Diet Thread

Forum rules
The information / discussion in the Cycling Health Forum is not qualified medical advice. Please consult your doctor.
User avatar
CKinnard
Posts: 2349
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2014 10:23 am

Re: Diet Thread

Postby CKinnard » Sun Oct 01, 2017 7:18 pm

Baalzamon wrote:
CKinnard wrote:
Baalzamon wrote:So today I went cycling. Nothing special about it just another saturday right except 38hr fasted. Not hungry. 1 black coffee. Right now I'm at 43hrs fasted and going for 3 days at least.


It's the intensity of your riding that will bring forward depletion of glycogen stores.
After that, avoiding blood glucose bonks will come down to how efficent your liver is at GNG.


I never bonk, ketones protect me. My quads tho will run out of glucose if I push too hard anaerobically. If an aerobic workout I can ride all day long and not need food.


What serum ketone levels have you recorded during cycling, or other sustained exercise?

Baalzamon
Posts: 5334
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 2:23 pm
Location: Yangebup

Re: Diet Thread

Postby Baalzamon » Sun Oct 01, 2017 8:01 pm

This morning my blood ketones was 3.3 and my blood glucose was 3.3.
After cycling my ketones are up to 6
Masi Speciale CX 2008 - Brooks B17 special saddle, Garmin Edge 810
Image

User avatar
mikesbytes
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 18329
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
Location: Tempe, Sydney
Contact:

Re: Diet Thread

Postby mikesbytes » Sun Oct 01, 2017 10:09 pm

CK I was watching a doco on the evolution of Human Society, which to some extent evolved around the energy yield from a given area of land and the first advancement was cooking food as it released more Kj for the consumer. Next came farming and then a steady increase of Kj's as farming improved, in particular with higher yield grains. Some of the points included a higher yield permitted more humans to exist and provided available time to perform other activities, such as fighting each other in armies.

The other point made was that the higher Kj yield from cooking also permitted humans to have bigger brains as the additional energy to run these brains was available.
If the R-1 rule is broken, what happens to N+1?

User avatar
CKinnard
Posts: 2349
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2014 10:23 am

Re: Diet Thread

Postby CKinnard » Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:16 am

Baalzamon wrote:This morning my blood ketones was 3.3 and my blood glucose was 3.3.
After cycling my ketones are up to 6


Would be interesting to do a few tests at progressively increasing percentages of VO2max.
There's a protocol for discovering your fat max curve, from memory increase your power output by 35 watts every 3 minutes, taking measurements at end of each level. Fitness businesses are starting to get into doing these with calorimeters, but you could emulate it with ketone readings.

You might be interested in getting one of these which allow multiple ketone measurements.
http://www.ketonix.com

Despite that the jury is still out on the long term effects of elevated serum lipids on endothelial function and local inflammatory signaling.
And the issue low carbers have with high carb diets is that insulin regulation is thrashed and worn out, and that people are too glycogen dependent. Neither of these points are written in stone. Insulin spikes can be avoided on high carb by including more fiber, which makes the gut become a glucose resvervoir with a slow release valve. Glycogen vs fat burn is very much under the influence of sports conditioning, independent of diet, which includes stress hormones. i.e. a pro cyclst who trains 20+ hours a week and gets plenty of rest, has a fat max curve shifted to the right of a recreational athlete with a stressful full time job and kids at home who does no more than 5 hours a week, independent of diet. And naturally, the longer your ride the lower the intensity, which means the higher % fat burned.

User avatar
CKinnard
Posts: 2349
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2014 10:23 am

Re: Diet Thread

Postby CKinnard » Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:32 am

mikesbytes wrote:CK I was watching a doco on the evolution of Human Society, which to some extent evolved around the energy yield from a given area of land and the first advancement was cooking food as it released more Kj for the consumer. Next came farming and then a steady increase of Kj's as farming improved, in particular with higher yield grains. Some of the points included a higher yield permitted more humans to exist and provided available time to perform other activities, such as fighting each other in armies.

The other point made was that the higher Kj yield from cooking also permitted humans to have bigger brains as the additional energy to run these brains was available.


Yep, most of what you say is the standard belief of those who study in the field. There's disagreement though on whether animal products or plants such as grains did more to provide the energy for a bigger brain that needs to burn more glucose. Richard Wrangham brings up a lot of great points for the latter, though I'd like to hear the counterpoints. Either way, anyone promoting an optimal homo sapien sapien diet on the basis of our past, needs to understand this stuff really well!

And there's always the probability that within our life time, the science may do no better than present the ambiguity that what helped us evolve a bigger brain has made us more vulnerable to morbidity and shorter lives!

User avatar
mikesbytes
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 18329
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
Location: Tempe, Sydney
Contact:

Re: Diet Thread

Postby mikesbytes » Wed Oct 04, 2017 2:07 pm

Good nutrition + health as a child makes us grow taller but the junk food diet of the US has stagnated height increase where the Dutch continue to get taller

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20150513-will-humans-keep-getting-taller
If the R-1 rule is broken, what happens to N+1?

Nobody
Posts: 8458
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Diet Thread

Postby Nobody » Wed Oct 04, 2017 3:10 pm

mikesbytes wrote:Good nutrition + health as a child makes us grow taller but the junk food diet of the US has stagnated height increase where the Dutch continue to get taller

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20150513-will-humans-keep-getting-taller


Getting continually taller isn't necessarily a good thing. Comparing like for like, a taller person usually lives a shorter life and has a higher risk of getting cancer. Plus food expenses are higher and the load on the planet is greater.

User avatar
CKinnard
Posts: 2349
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2014 10:23 am

Re: Diet Thread

Postby CKinnard » Thu Oct 05, 2017 4:06 pm

Regarding height, there's probably a happy medium there.
200 years ago we were all shorter, probably very much due to compromised nutrition.

Today, puberty is occurring 5 years earlier than in 1920, growth related diseases such as many cancers are up, men's sperm counts are down, etc. And no health authority can say why. They just broadcast vague statements.

No doubt lifestyle choices are involved, but I also believe the quality of our fruit and vege, grains, and other foods is compromised these days via poor soils, hydroponics, being picked earlier, etc.
Nevertheless, all one can do is buy organic or grown your own.
I've read in many rivers and streams, there's enough B12 in 1 liter of water to meet our daily needs.
And I sense that growing your own vege in good organic soils would also be a significant source of B12.

Finally, I think consciousness also effects these things. So if children begin thinking about sexual attraction at a younger age, then they are likely to stimulate sex hormone synthesis more so!
Olden day morals make more sense the older I get!

User avatar
mikesbytes
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 18329
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
Location: Tempe, Sydney
Contact:

Re: Diet Thread

Postby mikesbytes » Thu Oct 05, 2017 7:57 pm

I'm wondering if my estimation of how many people die from obesity might be on the low side

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2017/10/04/cdc-40-percent-cancers-linked-to-obesity-overweight.html
If the R-1 rule is broken, what happens to N+1?

User avatar
CKinnard
Posts: 2349
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2014 10:23 am

Re: Diet Thread

Postby CKinnard » Thu Oct 05, 2017 8:36 pm

mikesbytes wrote:I'm wondering if my estimation of how many people die from obesity might be on the low side

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2017/10/04/cdc-40-percent-cancers-linked-to-obesity-overweight.html


no doubt about it that most diseases are enhanced by obesity.

Obesity puts a massive compromising strain on all systems - sleep apnoea, poor vascular and lymphatic circulation, systemic inflammation, severely compromised immunity, diabetes, CVD, musculoskeletal diseases.

I enjoy bringing up with blind pro-vaxxers that if they are genuinely serious about reducing infectious disease rates, then they should ban obese people from working in child minding centers, schools, and hospitals. Though few comprehend the gist. And the literature backs it that obese people contract infectious diseases more often which is reflected by higher sick leave from work.

Meanwhile, I am on a spring clean out (bodily!). No alcohol or discretionary meals in about 5 weeks. Massive vegetable intake. down 5kg. and unhealthy pangs gone. am aiming for BMI 22.

Nobody
Posts: 8458
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Diet Thread

Postby Nobody » Fri Oct 06, 2017 11:36 am

CKinnard wrote:
mikesbytes wrote:Meanwhile, I am on a spring clean out (bodily!). No alcohol or discretionary meals in about 5 weeks. Massive vegetable intake. down 5kg. and unhealthy pangs gone. am aiming for BMI 22.

Nice to see you are making progress.

Most people that I speak to about health/weight in general think I'm too skinny and politely say something like "...but don't lose any more weight". My wife recently indicated that my attractiveness as a male was laughable. So I'm now trying to gain some muscle, without adding too much fat. So that means more lifting, less cycling and less high density food restrictions. And yes I shouldn't let the general population and my wife get to me, but I doubt I'll be taking the muscle gain very far. Not that I can at almost 50 yo.

__________________________________________________________________________________

About 01:33 to 07:03




User avatar
mikesbytes
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 18329
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
Location: Tempe, Sydney
Contact:

Re: Diet Thread

Postby mikesbytes » Fri Oct 06, 2017 3:25 pm

The most attractive thing about a male is the size of his pay cheque :)

On the physical side, which is well down the female's check list is protection and ability to provide food. A stronger & slightly fatter male is an indicator of successful hunter. So Macca's is a better hunting ground than hunting for nutritional info on Google :)

Yes, its a contradiction
If the R-1 rule is broken, what happens to N+1?

march83
Posts: 597
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2013 10:41 pm

Re: Diet Thread

Postby march83 » Fri Oct 06, 2017 4:30 pm

mikesbytes wrote:On the physical side, which is well down the female's check list is protection and ability to provide food. A stronger & slightly fatter male is an indicator of successful hunter. So Macca's is a better hunting ground than hunting for nutritional info on Google :)

Yes, its a contradiction


I think that you and I turn in very different circles...

User avatar
mikesbytes
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 18329
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
Location: Tempe, Sydney
Contact:

Re: Diet Thread

Postby mikesbytes » Fri Oct 06, 2017 4:51 pm

march83 wrote:
mikesbytes wrote:On the physical side, which is well down the female's check list is protection and ability to provide food. A stronger & slightly fatter male is an indicator of successful hunter. So Macca's is a better hunting ground than hunting for nutritional info on Google :)

Yes, its a contradiction


I think that you and I turn in very different circles...
Fortunately not all females think the same. Though they don't realise it, they are looking for the male who can best support their children, its built into our survival and although most of it is no longer relevant to modern society its still built into our genetics.

Anyway I personally wouldn't be concerned about comments about being slim making one less attractive, heart attacks, diabetes etc etc are far less attractive
If the R-1 rule is broken, what happens to N+1?

User avatar
CKinnard
Posts: 2349
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2014 10:23 am

Re: Diet Thread

Postby CKinnard » Fri Oct 06, 2017 6:19 pm

Nobody wrote:Nice to see you are making progress.

Most people that I speak to about health/weight in general think I'm too skinny and politely say something like "...but don't lose any more weight". My wife recently indicated that my attractiveness as a male was laughable. So I'm now trying to gain some muscle, without adding too much fat. So that means more lifting, less cycling and less high density food restrictions. And yes I shouldn't let the general population and my wife get to me, but I doubt I'll be taking the muscle gain very far. Not that I can at almost 50 yo.


People who are overweight think everyone a fit or athletic weight are undernourished and a step away from disease.

Women are the worst at doing the 'slim shaming'.
A few weeks ago I had to cut yet another social acquaintance loose because she felt my paid consultative advice to her friend was dangerously extreme....and she shut me down in front of others. She has asked me for advice in the past on the side, and essentially scoffed at it condescendingly, with the understanding she knows better.

This whinger is obese and currently on a Euro hiking holiday, and her feet have essentially broken down due to her excess weight and under-preparation.

Meanwhile, her friend continues to lose weight and feel more energetic and healthy every week.

Women and body image.....there's something very very primeval about that relationship.
Nevertheless, I get paid to deliver evidence based facts, and won't be silenced by devolutionary pathological ignorance.
Most of those who carry on with this type of rubbish have a miserable future fast encroaching.

Nobody, if you can do 30+ pushups, 10 pull ups, and ride your bike fast for 10 minutes, then don't worry about lean tissue bulk.
It's cartilage failure that ends up immobilizing us, not lack of lean tissue....and that failure is due to diet fueled oxidative damage.
But this is a conversation 99.5% of people don't want to have.

BTW, today I was signed up to do a semester of talks at a Brisbane university to health sciences faculty students, about steps towards better health care in Australia. PBWF SOS studies are going to get a good plug! :)

Nobody
Posts: 8458
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Diet Thread

Postby Nobody » Fri Oct 06, 2017 8:20 pm

CKinnard wrote:People who are overweight think everyone a fit or athletic weight are undernourished and a step away from disease.

Yeah. It's strange how one's perception of normal changes with the company kept and/or how one looks in the mirror. Reminds me of a survey that was done which found the most overweight people think they are normal weight these days. I suppose they have a point when the average AU BMI is 27.

CKinnard wrote:Women are the worst at doing the 'slim shaming'.
A few weeks ago I had to cut yet another social acquaintance loose...

Sad, but the cost of choosing to be different. I haven't had to disassociate with anyone, but I'd say my wife wanted to cut me loose in the first year after the change. Maybe she still does. Just that she's less vocal about it now. She's eastern European descent, so in her mind I rejected her food.

CKinnard wrote:Women and body image.....there's something very very primeval about that relationship.

Probably because it's related to status among women.

CKinnard wrote:Most of those who carry on with this type of rubbish have a miserable future fast encroaching.

True. I was trying to convince a person I know (who is my age) of the benefits of diet change some months before he got cancer with a tumor in his spine.

CKinnard wrote:Nobody, if you can do 30+ pushups, 10 pull ups, and ride your bike fast for 10 minutes, then don't worry about lean tissue bulk.

I had a head-on collision with another bike rider on the paths in early July. I fell hard on my left side and have some soft tissue damage in my left elbow. I was told it would take about 3 months to heal. It's still a bit sore, but I'm getting back into the lifting exercises. I can currently do 37 pushups on knuckles while touching the ground. I'm aiming for 50. Pull ups are only 8 at the moment. I'm aiming for 15. Both are optimistic targets. Dead lifts are 20 reps with 63 kg of weight. No goal for that one since I find dead lifts difficult enough already. I'd like not to be concerned with lean tissue bulk, but if I can get to my goals then at least I can tell people that think I'm too skinny that I can do that. Also my wife might have to look harder to find a valid insult.

CKinnard wrote:It's cartilage failure that ends up immobilising us, not lack of lean tissue....and that failure is due to diet fuelled oxidative damage.
But this is a conversation 99.5% of people don't want to have.

I would've been a victim of this if I'd kept going with eating SAD. My knees were giving me trouble.

CKinnard wrote:BTW, today I was signed up to do a semester of talks at a Brisbane university to health sciences faculty students, about steps towards better health care in Australia. PBWF SOS studies are going to get a good plug! :)
Yay. :D
You might be able to save the small percentage of people who heed your message from a shortened "health span".
I take it then you decided to stay in AU for the immediate future. Yes?

User avatar
CKinnard
Posts: 2349
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2014 10:23 am

Re: Diet Thread

Postby CKinnard » Fri Oct 06, 2017 10:57 pm

Nobody wrote:Yay. :D
You might be able to save the small percentage of people who heed your message from a shortened "health span".
I take it then you decided to stay in AU for the immediate future. Yes?


Yes will be in Australia until at least February....and am going cold about going back for an extended duration.
I'd go back for 3-6 mths, but not 1+ years. My last communication was with AG, and it confirmed my previously expressed concerns!


The reason I have been familiarizing myself with the low carb interpretation of the science more intensely since getting back is because I feel the new guard in the PBWF camp is not interpreting the literature well enough to counter the low carb position. i.e. TNH, McDougall, Barnard, etc all say insulin resistance is simply IMCL blocking insulin signaling.....but that's wrong as a generalization and it doesn't get to root cause.

The new guard in the PBWF camp just are not as savvy or organized enough to understand the fight going on in the media and internet for the minds and diets of the masses. And I don't know the science well enough either. PBWF needs a bigger team that are up with the literature, and can systematically dismantle the low carb interpretation of the literature.
The uni contract will give me some extra time to research and understand the PBWF and low carb interpretations better, and at least I'll be able to present both sides to students, and point out where there's common ground and where observer bias intrudes.

Nobody
Posts: 8458
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Diet Thread

Postby Nobody » Fri Oct 06, 2017 11:56 pm

CKinnard wrote:...i.e. TNH, McDougall, Barnard, etc all say insulin resistance is simply IMCL blocking insulin signaling.....but that's wrong as a generalization and it doesn't get to root cause.

I agree. If you can lose 8% of your body weight by any means and the symptoms of the T2D disappears, then there must be something else going on.

CKinnard wrote:The new guard in the PBWF camp just are not as savvy or organized enough to understand the fight going on in the media and internet for the minds and diets of the masses. And I don't know the science well enough either. PBWF needs a bigger team that are up with the literature, and can systematically dismantle the low carb interpretation of the literature.

Greger has a team these days. Maybe something more will come out in the near future to clarify the mechanism more. I suspect a lot more people are going to go low carb in the future. The more powerful food industries should profit from that.

Fortunately for me, I don't need to know the detail. Only that a well structured WFPO diet - as in each individual food is there for a reason - is the healthiest diet and tuning it to cater for an individual's weaknesses can improve it further.

Patt0
Posts: 282
Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2015 6:31 am
Location: Brisbane

Re: Diet Thread

Postby Patt0 » Sat Oct 07, 2017 8:00 am

Nobody wrote: say something like "...but don't lose any more weight".


Wife and a few others said that to me on my recent weight loss journey. The others stopped when I changed out the baggy clothes for properly fitting clothes. The wife stopped when I told her "If it pains you to look at me, you can look elsewhere." The subtle and some, not so subtle, invitations I have been receiving lately has made me feel especially not inadequate. Speaking of the wife she has proved her usefulness once again.

The food the wife cooks is perfect keto food. All I have to do is leave the rice off the plate and get a few spoons of sauce the meat was cooked in. What I eat is the fibrous veg and meat with fat intact. Havent touched an egg, nut or butter. Only embellishments have been, 200g of sour cream in beef liver soup she made one night, yum-yum. And a tin of sardines another night where it looked like I could only get 100g of pork out of her stirfry. Desert is an avocado, a dozen olives and ~50g total of the 1/2 doz different cheeses that are in the fridge.

Dinner and my morning cappuccinos are keeping my weight stable. I put a few days into cronometer and got this,

1900kcal in, 3900kcal out :shock:

P=100g
C=50g
F=140g

That probably doesnt equate the total as I just took guesstimate averages of a few days of each. I realise it is not perfect keto ratios. But food is just the fuel for life and is not life. Only been doing it consciously for one week so I will probably make adjustments as needed based on feel. I crunch numbers at work so I tend to exercise the artist at home.

After one week, physical performance is the same. I do too much so there has always been an up and down cycle with intensity. On my commute, the "zone" is appearing earlier and more fervent.

If I am quick I can catch the group ride going past my house, bye.
Image

Nobody
Posts: 8458
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Diet Thread

Postby Nobody » Sat Oct 07, 2017 10:12 am

Patt0 wrote:Wife and a few others said that to me on my recent weight loss journey. The others stopped when I changed out the baggy clothes for properly fitting clothes.

I've got the properly fitting clothes. Thanks for the advice and it's nice that it helped you. But I still get the comments. That's what's prompted me to try adding some muscle. I don't group or competitively ride, so speed on the bike isn't my highest priority.

Patt0 wrote:The wife stopped when I told her "If it pains you to look at me, you can look elsewhere."

I don't know why many women prefer their men to be heavier. Hopefully she'll get used to it.
I think my wife has a eye for NRL player builds, which makes me wonder why she married me. But I digress.

Patt0 wrote:The subtle and some, not so subtle, invitations I have been receiving lately has made me feel especially not inadequate.

Being a shorter/smaller build, I don't get invitations (which is probably good for my marriage). But I've noticed more looks or attention from Asian women since losing weight. I think most other women think I'm too small/light/thin.

Patt0 wrote:1900kcal in, 3900kcal out :shock:

The kcal in/out doesn't really matter. Studies has proven that you have a daily energy budget and that exceeding it with more exercise just makes your body more efficient in using the same amount of energy. I usually consume about 2500-2800 kcal to maintain my weight.

Patt0 wrote:P=100g
C=50g
F=140g

I'm about:
P=90g
C=550g
F=22g
fibre=110g
Cronometer says I get almost everything I need when not eating nuts and everything on the days I do. I'm not too concerned if I do or don't get enough specific nutrients as the video below explains the case for not worrying about it.


Patt0 wrote:But food is just the fuel for life and is not life.

An observation which I've noticed is shared by many who succeed with diet. Or to put it another way; if you use diet for entertainment, then don't expect to be lean. "Spudfit" says something like "Make your diet boring and your life interesting".

User avatar
CKinnard
Posts: 2349
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2014 10:23 am

Re: Diet Thread

Postby CKinnard » Sat Oct 07, 2017 3:20 pm

Nobody wrote:I agree. If you can lose 8% of your body weight by any means and the symptoms of the T2D disappears, then there must be something else going on.

Greger has a team these days. Maybe something more will come out in the near future to clarify the mechanism more. I suspect a lot more people are going to go low carb in the future. The more powerful food industries should profit from that.

Fortunately for me, I don't need to know the detail. Only that a well structured WFPO diet - as in each individual food is there for a reason - is the healthiest diet and tuning it to cater for an individual's weaknesses can improve it further.


Re the 8%, you don't have to even lose that. Within 2-3 weeks of gastric bypass ops, patients' glucose returns to normal.
One explanation is that the pro-insulin hormone GIP in the duodenum is bypassed when the esophagus is connected downstream closer to the jejunum.

And the low carbers have won the media wars in many respects regarding IMCL by simply drawing attention to the many T2D patients who are not overweight.

Endotoxemia via a leaky gut, and any source of inflammation can compromise insulin regulation.....as can autonomic input to pancreatic alpha and beta cells.

Re Greger, I still don't think he adequately counters the low carbers. Whenever low carb come out with a new study making some claim, Greger's team should be all over it looking for artifacts, confounders, misleading study design. i.e. low fat diets are generally considered to be anything up to 30% fat.

30% fat is not a low fat whole foods plant based diet, anyway you cut it.

User avatar
mikesbytes
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 18329
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
Location: Tempe, Sydney
Contact:

Re: Diet Thread

Postby mikesbytes » Sat Oct 07, 2017 7:38 pm

snip:
Nobody wrote:I don't know why many women prefer their men to be heavier. Hopefully she'll get used to it.
I think my wife has a eye for NRL player builds, which makes me wonder why she married me. But I digress.

It's your other strengths that attracted her to you, the male build is way down her list of priorities.

One other reason that some females don't like their man to be slim is the unspoken rule that she must be slimmer than him. If he's slimmed down then it puts more pressure on her to slim down too. Not too dissimilar to the person in the office who finds someone else's success to be threatening and engages you with excuses why they don't do whatever even though you haven't even brought up the topic.

BTY the issue of one partner improving their diet and the other not issue is both ways and often leads the other to diet sabotage, a typical approach is to stock the fridge with the thing that the dieting person can't resist for example chocolates or beer
If the R-1 rule is broken, what happens to N+1?

Nobody
Posts: 8458
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Diet Thread

Postby Nobody » Sat Oct 07, 2017 9:34 pm

mikesbytes wrote:It's your other strengths that attracted her to you, the male build is way down her list of priorities.

Thanks. Good for me then. :)

mikesbytes wrote:One other reason that some females don't like their man to be slim is the unspoken rule that she must be slimmer than him. If he's slimmed down then it puts more pressure on her to slim down too.

I think you've hit the nail on the head. Since I remember her saying once that the wife should be lighter than her husband. Even trying to gain weight at the moment, I'm probably still 15 kg+ lighter than her.

mikesbytes wrote:BTY the issue of one partner improving their diet and the other not issue is both ways and often leads the other to diet sabotage, a typical approach is to stock the fridge with the thing that the dieting person can't resist for example chocolates or beer

My house is full of chocolate, biscuits, ice cream, cake, chips, processed meals, etc. It doesn't appear to have an effect on me. My resolve is too strong. But as Chef AJ says "If it's in your house, it's in your mouth." So it must have an effect on the majority.
Last edited by Nobody on Sat Oct 07, 2017 10:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Nobody
Posts: 8458
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Diet Thread

Postby Nobody » Sat Oct 07, 2017 9:43 pm

CKinnard wrote:...i.e. low fat diets are generally considered to be anything up to 30% fat.

30% fat is not a low fat whole foods plant based diet, anyway you cut it.


A good example of they class as a "low fat diet" below.

https://youtu.be/XTriuK3N3gg?t=15m57s

I think my diet tops out at about 10% and is usually about 7%.

User avatar
mikesbytes
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 18329
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
Location: Tempe, Sydney
Contact:

Re: Diet Thread

Postby mikesbytes » Sat Oct 07, 2017 11:01 pm

Nobody wrote:
CKinnard wrote:...i.e. low fat diets are generally considered to be anything up to 30% fat.

30% fat is not a low fat whole foods plant based diet, anyway you cut it.


A good example of they class as a "low fat diet" below.

https://youtu.be/XTriuK3N3gg?t=15m57s

I think my diet tops out at about 10% and is usually about 7%.


Is the 30% fat that CK referring to perhaps a confusion with the old saying (early 90's) that no more than 30% of your calories should come from fat?
If the R-1 rule is broken, what happens to N+1?

Return to “Cycling Health”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users