Online Now 1320

Off-Topic

On this Board 502
Record: 1825 (5/20/2013)

Online now 1303
Record: 11761 (2/27/2012)

Boards ▾

Inside Scoop

The Web's No. 1 forum for coverage and discussion of Terps sports

Terps Sports

Visitor discussion of University of Maryland and college sports

General Sports Water Cooler

A place for lively discussion for all other sports unrelated to Maryland athletics

Off-Topic

Test/Feedback Forum

Feedback for IMS and 247Sports

The Ticket Exchange

Reply

Change my diet - reading ingredients labels

  • TortugaGrande said...

    I agree with all of that, very good. How can you be up to date on eggs but be so wrong about everything else?

    what have I been wrong about?

    SodaTerpinski

  • sat fat, the gov't, cron and that's just this thread.

    TortugaGrande

  • 2Sticks said...

    yea, corn syrup trying to rebrand to corn sugar, only to be shot down because sugar is defined as a solid, crystallized food, but there was a scientific report that showed corn syrup is no worse for you than cane sugar.

    http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/01/02/highfructose-corn-syrup-alters-human-metabolism.aspx

    kickin' the tires

    groove_jones

  • TortugaGrande said...

    sat fat, the gov't, cron and that's just this thread.

    explain specifically what i have been wrong about. support it with something besides blogs and mens health.

    SodaTerpinski

  • TortugaGrande said...

    I agree with all of that, very good. How can you be up to date on eggs but be so wrong about everything else?

    I had to listen to someone lecture me the other day about how bad eggs are for you because her doctor told her so. It was infuriating.

    lazy

  • I actually slimmed down by working out and not caring as much about what I eat. I do eat too many grains though.

    http://bit.ly/marylandcrew

    longbeachterp

  • SodaTerpinski said...

    what have I been wrong about?

    When you said sugar makes you fat and complex carbs don't, you lost any type of authority you might have on any nutrition subject.

    WMTerp12

  • groove_jones said...

    http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/01/02/highfructose-corn-syrup-alters-human-metabolism.aspx

    that says enough for me. thanks.

    2Sticks

  • groove_jones said...

    Agree, I like to make protein a high proportion of calories, I just have trouble getting close to 200grams without eating 3 or 4 chicken breasts and t-bone everyday. I don't use protein powders though.

    I'm not really huge on supplements, but I've found that the low-carb protein shake that I use (Metabolic Drive) is much more satiating than most of the others I have tried. It's more expensive than some, but also a lot cheaper than me going to get a salad at Whole Foods. And the high-carb/protein drink (Surge) is basically just gatorade with some added protein and I have noticed that I recover from my ninja workouts a lot more quickly when I drink it regularly. I also notice that I have much more energy for my workouts (on average) when I keep my protein intake fairly high.

    I'm not really trying to lose fat right now, though, basically just trying to eat so that I can recover enough to roll 6-7 times a week. I am gaining a bit of muscle and losing a bit of fat at the same time (based on mirror test and my weight going up and belt getting looser), but that's more secondary.

    MisterSmiley

  • SodaTerpinski said...

    explain specifically what i have been wrong about. support it with something besides blogs and mens health.

    If your calorie expenditure is 2500 calories a day and you eat 6000 calories a day, you're going to get fat whether you are eating a ton of complex carbs or a ton of simple carbs.

    MisterSmiley

  • 2Sticks said...

    that says enough for me. thanks.

    There are tons of flaws in that article, although I agree that sugar is terrible for you.

    WMTerp12

  • the coffee mate i have in my fridge is: milk, cream, sugar, flavor. it's the stuff you buy refrigerated.

    RDurr

  • WMTerp12 said...

    When you said sugar makes you fat and complex carbs don't, you lost any type of authority you might have on any nutrition subject.

    You have provided nothing objective that is even remotely supportive of your claims. Just tersely replying with "you are so wrong" doesn't do much to support your babble.

    Additionally, you also provided this link: http://www.ajcn.org/content/86/2/276.full which has nothing to do with anything we were discussing (saturated fat)? You just provide random links that have nothing to do with anything we discussed.

    SodaTerpinski

  • MisterSmiley said...

    If your calorie expenditure is 2500 calories a day and you eat 6000 calories a day, you're going to get fat whether you are eating a ton of complex carbs or a ton of simple carbs.

    you're speaking purely from a caloric intake perspective right? becuase they obviously have different effects on your body and how your body uses them

    im hearing pg plaza is the spot!

    dannyterp

  • WMTerp12 said...

    There are tons of flaws in that article, although I agree that sugar is terrible for you.

    I mean I'm kind of a hippie myself, but Dr. Mercola is pretty much THE expert on hippie nutrition. I'd be interested to know what you think is wrong in that article.

    TortugaGrande

  • RDurr said...

    the coffee mate i have in my fridge is: milk, cream, sugar, flavor. it's the stuff you buy refrigerated.

    yeah I meant the powdered "non dairy creamer"

    TortugaGrande

  • TortugaGrande said...

    I mean I'm kind of a hippie myself, but Dr. Mercola is pretty much THE expert on hippie nutrition. I'd be interested to know what you think is wrong in that article.


    • When you eat 120 calories of glucose, less than one calorie is stored as fat. 120 calories of fructose results in 40 calories being stored as fat. Consuming fructose is essentially consuming fat!

    Edit: maybe that isn't "wrong", but it is very misleading.

    This post was edited by WMTerp12 on 5/31/2012 at 10:36 AM

    WMTerp12

  • groove_jones said...

    Agree, I like to make protein a high proportion of calories, I just have trouble getting close to 200grams without eating 3 or 4 chicken breasts and t-bone everyday. I don't use protein powders though.

    my target is 170g protein/day and i can usually hit that with eating a few eggs in the morning with some cheese and salmon. for lunch and dinner ill have some combo of fish, chicken with cheese and greek yogurt. i try to hit my macros exactly every day so i use a food scale and will make sure the last meal of the day gets me close to my goals.

    and like smiley said if i'm short on a given day ill use protein powder to make it up.

    AlphaOmega

  • Not to refute any of the specific claims in this thread, but in general, people need to be very careful when reading "scientific studies." The list of potential issues are endless. Unless you A. have knowledge of statistics and B. Have the knowledge of the sciences used in the study, you shouldn't draw too many conclusions from any study. Even when they are cited by reputable sources, they aren't always legitimate. When dealing with health/nutrition, your best bet is to find a good doctor who you trust. There is a reason the trends in nutrition change so quickly.

    As anecdotal evidence, my GF was being offered 500-1000 dollars per participant she could recruit for a study that would ultimately "prove" that starting babies on formula directly after childbirth would provide health benefits over breast feeding. When published, it would appear to be an NIH backed study. Underneath the surface, it was funded by one of the largest formula manufacturers. This is extremely common in the industry, so be careful with what you read.

    Titanterp

  • WMTerp12 said...

    • When you eat 120 calories of glucose, less than one calorie is stored as fat. 120 calories of fructose results in 40 calories being stored as fat. Consuming fructose is essentially consuming fat!

    Edit: maybe that isn't "wrong", but it is very misleading.

    Well, if it's not wrong, how is it misleading? (I'm not arguing to be a dick, I'm really curious here).

    My biggest issue is the studies he cites often have really small sample sizes.

    TortugaGrande

  • Titanterp said...

    Not to refute any of the specific claims in this thread, but in general, people need to be very careful when reading "scientific studies." The list of potential issues are endless. Unless you A. have knowledge of statistics and B. Have the knowledge of the sciences used in the study, you shouldn't draw too many conclusions from any study. Even when they are cited by reputable sources, they aren't always legitimate. When dealing with health/nutrition, your best bet is to find a good doctor who you trust. There is a reason the trends in nutrition change so quickly.

    As anecdotal evidence, my GF was being offered 500-1000 dollars per participant she could recruit for a study that would ultimately "prove" that starting babies on formula directly after childbirth would provide health benefits over breast feeding. When published, it would appear to be an NIH backed study. Underneath the surface, it was funded by one of the largest formula manufacturers. This is extremely common in the industry, so be careful with what you read.

    very true. "My friend" does a lot of work with diet studies, and there are other issues too

    TortugaGrande

  • TortugaGrande said...

    Well, if it's not wrong, how is it misleading? (I'm not arguing to be a dick, I'm really curious here).

    My biggest issue is the studies he cites often have really small sample sizes.

    You are still going to burn those 40 calories as long as you are in a caloric deficit. If you aren't, yes they will be stored as fat. Just because your body is more efficient at allocating the calories for glucose doesn't mean that they count differently, they are just burnt differently.

    WMTerp12

  • Titanterp said...

    Not to refute any of the specific claims in this thread, but in general, people need to be very careful when reading "scientific studies." The list of potential issues are endless. Unless you A. have knowledge of statistics and B. Have the knowledge of the sciences used in the study, you shouldn't draw too many conclusions from any study. Even when they are cited by reputable sources, they aren't always legitimate. When dealing with health/nutrition, your best bet is to find a good doctor who you trust. There is a reason the trends in nutrition change so quickly.

    As anecdotal evidence, my GF was being offered 500-1000 dollars per participant she could recruit for a study that would ultimately "prove" that starting babies on formula directly after childbirth would provide health benefits over breast feeding. When published, it would appear to be an NIH backed study. Underneath the surface, it was funded by one of the largest formula manufacturers. This is extremely common in the industry, so be careful with what you read.

    I don't believe 100% of anything anybody says, including my wife, mother and kids.

    kickin' the tires

    groove_jones

  • They tried to bring him down. But, he's correct in that there is no real science proving Saturated Fat is bad for you. It's all correlation without causation...like the Vegan Bible...the absurd China Study.

    http://www.sott.net/articles/show/242516-Heart-Surgeon-Speaks-Out-On-What-Really-Causes-Heart-Disease

    Forget the "science" that has been drummed into your head for decades. The science that saturated fat alone causes heart disease is non-existent.

    The rest of us have simply followed the recommended mainstream diet that is low in fat and high in polyunsaturated fats and carbohydrates, not knowing we were causing repeated injury to our blood vessels. This repeated injury creates chronic inflammation leading to heart disease, stroke, diabetes and obesity.

    Let me repeat that: The injury and inflammation in our blood vessels is caused by the low fat diet recommended for years by mainstream medicine.

    spreT

  • MisterSmiley said...

    If your calorie expenditure is 2500 calories a day and you eat 6000 calories a day, you're going to get fat whether you are eating a ton of complex carbs or a ton of simple carbs.

    I am not arguing that if you binge eat on complex carbs, that you won't get fat. I never said if you eat too many calories of anything, you won't gain weight. Not sure how you got that.

    Part of my point was that not all carbs are bad, and that the gov't isn't completely incorrect. If you completely avoid complex carbs, that may not be a healthy adjustment to your diet. the FDA and USDA are lacking, but to completely discount them in replacement of magazines and blogs may not be the best path.

    the satiety of complex carbs is quite good. the satiety of saturated fat is also good. it's just that saturated fat can increase your LDL cholesterol, a major risk factor for heart disease. Complex carbs, due to their satiety, are more likely to keep you full/ eating less calories (AND have less correlation with heart disease).

    Personally, lean meat, complex carbs, fruits, vegetables, low fat dairy, seeds, and nuts have done great for my overall diet and health. And, I haven't found any legit documentation that states I should do otherwise.

    SodaTerpinski