.

Ozij said: I dropped many carbs from my diet - no more sugar in my coffee, no more bread, potatoes, pasta, rice, pastry etc. No more fruit juices. I started eating far more eggs, more fat, more protein, more nuts.

Good two sentence overview!

SleepingUgly wrote:

JeffH wrote:

SleepingUgly wrote:Are the primal blueprint and the paleo diet similar perspectives?

They are the same thing.

So has anyone read both The Primal Blueprint and Paleo Diet, and if so, which book do you recommend?

I've read both an either one is good.

JeffH

So anyway, one day we're doing this seminar, y'know, and a Registered Dietition is presenting, so she starts out by asking

"What diet plans work?"

but nobody says anything, and there's like silence, so I sez

"What the hey?"

and sticks my paw up in the air, and the dietition sez

"Yes, SAG?"

cuz this was before, so's I reply

"All of them."

.

NotMuffy wrote:So anyway, one day we're doing this seminar, y'know, and a Registered Dietition is presenting, so she starts out by asking

"What diet plans work?"

but nobody says anything, and there's like silence, so I sez

"What the hey?"

and sticks my paw up in the air, and the dietition sez

"Yes, SAG?"

cuz this was before, so's I reply

"All of them."

I'm sure we disagree about the operational definition of "works".

Diets "work" like Mark Twain who found it so easy to stop smoking - he'd done it many times.

Anyone can be starved into a lower weight - that is not the issue.

Find me one peer reviewed diet plan that has been show to leave fat people 20 or 40 or 90 pounds lighter after 5 years, SAG.
OK. 3 years.
And don't forget to tell us how much weight was lost, and kept off after those years.

Diet plans don't work because they ignore what is know about physiology - human and animal.

Fat people are neither gluttons nor lazy (terms from Taubes). They are more sensitive than others to carbs, and store them as fat at a furious rate. Taubes is a science writer - and worth the read.

As for 2x4's - the fat and the obese among us have spent a lifetime of being hit by 2x4's because of how we look, and how much we weigh. Do you realize a fat person can't go to a doctor without being give the riot act about their weight??? The way overweight is (mis)treated, you'd think no thin person had high BP, cancer, CVA's, osteoarthritis, or what have you. You'd think thin persons lived forever. So if you're thin, the doctor suggests therapy, and if you're fat, the doctor suggests weight loss - and hasn't the foggiest idea in the world of how to bring that about.

Look at the charts. The amount of overweight defined as "Morbid Obesity" shortens life. Morbid obesity and is accompanied by morbidity (disease) and earlier mortality (death). Simple overweight and obesity are not.

A 2x4 -- or a diet -- they have rarely helped anyone - and both have hurt many beyond anything the congenitally thin can imagine.

Diet plans don't work because they ignore what is know about physiology - human and animal.

They also ignore the emotional/mental components that got you there. If that is not addressed then NO diet or lifestyle change will be permanent.

The "Splendid Table" is on NPR now. Talking to a researcher/author about food/meat eating. Not sure where it is going.
Nevermind, it was a short plug for a book.

ozij wrote:I'm sure we disagree about the operational definition of "works".

Diets "work" like Mark Twain who found it so easy to stop smoking - he'd done it many times.

Anyone can be starved into a lower weight - that is not the issue.

Find me one peer reviewed diet plan that has been show to leave fat people 20 or 40 or 90 pounds lighter after 5 years, SAG.
OK. 3 years.
And don't forget to tell us how much weight was lost, and kept off after those years.

Diet plans don't work because they ignore what is know about physiology - human and animal.

I'm not sure what you mean about physiology exactly, but certainly many diets are not sustainable ways to live. That's part of my concern about low/no carbs ways of eating--I am sure I could do it for a brief time, but I don't know if I could keep it up, and then I'd be right back where I started.

As for 2x4's - the fat and the obese among us have spent a lifetime of being hit by 2x4's because of how we look, and how much we weigh. Do you realize a fat person can't go to a doctor without being give the riot act about their weight???

Clearly. Both my father and FIL were told by sleep docs to lose weight and then come back. That is one way to get rid of a patient--tell them to do something impossible, and as long as they don't do it, it's not the doctor's fault they aren't improving.

The way overweight is (mis)treated, you'd think no thin person had high BP, cancer, CVA's, osteoarthritis, or what have you. You'd think thin persons lived forever. So if you're thin, the doctor suggests therapy, and if you're fat, the doctor suggests weight loss - and hasn't the foggiest idea in the world of how to bring that about.

A 2x4 -- or a diet -- they have rarely helped anyone - and both have hurt many beyond anything the congenitally thin can imagine.

I don't think 2x4 approaches work for anything. Any approach that fails to validate that person's experience before proposing a solution, let alone the 2x4 solution, is doomed to failure. This includes when a newbie comes here and says he has trouble coming to grips with the notion that he has to sleep with this THING forever, laments the loss of freedom, the loss of feelings of being "healthy", etc and he receives the 2x4 (e.g., "Stop whining! Use this or you will die, stroke out, or be incontinent!")

What I was saying in the other thread is that I don't understand why the inappropriate use of the 2x4 for apnea is not also inappropriately used for weight loss (note that I'm not advocating it should be used for either, only that I find it interesting that it's used for one and not the other, particularly since they have similar risk factors). Often newbies will ask whether it's possible they won't need CPAP if they lose weight. They are often told, "No. OSA causes weight gain, NOT the other way around." While I understand that many people have failed to lose weight or maintain it, it does newbies no favors to misrepresent the relationship between OSA and weight gain, which is bidirectional. Yes, there are thin people here who have OSA. Yes, there are people who developed OSA after gaining weight (don't ask me how one can know which came first, but I'm not willing to argue this point). But that doesn't change the fact that being overweight is the biggest risk factor for OSA, and that motivation to lose the CPAP may serve as motivation to lose weight, which may very well improve that person's SDB (which should, theoretically, help them control their weight better).

I have lost 50 lbs. since last July. I went with a high protein/ low carb diet. For me, after 2 weeks all of my hunger pains went away. Took long walks every day. This was at the same time I started my xpap therapy. I began to feel much better. I would usually cheat one meal a week on a Saturday evening along with a couple of adult beverages. It has worked out great for me.

Hey that reminds me, it's Saturday!

SleepingUgly wrote:Often newbies will ask whether it's possible they won't need CPAP if they lose weight. They are often told, "No. OSA causes weight gain, NOT the other way around." While I understand that many people have failed to lose weight or maintain it, it does newbies no favors to misrepresent the relationship between OSA and weight gain, which is bidirectional. Yes, there are thin people here who have OSA. Yes, there are people who developed OSA after gaining weight (don't ask me how one can know which came first, but I'm not willing to argue this point). But that doesn't change the fact that being overweight is the biggest risk factor for OSA, and that motivation to lose the CPAP may serve as motivation to lose weight, which may very well improve that person's SDB (which should, theoretically, help them control their weight better).

Perhaps snoring or gasping for breath while sleeping is a bigger risk factor, but I hear what you are saying.

I really don't think newbies should be told "yes" or "no" when asking if they might be cured of OSA or at least lower their pressure by losing weight. I think they should be told that it is an individual thing, that some people who lose weight experience higher AHIs, some will experience lower AHIs, some will need higher pressures, some will need lower pressures, and some have been able to discontinue therapy with weight loss. But I don't think they should be told "yes, weight loss will help" any more than they should be told "no, weight loss will not help" without a fuller discussion of the range of possibilities. I think it would be fair to say that weight loss is more like to "improve" things than make them worse, but I don't think they should hear only one side of the possibilities.

I don't think 2x4 approaches work for anything. Any approach that fails to validate that person's experience before proposing a solution, let alone the 2x4 solution, is doomed to failure. This includes when a newbie comes here and says he has trouble coming to grips with the notion that he has to sleep with this THING forever, laments the loss of freedom, the loss of feelings of being "healthy", etc and he receives the 2x4 (e.g., "Stop whining! Use this or you will die, stroke out, or be incontinent!")

Yes and no. Some people need to hear the shock version but it is never administered all by itself. For every 2x4 post there are usually 5-10 hand holding ones. There is a fine line between enabling and support as well as a fine line between holding up the truth and beating someone down.

Of all the diets I looked and tried the paleo / low carb was the easiest to not think about and just do and still feel satiated/not deprived. I found it easiest to use a low carb/diabetic cook book to switch, it gave me menus and counts. After a couple of weeks it came naturally.

Right now I am on a neolithic subsistence diet (lots of grains and little protein) and missing my paleo diet.

Loosing weight -- and low-card -- are common discussions around here.

Here's last year's thread:

viewtopic.php?p=446978#p446978

And here's a thread about the lifestyle I've followed for almost 10 years. It literally saved my life.

viewtopic.php?p=312253#p312253

I have battled obesity for much of my adult life, an obesity which came about because doctors refused to listen to me about my health needs, and I was too shy, too over-awed by Authority to fight them.

Ten years ago, I weighed over 400 pounds. As I healed my gut, I lost 180 pounds. It'd be nice if I could lose another 100 or so, but I refuse to torture myself to achieve that.

Three years ago, my doctor's obsession with my weight could have killed me. He dismissed symptoms I reported to him with "Just lose some weight and it'll all clear up."

I went to a gynecologist, instead, and learned that my symptoms were uterine cancer. If I hadn't heeded my feeling that something was seriously wrong, I would probably now have inoperable, metasticized cancer, instead of being 2.5 years from being declared cancer free.

I continue to eat healthy: pastured meats when I can get and afford them, fruits, vegetables, cheeses, eggs, homemade yogurt. I eat no processed food. I still can't eat chocolate, but I found out I can do cocoa butter, and I make a d@mn fine date cake that tastes like chocolate on those days when I want something with carbs.

Someone mentioned satiable and by their post I took it to mean that growing grains was more so than raising meat. I disagree.

I live across the street from a large farm that raises corn one year and soybeans the next. The number of times they plow (burning fossil fuels) spread fertilizer (again, using fossil fuels, most fertilizer is made from natural gas), then since they have killed the soil by their over use of chemicals they have to use more chemicals to make the crops grow and keep the bugs from eating the crops. It is a FUBAR deal for sure.

We try to buy grass fed beef. Letting a meadow grow wild and letting the cattle forage there is much more satiable than the farm subsidized grain game that happens in this country.

LoQ wrote:But I don't think they should be told "yes, weight loss will help" any more than they should be told "no, weight loss will not help" without a fuller discussion of the range of possibilities. I think it would be fair to say that weight loss is more like to "improve" things than make them worse, but I don't think they should hear only one side of the possibilities.

Agreed.

JeffH wrote:Someone mentioned satiable and by their post I took it to mean that growing grains was more so than raising meat. I disagree.

I think me but it was the opposite. I find protein keeps me satiated much more and longer.