustainable body mass and similar other health benefits.

I don't think Atkins can take credit for this one though. He can for his "induction" stuff, where you eat basically NOTHING except animal protein and fat, but not for the "maintenance" regime - which is really, at the bottom line, much more like humans ate 200 years ago than anything else.

Call it the "Pilgrim" diet if you want to be accurate, 'cause it pretty much is

 

[longraven]

O-ring once bubbled...
Since you cats know so much about nutrition, how bad are Lean Cuisines and other frozen "diet/low cal" meals?

Hey, Big O,

Make sure you check the sodium content on any of the prepackaged frozen foods. It is usually pretty high and used as a preservative.

I am using EAS products along with a high protein "life style". I hate to use diet because of the implications. For me it is more of a nutritional life style (my way of switching my brain matter to a different thinking pattern). I limit carb intake after 3:00 p.m. PST. A trainer once told me "What do you need a huge plate of pasta at 6 p.m. for; you are just going to sleep in a few hours, not run a marathon.” Made sense to me.


Annie

 

[SeaJay]

Cave Diver once bubbled...


Guess you think the same about sex too huh? The cravings aint a positive thing, it's just your bodies craving to perpetuate the species, brought on by the endorphines that bring you pleasure?

Of course not. I love sex. Sex is great stuff...

But we're talking CONSUMPTION here, not physical activity...

 

[SeaJay]

Genesis once bubbled...


There's no way you were consuming 80% of your calories from meats and fats.

No way.

I'm not sure. But that's not what I said.

I said that 80% of what I was eating was animal product... Meats, cheese, dairy... I ate very little grains and veg, and almost never any fruit.

You eat a hamburger on a bun, you are consuming about half the calories in the BUN! The bun is made of the "bad stuff" - refined flour - and that is an extremely-high-glycemic index food.

Well, that's a popular thought process right now in the world of nutrition... Believe what you want. Why not simply go have a blood test done before and after eating a meal? Eat something that's meat-only and see what your blood looks like afterwards. Then do the same with "healthy" grains and see what happens.

The problem is NOT the animal products SeaJay. That's a common myth that is often repeated by dieticians, but they are ignoring the mechanical and biological design of the human body.

C'mon, man... They're all wrong... And you're right, hunh?

We are built to hunt and there is only one reason to do that - to consume animal protein. Our eyes have binocular vision which is a serious impediment to avoiding predators (you can't see out the back of your head!) but a NEED for effective hunting. When you join that with the design of our hands and teeth, along with our digestive tract, its obvious what ought to be going in the pie-hole - and it ain't pies.

Yes, and I agreed that what's sounding like a healthy diet is 20% animal product. You maintain that it was 30%... Whatever. Okay, 25%.

There's still no question that today's American culture has us much more involved with animal product than 25%.

The growth of diet-related diseases (specifically, diabetes, heart-disease, etc) can be EXACTLY correlated with the rise of refined flour and sugar and their inclusion in our diet in outrageous doses.

...And so can the amount of processing in our foods, the number of growth hormones used on bulls, cows, pigs, and chickens...

I'm not saying that sugars are good... In fact, that's not what I've been taught at all. But before you go and say that it's all to do with SUGAR and then try to convince me that I said that "it's all to do with MEAT," think again. That's not at all what I said.

What I said was that a dietary change was in order... And that it involved much more greens and much less animal. Enough said.

It is almost impossible to eat the nutrient load you need to be healthy on a vegetative diet.

False. Show me your source of information.

Try it - its not only healthy but you'll love it - you'll never be hungry, your energy level will remain stable through the day, and you'll find that your general health improves by both objective and subjective measures.

Most of the folks pushing this-or-that way of eating are drinking some form of Kool Aid.

Hm. And you're not pushing?

 

[Genesis]

There's still no question that today's American culture has us much more involved with animal product than 25%.

"Animal product" is unfairly restrictive; if you count dairy and egg-related products then its a fair count, but there's nothing wrong with that.

I bet you'll find that the average American Diet contains about HALF its calories in either refined, added sugars or refined wheat and other grain products - which barely qualify as "grain" any more from a biological standpoint. Consider the average soda - 200 calories. Drink three of 'em and that's 600 calories for the sodas alone - or roughly one third of your total caloric intake that you should be eating! Add to that a bowl of sugar-added cereal, a couple cups of coffee with cream and sugar, and a snickers bar and you're easily at half of your recommended caloric intake, all from sugars. Now have a baked potato with your dinner (almost directly convertable to glucose) and a couple of pieces of refined bread throughout the day (ditto) and you're pushing it even higher.

Its like calling "potatoes" vegetables. Technically accurate, but not the same thing as "good for your roughage", 'cause they're not. You may as well be eating sugar of nearly equal mass in terms of its biological effect.

Alfalfa sprouts, if they taste good, are cool.

Tell me how you get Omega-3 fatty acids from a vegetarian diet. Their place in a healthy diet is pretty-firmly established.

The problems with the "food pyramid" are beginning to be recognized and are resulting in changed recommendations. Its long past time. The recognition that "grains" are not all good is really pizzing off the food manufacturers, who are going BANANAS - I used to work in that biz on the market research side, and still have some friends in that line of work - the cereal and grains folks, in particular, are quite concerned about what appears to be a fairly significant shift in consumption (in the wrong direction for them) just as are the soda makers (who are unhappy about these conclusions as well)

Replace the high-glycemic starches and sugars with vegetables, and leave the animal products alone in the diet. I would argue that this is far better for you and more closely models how our digestive system is designed to function than cutting out the animal products, leaving the sugars and starches alone, and replacing the ANIMAL PRODUCTS with the veggies.

The latter may be a "vegetarian" diet, but I don't believe its good for you.

But heh, that's just me.

 

[SeaJay]

Genesis once bubbled...


"Animal product" is unfairly restrictive; if you count dairy and egg-related products then its a fair count, but there's nothing wrong with that.

Oh yes... Anything that comes from animals.

Tell me how you get Omega-3 fatty acids from a vegetarian diet. Their place in a healthy diet is pretty-firmly established.

Well, I thought we established that 25% of the diet should be animal... But that I was considering taking it further. I swear, Gen, some days I think you're just arguing with yourself. (Okay, I'm just messin' with ya...)

Replace the high-glycemic starches and sugars with vegetables, and leave the animal products alone in the diet.

Well, I don't think that would be the 25% animal that you and I have agreed on... I think that if we were to cut out high-glycemic starches and sugars we would end up with about 60% of our diet coming from meat and dairy... Both animal products.

 

[Genesis]

Well, I don't think that would be the 25% animal that you and I have agreed on... I think that if we were to cut out high-glycemic starches and sugars we would end up with about 60% of our diet coming from meat and dairy... Both animal products.

Exactly.

I don't count the 25% as "anything animal derived"; I'm counting only flesh. Dairy and eggs I count separately ('cause they are - the protein/fat balance is completely different between them and animal flesh, whether fish, poultry or meat.) Weight 'em equally.

60% is IMHO ok - provided the rest isn't full of sugars and high-glycemic starches!

Your "by mass" count will end up with the veggies and fruits being about 60% of your diet though - they're less "efficient" in terms of calories per gram, which is to be expected. But yes, in terms of caloric intake 50-60% of mine is animal-derived.

 

[SeaJay]

Okay, then.

It appears, then, that 60% of your diet is "animal derived," then... With 40% other, mostly heavy greens.

My idea is 80% heavy greens and 20% "animal derived," grains and starches.

It appears that my thought process is much heavier on the greens, but I allow myself more glucose than you do.

To be perfectly honest here, Iit sounds to me that while these two diets are statistically different, the reality is that they aren't all that opposing. I think more greens and less animal, you think more animal and less starch.

No biggie.

Should I tell everyone my assessment of the Jet fins? Maybe I should give them one more fair shake with another bootie before I really go at them... 'Course, I don't see how a different ("puffier?") bootie is going to make that foot pocket any longer...