Diet that actually works with Apnea

archangle wrote:You can play all the games you want, get yourself in alignment with the great cosmic spirit, wear magic crystals, eat the latest fad diet, or do whatever else you want, but in the end, it's mainly about the number of calories you eat.

Carbohydrates tend to be bad because you digest them quickly and you're hungry again soon. Proteins or fats are better in some ways because they kill off your hunger for a longer time.

300 calories of meat will kill your hunger for longer than 300 calories of fruit. You'll tend to eat more calories on a high carb diet than on a low carb diet.

If you eat more calories on a low carb diet, you'll gain weight just like you will on a high carb diet.

There are a lot of minor effects of one food vs. another, but by and large, it's how many calories you eat.

If you eat fewer calories on one food, or one diet, or one weight management group session plan, you'll lose more weight vs. one where you eat more calories.

Atkins worked well for me when I actually did it. I lost quite a few pounds without a lot of effort but went back to bad food later. I didn't have to be hungry, but I did really crave some high carb foods like apples. Lots of people have the wrong idea about Atkins. It's not an all bacon and steak diet.

Well I don't recall cosmo promoting magic crystals or fad diets but I'm sure if adds to the trade deficit he would be all for it.

Sure the First Law of Thermodynamics is a factor in overall body mass increase, reduction, or maintenance. But to say that "There are a lot of minor effects of one food vs. another, but by and large, it's how many calories you eat. " or to imply that human metabolism can be reduced to the simple-minded calories in / calories out model is well, is an even more silly game.

I can assure you that if you feed one group of people only wheat and another only cattle, both groups will eventually become deficient in some essential nutrients. But the ones on the all wheat diet will die long before the ones eating only cattle.

The human body is much more complex and requires "essential" nutrients from the diet. The human body requires essential minerals, essential vitamins, essential amino acids (some only available from animal protein), and essential fatty acids (some only available from animal fat). Guess what? Carbohydrates are NOT essential nutrients. The human body requires all the "real" essential nutrients for proper metabolism and more importantly for health. What good does it do to lose, gain, or maintain one's weight if they are going to be unhealthy or dead because of nutrient deficiencies? The human body requires essential nutrients to produce important hormones which allow the individual cells to interact with each other and with the external environment. Obesity, and human health for that matter, is the genetic expression of all those cellular interactions. If you make certain that you get all of the essential nutrients that your body requires, your cells will interact to manifest your ideal body mass and health. Forget about calories -- the human body will manage the First Law of Thermodynamics for you if you give it all the essential nutrients it needs to do so.

And as for your corn statements, they are much too silly to address.

archangle wrote: There are a lot of minor effects of one food vs. another, but by and large, it's how many calories you eat.

The effects are not so minor if you are short on B12 - it effects your brain and is disastrous on young children. Lack of vitamin C causes scurvy and can kill you. Wheat gluten can also kill if you have Celiacs as a child.

archangle wrote: If you eat more calories on a low carb diet, you'll gain weight just like you will on a high carb diet.

Not quite. Not all calories are used the same way, not all can be used used efficiently. Raw food for example requires 40% more calories just to be digested.

Even though I have gained about ten pounds recently, my goal is to find a diet that improves my general functioning and keeps me more on an even keel. With my current diet which includes alot of junk food, I have way too many blood sugar fluctuations.

I am not going to worry about weight loss as doing so in the past made me totally obsessive and nuts about food. I do not wish to go back to those days.

After careful thought, I have decided that an "almost" paleo diet works best for me. In the past, when I tried to completely give up carbs, I went on some of the worst food binges I had been on in years trying to make up for what I was craving. As a result, I have found that a very small amount of gluten free crackers that actually have decent nutrition works the best for me.

In the past, I tried sweet potatoes, which are advocated on the Perfect Health Diet and that just didn't cut it for me.

Additionally, I am not eliminating peanut butter even though it has alot of omega 6 fats which can cause inflammation. However, there comes a point during the day where the thought of more protein for a meal or snack makes me gag. Peanut butter greatly appeals to me and since it is better than eating junk, that is a compromise I am willing to make. Hopefully, I eat enough fish which has Omega 3 to balance that out.

I also eat grass fed cheese in the morning because my teeth like it But due to it causing sinus congestion, I limit it to the morning.

I wish everyone alot of luck with their diet and greatly improved health.

49er

Christine L wrote:

cosmo: Just ate better, cut out the junk food, chips, sweets and no more snacking at night. I also take a walk around my office building once in the afternoon, 15 mins. Now I'm at normal BMI rates. I was 10lbs overweight.

Glad to see someone on the forum posting about moderation. Otherwise there is way too much extremism here with advice about eating no grains, dropping the carbs down to nothing, eating saturated fats, never going to restaurants, blech.

Good job Cosmo! (Although I hope you can break your addiction to buying gadgets.)

This thread is hilarious. A million different viewpoints on what everyone shouldn't eat



(No one noticed that I bought a scale)

And I just wanted to tell everyone what was workin' for me.

I'm learning a lot here, though, Cosco, so I'm glad everyone's got a different point of view. And since I love food and will eat anything as long as it doesn't crawl of the plate (and if it does, I'll stab it, first.) . . . some guidelines are always good.

Actually there are only three viewpoints on what humans should eat:

1) the paleolithic diet that humans are genetically encoded for and have been eating for 95% to 99% of their existence.
2) the modern "moderate", fad diet that the corporate agriculture and health industries pump to the media markets
3) the cosco diet that recommends that you increase the national deficit and buy something from China

2) the modern "moderate", fad diet that the corporate agriculture and health industries pump to the media markets

Yes, anyone see the recent ads from Pepsi??? Let's all get our dietary advice from a soft drink empire.

Point of Interest: Check out Kobe Bryant's diet here: http://www.nba.com/lakers/community/121 ... e_features (Scroll down to "Kobe Bryant's Diet Helps Maintain an Elite Level of Play"). The mainstream is finally starting to "get it". This diet is not just for elite atheletes, either.

My husband, whom I posted about before, did the LCHF diet. He didn't need to loss weight, but he did. His LDL went up from good to not good (don't have numbers on me). His LDL particle, which he did not have a baseline for but presumably was good prior to the diet, worsened.

And the cholesterol / heart disease myth is a scam but presumably big corporate pharmaceutical companies would never market harm to anyone for profit.

SleepingUgly wrote:My husband, whom I posted about before, did the LCHF diet. He didn't need to loss weight, but he did. His LDL went up from good to not good (don't have numbers on me). His LDL particle, which he did not have a baseline for but presumably was good prior to the diet, worsened.

The thing is we are from different genetic backgrounds. Northern Europeans have 9000 years of mutations to allow us to eat dairy and handle alcohol. Other groups don't have that "advantage" So our ability to handle carbs and fats will differ.

Note that Otzie the ice man from 2000BC at 40 had clogged arteries and a heart condition. He ate all organic, probably lower carbs then us, and got plenty of exercise.

cosmo wrote:I just bought a glass digital scale today at Costco. It shows I lost 11 lbs The last time I was weighed was at a doctors visit 2 months ago.

I would not compare the weight reading on your new scale to the one at your Doctor's office. I find that the scales from 1 Doctor to another can differ by a "few" pounds.

Changes in the readings from the same scale is the only way to make sure that you really are losing weight.

BlackSpinner wrote:

archangle wrote: There are a lot of minor effects of one food vs. another, but by and large, it's how many calories you eat.

The effects are not so minor if you are short on B12 - it effects your brain and is disastrous on young children. Lack of vitamin C causes scurvy and can kill you. Wheat gluten can also kill if you have Celiacs as a child.

Sorry you misunderstood my meaning. Weight gain or loss is mostly about calories. Calorie content of what and how much you eat is a pretty reliable predictor of whether you will gain or lose weight.

Your body needs certain amounts of certain nutrients, apart from getting enough calories. This is rarely that complicated. Your body needs X grams of chemical Y every day or certain bad things happen. In terms of it affecting your weight, as long as you aren't deficient in chemical Y, it's effect on your weight is usually proportional to it's caloric content.

Some foods are bad for you in high amounts. Too much salt is bad. Too much trans fat is probably bad for your heart.

Wheat gluten can kill you if you have celiac disease. If you have peanut allergy, one peanut can kill you. Some people can die from shellfish. Some people have other bad reactions to certain foods. So what? We're talking about weight gain and loss.

Home scales are generally adjusted to read low, because that SELLS them.
(see, it worked.)

chunkyfrog wrote:Home scales are generally adjusted to read low, because that SELLS them.
(see, it worked.)

True (in both cases ).

But the gains & losses can best be verified by the same scale (even if it does read low.)

Everyone wants to rain on my parade today

Even if the result was cut in half at 5lbs, thats still a sac of sugar's worth of padding I no longer carry around