Godot

Quite far from double-blind, hell, it's nowhere near single-blind!
I would suggest that eating carbs again may be a good thing, so long as you don't plan on eating a couple of loaves of bread in one go to make up for lost time.
Reduction of calories would best be accomplished through reducing the contribution of fat to total energy in the diet, particularly saturated fats. It's not about throwing away the manner in which you previously ate forever, it's more attuned with making appropriate, informed decisions most of the time.
The other side of the energy balance equation is frequently ignored. You can make it a lot easier on yourself if you step up your expenditure a bit. If you create an energy deficit of 500 kcal/day through a combination of decreased consumption and increased expenditure, you should realise a weight loss approximating 1 lb/week. Not too shabby, really. In excess of 2lbs/week gets into that nasty "detrimental to your health range."

Dr Rick

I pasted this post together from another thread covering dieting, weith-loss, and the Atkins diet.

Despite the "good advice" offered by various organizations and diet "experts," the US population is currently in the throes of an obesity epidemic. For whatever reasons, the recommendations to exercise and eat a "healthy" diet are not working; some other approach other than continuing to offer the same cliches and advice is necessary to meet the needs of the majority of adult Americans.

This need has fueled interest in dietary manipulations such as the Atkins Diet, as well as research into genes and signal receptors that trigger hunger and satiety, and bariatric (weight loss) surgery.

All weight-loss diets are ketogenic to one degree or another; ketogenesis is a normal physiologic adaption to fasting and low-caloric intake and is generally well-tolerated in healthy individuals. Metabolism. 1983 Aug;32(8):757-68.

In the unfed state, most ketones are produced from the metabolism of fats which have been mobilized from body stores, and not from amino acids or proteins. It is only by converting fat stores into energy and ketones that excess body fat can be eliminated, which is one of the goals of most weight-loss diets. A healthy individual can readily excrete in the urine most of the ketones produced by the body.

The adaptive response to weight-loss dieting involves specific metabolic alterations that increase the use of body fat as a fuel and spare the use of glucose. With intensive dieting or fasting, a marked shift in fuel use occurs during the first day; by 24 hours of dieting or fasting, the use of glucose as a fuel will decrease and as little as only 15% of liver glycogen (sugar) stores may remain. Fat stores become the body's major fuel, and the rates of adipose tissue lipolysis, liver ketone production, and fat oxidation are increased as the rates of liver glucose production and whole-body glucose oxidation decrease. The increase in fatty acid delivery to the liver increases liver ketone production. With continued dieting, plasma ketone body concentrations can increase up to 75-fold and cause an osmotic diuresis (increase urine output) with compensatory shifts in body fluid compartments. Decreases in intracellular sugar stores which occur early in dieting probably accentuate the effect of the osmotic changes in the extracellular fluids, which is why individual on weight-loss diets need to drink lots of fluids.

There are two "ideas" behind the Atkins diet. One is to deprive the body of the carbohydrate substrates it needs to metabolize ketones effectively, thereby decreasing the caloric energy derived from them. The other is that the intake of fats and proteins produces a blunter serum insulin response than carbohydrates, which may play an important role in satiety. In other words, it's possible that the same caloric intake of a high protein and/or high fat food may alleviate hunger longer than a high carbohydrate meal.

While there are very few, good randomized, controlled trials comparing weight-loss regimens or evaluating their safety, a recent conference report from the North American Association for the Study of Obesity suggests that a low-carbohydrate, high-protein diet such as the Atkins Diet may be both safe and effective:

The cholesterol and lipid effects of the Atkins
Diet were essentially a "wash" in this study; also, because this type of diet is usually only a temporary one for most people, it's direct lipid effects are unlikely to be clinically significant.

It appears that it was easier for the subjects in this multi-center study to stick with the Atkins Diet and to lose weight than it was for the control subjects to successfully adhere to a "conventional" weight-loss diet.

This study was a short-term one; a good long-term study on the subject has yet to be published or presented.

Consumer Reports published an article in its June 2002 issue titled The Truth About Dieting. Included were the results of a mail-in survey by almost 8000 respondents that self-reported the successful loss of 10% or more of their individual starting weights and subsequent maintence of those losses for one year or longer and expert commentary on a variety of dieting issues.

Some excerpts:

What it takes to lose weight:
[quote]Weight loss is no mystery. You have to take in fewer calories than your body burns. "The trick is to help people not feel hungry all the time while they're doing that," says Barbara Rolls, Ph.D., a professor of nutrition at Pennsylvania State University in University Park. Until recently, however, medical researchers mostly aimed at developing diets to achieve medical goals--lowering cholesterol and blood pressure, for example. "We're beginning to say that may not be so great if you won't stay on the diet and you won't be happy," says Adam Drewnowski, Ph.D., director of the nutritional sciences program at the University of Washington in Seattle...

...To an extent, the supersuccessful and unsuccessful dieters used similar weight-loss strategies. They reduced portion sizes, ate more fruits and vegetables, cut back on fat, and avoided sweets and junk food. So why did some succeed while others failed? Persistence. More than half of the supersuccesses said they applied those strategies to their diets every day, and another 30 percent did so a few times a week. By contrast, only 20 percent of the failures used the strategies every day, and 35 percent a few times a week.

"Regardless of what people do for dieting and exercise, the longer they do it, the more successful they are," says Robert Jeffery, Ph.D., a professor of epidemiology at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis. "It's not what people do, it's how consistent they are about it. You don't have to be 100 percent, but you have to be better than 10 percent."<hr></blockquote>

The glycemic idex:
[quote]The body's use of carbohydrates seems to be key to success. Carbohydrates are the staple of everyday diets, and as much as 55 to 60 percent of the traditional low-fat reducing diet. In the digestive process, carbs break down into glucose (sugar) molecules, which are then sent into the bloodstream. In response to the upsurge in blood sugar, the pancreas secretes the hormone insulin, without which cells can't take up glucose to use as energy. But fast-acting carbohydrates such as sugar, refined flour, white rice, pasta, and potatoes have a high "glycemic index"--that is, they turn into blood glucose much more quickly than carbohydrates in high-fiber foods such as fruits, vegetables, legumes, and whole grains. The abrupt infusion of blood sugar from fast-acting carbohydrates unleashes a surge of insulin so great that it overshoots the metabolic mark and drives blood-sugar levels lower than normal. Low blood sugar makes us feel hungry, so we reach for another high-glycemic-index carbohydrate--starting the whole cycle all over again.

David Ludwig, M.D., director of the obesity program at Children's Hospital Boston, and other researchers have begun studying weight-loss diets designed to curb appetite by smoothing out the wild gyrations of blood sugar and insulin that occur on diets of high-glycemic-index carbohydrates. In one study, Ludwig put a group of overweight children on a standard low-fat diet and a comparison group on a low-glycemic diet. The low-glycemic dieters were instructed to combine protein, healthful fat, and low-glycemic carbohydrates like fruits, vegetables, legumes, and whole grains at each meal. After four months, children on the low-glycemic diet had lost an average of 4.5 pounds, while the kids on the low-fat diet had gained 2.9 pounds.

Low-glycemic meals seem to curb hunger in adults, too, according to a recent study of a dozen overweight men by scientists from Laval University in Quebec. On their own, the men consumed 25 percent fewer calories on a low-glycemic diet than on a standard low-fat diet. Moreover, their triglyceride levels improved. More than half our five-year successes who tried "eating fewer carbohydrates like bread and potatoes" also said it helped them lose weight and keep it off.<hr></blockquote>

Exercice:
[quote]Our survey also showed what you already suspected: Keeping weight off requires regular and fairly rigorous exercise. Eight out of 10 of our successful losers who tried exercising three or more times a week listed it as their No. 1 strategy. And while most chose walking as the path to long-term weight-loss success, an eyebrow-raising 29 percent added weight lifting to their regime.

...While it seems that successful dieters can take many paths to reach that longed-for ideal--or at least lower--weight, most used the same tactic to stay there: exercise. Indeed, regular exercise was the No. 1 successful weight-loss maintenance strategy, cited by 81 percent of the long-term maintainers who tried it. Sixty-three percent of five-year maintainers exercised at least three days a week, compared with only 29 percent of those who failed to lose any weight at all. In second place, at 74 percent, was the related strategy of increasing physical activity in daily routines--using stairs instead of the elevator, for example.

Our results track closely with those of the National Weight Control Registry, a voluntary database of more than 3,000 people who have lost at least 30 pounds and kept it off for at least a year. Just 9 percent of the registry members maintain their weight without exercise; about 17 percent of our long-term maintainers said they did not exercise. <hr></blockquote>

Does it help to have "help"?:
[quote]What explains the success of our winning losers? To find out, we compared responses of the 4,056 superstars in our sample--the ones who'd kept their weight off for five years or more--with those of the 3,877 self-admitted failures--people who had tried to lose weight but had shed none at all.

The strongest finding that emerges from the responses, other than the necessity for exercise, is that when it comes to losing weight, one size definitely does not fit all. Eighty-three percent of the successful losers said they lost weight entirely on their own.

That overturns the long-held conviction that to lose weight, you have to enroll in an expensive program, buy special food, or follow the regimen of a particular diet guru. Indeed, just 14 percent of our superlosers had ever signed up with Weight Watchers, Jenny Craig, or other commercial diet programs, while 26 percent of our failures had done so. Eighty-eight percent of our superlosers shunned meal replacements such as Slim Fast. And a mere 6 percent of the successes used dietary supplements or nonprescription weight-loss aids such as Metabolife or Dexatrim. If anything made a difference for them, it was one-on-one counseling from a professional such as a psychologist or nutritionist. Although less than 10 percent of all our 8,000 successes used one, they ranked it second in effectiveness after "my own diet and exercise regimen."<hr></blockquote>

The Atkins Diet:
[quote]As recently as last year, an expert panel of nutritionists convened by the American Heart Association condemned it as ineffective and very possibly a health hazard. Yet ...of the 10 best-selling diet authors we asked about in our questionnaire, Atkins stood out from the rest. Eighteen percent of all the dieters said they'd read one of his books. That was more than four times as many as had read any of the others. And 34 percent said that his advice helped them to lose weight and keep it off.

Although the original version of the Atkins diet has been around since the 1970s, "Atkins has overpromoted it without data, and doctors have criticized it without data," says Gary Foster, Ph.D., clinical director of the weight- and eating-disorders program at the University of Pennsylvania.

To fill that gap, Foster and collaborators at the University of Colorado Health Science Center and at the Washington University School of Medicine rounded up 42 overweight volunteers. They sent half of them home with instructions to follow the diet in the Atkins book. That meant they were allowed to eat as much protein and fat as they wanted, including steaks, butter, cheese, eggs, and oils, but absolutely no carbohydrates other than a few cups of salad greens or the equivalent each day. The second group followed a standard low-fat, low-calorie, high-carbohydrate diet.

After 12 weeks, 7 of the original 21 low-fat dieters had quit, while only 2 of the Atkins group had dropped out. Moreover, the Atkins dieters had already lost an average of nearly 19 pounds, compared with an average loss of just 7 1/2 pounds for the low-fat dieters.

Atkins' harshest critics say that the program is dangerous; eating all that animal fat and cholesterol is bound to do dreadful things to your cardiovascular system, they argue. So the researchers measured the study subjects' "good" and "bad" cholesterol levels as well as their triglycerides (another indicator of heart-disease risk: the lower, the better). The findings, which have been presented at scientific meetings but not yet published, were mixed. Blood levels of both good and bad cholesterol went up in the Atkins group and down in the low-fat group. Triglycerides dropped more in the Atkins group than in the group on the low-fat regimen.

"If I had to say whether the Atkins diet is good or bad, I'd say I still don't know," Foster says. He is now analyzing an additional 12 weeks of study results, and the research group is also organizing a second study involving many more people.

Our verdict: If your overall health, as assessed by a recent medical exam, is good; if your LDL ("bad") cholesterol level is in the low-coronary-risk range (less than 100 milligrams per deciliter); and if your kidneys are in good shape (digesting lots of protein may be hard on them), we doubt you'll harm yourself by using the Atkins diet for 12 weeks to jump-start a weight-loss attempt. (Be sure to include the daily multivitamin Atkins specifies.) But we don't think it should be your first choice as a reducing diet. Unless further studies establish its long-term safety, we can't endorse staying on the Atkins diet for the many months you'd need to lose a significant amount of weight. Furthermore, the diet can be deficient in the fiber that abounds in fruits and whole-grain carbohydrates; they should be a part of any sustainable, long-term eating plan."

Individuals with any chronic medical condition, pregnancy, or morbid obesity (BMI&gt;30) should initiate a weight-loss program or diet only under the supervision of a health care professional

Rick

Godot

At no point in time have I ever stated that the zone diet produces negative effects. I know quite clearly followers of it observe positive effects. If you reread my post above, you'll find that my main contention with the zone diet is that the underpinning theory to the diet is not supported by the scientific literature. This is the same reason I am opposed to the macrobiotic diet.
I do not disregard research undertaken by proponents of a given treatment out of hand because of their allegience. I disregard *shoddy* research out of hand because it isn't worth my time to consider it. Properly undertaken research involves reproducibility. This is largely acheived when other scientists can follow the stated methodology and arrive at the same results. In every bit of research I have seen as put forth on pro-zone websites, there is no methodology to follow. We are lead to believe that they arrived at their results magically? How can I, as a sceptical individual verify their claims? Simple: I cannot in the manner they are presented. That is why I want to see you provide me with a peer reviewed journal article written by Sears et al. If their program is so effective, it should be published in nearly all the releveant scientific literature (check http//:highwire.stanford.edu for yourself, since I know you don't trust me). Since it isn't being published, we must realise that it is not accepted to be true by the scientific community. In fact, he is regarded as something of a crackpot.

Disagreeing with the underlying priciples do not prevent the diet from being effective at all. The two are not mutually exclusive. The mechanism for action that Sears advocates has no basis in physiology or nutrition (and this is largely why he isn't published). The meal plan can still be effective nevertheless.

I never said anything of the sort. To sound like a broken record, the meal plan is more or less sound. The theory to support it is not.

And I'm sure he volunteers for his church group on the weekends too. What relevence does this information have to this discourse?!?

The Zone Diet Phenomenon: A Closer Look at the Science behind the Claims :
Nope, nothing precise or mathematical about that one.

So with non-dairy and non-meat sources of protein being "not significant," does that mean that practising vegans are up a creek? The thing is, Sears tries to divide foods into cute little discrete categories of CHO, PRO, and fat. The only pure CHO food product we eat is sugar, everything else contains proteins and/or fats in greater amounts than he claims.
From the same article quoted above: And this one came from a peer-reviewed journal, too! How about that.


Damn straight I am.

If you're swayed in your decisions by testimonials, then I weep for you. I dismiss them out of hand becasue they have no intrinsic value in this scientific discussion. If I was a psychologist who was interested in obtaining data regarding measures of self-worth in subjects on the zone diet, then by all means I would hearken to gather as many testimonials as I could (provided they were collected in accordance with the methodology of my study). Since we are talking about the value of the zone diet with respect to its theoritical underpinnings, the inclusion of the testimonials only obfuscates matters. If Sears et al. need to stoop to using them to make themselves look better to the public, that only helps strengthen my position. They aren't fooling those of us in the field.


The scientific method is hardly a technicality. Conclusions drawn from research with a poor methodological framework are false. Period.

Perhaps then you need to enrol yourself in a class on research methods. Maybe then you might have the slightest clue about the points I am making here.

See the (multiple) above notes on methodologically poor studies.

You're absolutely right. It IS my problem, chicken little.
Permit me to reiterate my overstated point: poorly designed research yields incorrect, misinterpreted data. As they refuse to disclose these details, I can only assume that they would not withstand any form of scrutiny. While it is possible that the research desgins employed are sound, they are not explicitly stated in the reports Since they do not meet the necessary criteria for achieving scientific merit, I do not recognise them as such.

I feel that actually spending the time to respond to these posts qualifies as "putting my money where my mouth is." Shall I sing and dance for you as well?
I have never claimed that the zone delivers false results. It is that there is little scientific basis for his contentions. Could you be any more ambiguous about "positive results" for me?
Weight loss has little or nothing to do with achieving an appropriate "ratio" between the macronutrients. In the simplest of terms, it is about energy balance. If energy in < energy out, weight loss occurs.

Since my professional opinion seems to hold little water with you, why don't you take a couple of classes in human physiology, human nutrition, human biology, biochemistry, and even exercise physiology for a little fun? Once you've done that, then maybe you'll be willing to see the basis for my contentions.

I see. I should stand idly by knowingly let someone spew lies upon a subject rather dear to me because you personally have a vested interest for the other side. I do sincerely apoligise for my incoveniencing your outlook on this subject.

Kvalhion

I guess at some point it boils down to what makes sense and what works. I am sure you will find all sorts of "scientific" articles on creationism that say the "underpining theory" to evolution is "not supported". If you want to believe (or disbelieve) something, you will, no matter what anyone else has to say about it.

On Dr Sears site, there are responses and rebuttals to many articles that have been published that are clearly in error or are making false assumptions. The explanations given in these responses and rebuttals make sense to me. I did not find a specific rebuttal to the JACN's article but nor could I read the entire article since I would need to subscribe to do so. In the 'News' section of Dr Sears site, there are hundreds of independant articles published in regards to nutrition that are in line with the Zone theory. These articles have nothing to do with the Zone specifically, but like I said, the information that is being published and put forth in recent years all seem to point to the same ideas presented in the Zone.

I still have the impression that this is a cop out. If you were serious about testing and reproducing the results in Zone studies the method of doing so would be easy: have a group follow the Zone diet and measure specific areas of interest. Compare these results with other studies. Do it again to reaffirm your original results. I am honestly confused on what exactly is missing that has you so disillusioned. Each research article on Dr Sears site (by the way, simply because it is on a Zone site doesn't mean it can't be found other places.. such as Havard, which has done quite a few studies of the Zone) gives detailed information on what was being tested. It cites before and after measurements. What is missing?

Is there anything more to offer other than denouncing research? What is the alternative? Where are all the studies that show that high carbohydrate diets produce greater health? Where are all the studies that show different ratios are ideal? Why aren't those studies published in peer reviewed articles?

Even if what you say is true, it does not invalidate the research and ideas of the Zone diet. Perhaps more research is needed. Perhaps others need to be a bit more open minded to the Zone's approach.

People who follow the zone diet do not need to ensure every single meal is exactly a .75 ratio between protein and carbohydrates. The .75 ratio is the ideal, not an exact mathematical measurement of every meal. That was my point.

Why are you asking me? Aren't you familiar with the zone?

Perhaps I misspoke. I was more referring to the relatively small amounts of proteins found in grains. Many vegans use tofu as a primary protein source. There are also protein powders to supplement meals with.

Science is not infallible. I am sure there has never been a case where scientific study has approved something that has had adverse affects. As long as scientists say its good for you, then it must be! No matter if people are falling over dead. Just ignore that.

It would be helpful for this scientific discussion if you would actually detail what is wrong rather than constantly referring to the abstract.

This is certainly beginning to sound like a broken record. You are constantly saying the data is wrong, but you have nothing to show why or how it is wrong. Furthermore, you have nothing that replaces the studies with ones that are supposedly sound. Do you see why I am not finding this very informative?

:banghead: So tell me what I can use to measure the effects upon a diet. Obviously the lipid profile, body fat percentage, and LBM are not good indicators. What is?

I admit studying nutrition is not my chosen profession. So what is my vested interest? My own personal health?

Over the years, there have been many scientifically supported ideas in regards to nutrition that are turning out to be wrong. More than ever people are obese, dying of heart attacks, and have a lowered quality of life.

The Zone diet offers explanations as to why these are happening in a logical and reasonable way. It does not advocate a radical change, but instead advocates modifying diet to balance nutrients and avoid harmful foods. Those who follow the Zone often say they feel more alert, have more energy, are less hungry, lose weight, have positive medical profiles without any adverse effects.

So what should we do? Keep eating in a 55-15-30 profile that is not shown to be any better than 40-30-30 but has been shown to be ineffective and harmful?

I choose to follow the Zone because it makes sense to me. Until something else is offered in such a manner that is reasonable and effective, I will continue to follow the Zone.

I encourage anyone else who is curious about the Zone to check it out for themselves. There is certainly plenty of information available.

Dr Sears Website

Godot

I can see that you are entirely pro-zone and refuse to see any of the points I am trying to make. Discussing this matter with you has been an exercise in futility on my part. I don't have to "prove" that other diets "provide greater health" at all; that was never my contention. Nutrition doesn't work that way.
As I said before, the zone diet can be an effective tool in helping you achieve your weight loss goals, and if you find it worthwhile, then good for you. It does work, its just not for the same reasons put forth by Sears.
If you want to find valid and reliable scientific research performed using the zone diet, search for studies as reported in journals.
To be sure I'm not going to selectively pick and choose studies to support my position, here's a couple to help you out:
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition British Medical Journal (online) Journal of the American College of Nutrition

Here's another one I tracked down:
Zoning in on the zone.

I dismiss most of the "research" on the zone sites simply because they do not expressly meet the criteria needed to qualify as scientific research. Admittedly, they are written for the general public and not for people like me, but that doesn't mean I should lower my standards accordingly.

Kvalhion

I am pro zone; I've learned a lot about it over the years, have used it, and see it as a rational approach to nutrition and health. This does not mean I am closed minded towards all other approaches. If something better is presented that works and makes sense, I will give it serious consideration. This discussion has not presented anything outside the Zone's approach to nutrition, other than the Atkins diet, which I do not see as a viable solution due to ketosis. If you had presented data on the very thing you criticized, then perhaps I wouldn't be so closed minded. Judging by your comments and the articles you have referenced, I do not believe you have given the Zone more than a cursory glance. Most people who have dismissed the zone are those that do not understand the things they are referring to.

I am sorry you see it that way. It has actually been pretty enlightening for me.

Regardless of the way you think 'nutrition works', I have my own self interest in mind. As I mentioned before, saying something doesn't work is only helpful if you replace it with something that does work. I see the food pyramid (with grains and breads as the foundation) and higher carbohydrate diets recommended, and I also see an obesity epidemic. That just doesn't make sense to me.

I see no need to limit myself to just one method of learning about the zone diet. In truth, I have read many articles that criticize the Zone and I have also read the rebuttals and replies. Simply because an article is posted in a journal or acedemic site does not mean it is 100% accurate and infallible. Most of the articles make assumptions of the Zone that are not true. I would say that 99% of the articles written about the Zone are by people who understand the basics but do not understand the underlying theory because they already formulate their opinion and never actually read the books about the Zone. Why is that? Who knows. Perhaps they have their own agendas, or things they already believe that is contrary to the Zone. If these people truly wished to discover the health benefits for everyone, they wouldn't see the Zone as an adversary. They would work with Dr Sears to find ways to improve upon the Zone. I guess it's just easier to point fingers and say what is wrong without ever putting your ass on the line to say what is right.

I wish you luck in your pursuits. For myself, the "general public", I have seen and experienced the results. The research put forth only exemplifies what thousands of people have already experienced. That may be irrelevant to you, but it is certainly important to me.

6748_smith_w

Fuck the ratios.
Consume a balanced diet of nutritious foods in moderation. Don't eat too much fat. Don't eat too much sugar. Don't smoke. Don't drink too much alcohol. If you get hungry, who cares? Where does it say that every time you feel a twinge of hunger you have to stuff your face? Is a little hunger gonna kill you? Stop being such a bunch of whiny gluttonous pussies. Excercise. Develop more muscle mass and cardiocascular fitness. Yes, excercise. Whattya mean, you don't want to? What are you, a lazy slug? The human body was designed (I mean evolved) to work, run, hunt, farm, etc., so stop abusing yourselves by lounging around in your La-Z Boy recliners eating fucking cookies (or hot dogs, for you Atkins nerds). Stop obsessing about how many grams of this or that you are eating. Who fucking cares. Stop weighing yourself every minute- you'll drive yourself nuts. Try the "Stop eating like a goddamn pig while counting every calorie and get off your lazy ass and excercise" diet. It really works.
Okay, bring it on.

NialScorva

I don't think anyone is going to disagree to vehemently about your position (though the presentation could use work), but the mind is a funny thing. That's why I said a page back that dieting is about tricking yourself into just what you said.

You also make a lot of presumptions about people's habits. I mountain bike quite a bit, and until injuries took me out a year ago, was one of the top fencers in Virginia. You know what? I still have to watch my diet. Will power has nothing to do with it. When I'm training I'm on a 4000+ calorie/day diet, when I'm not I need to cut back to just under 3k/day. Is it merely willpower to change habits that drastically?

If you can do it through sheer force of will, more power to you. I'm sure there are plenty of things that I do quite easily that I could tell you to just apply more willpower to. Probably would be about as effective.

Viti

Okay, this thread is out of hand but this quote is the heart of the matter. People are obese because they eat too much and don't exercise...period. Do you think anyone who is obese got that way by following the food pyramid guidelines?

I lost 25 pounds simply substituting a turkey sandwhich for a cheeseburger and an apple for a candy bar. Does anyone really think there is more to it than common sense?

Really people, does anyone here not know how to make appropriate food choices? Which should you choose

Ranch dressing or olive oil and vinegar?
Steamed mixed veggies or a baked potato loaded with butter and sour cream?
90% lean ground beef or 80% lean ground beef?
A broiled skinless chicken breast or deep fried chicken with gravy?
Sushi or fishsticks?
Iceberg lettuce or field greens?

If you get hungry and pig out at traditional meal times, try eating 5 or 6 small, evenly spaced meals throughout the day. Excercise.

Dr Rick

Ranch dressing tastes better

Neither; a baked potato loaded with butter, sour cream, bacon, and cheese tastes better



Actually, if you brown it in a skillet or over a grill, it doesn't matter. At the cooking temperatures typically used for ground beef (it should always be cooked thoroughly to avoid food-poisoning) most of the extra fat in the less lean version will liquify and can be drained-off; you'll just be left with a smaller burger.

The broiled chicken will be tastier if you smother it in a rich cream sauce

I hate suchi, and don't really care for fishsticks

Both, just be sure to pour lots of that ranch dressing over them.

Rick

If you get hungry and pig out at traditional meal times, try eating 5 or 6 small, evenly spaced meals throughout the day. Excercise. [/B][/QUOTE] e