So you think you know about dieting (small quiz)

1940sGal

Mr_helpful wrote: »

Which of those choices is going to make you fatter?

1) Eating 200 calories from a high-carb energy bar
2) Eating 200 calories from organic butter.

Yet another pointless post from the attention seeking Mr Unhelpful.

Neither will make you fat. Even if you ate both. In order to put on 1lb of fat a week you would have to eat 3500 extra calories ON TOP OF your recommended daily allowance.

If you have a well balanced diet but have a chocolate bar one day in the week, or even two, it still wouldn't make you fat. If you ate a ton of chocolate then yes, it would make you fat. Just like if you ate a ton of either of those above you would put on weight.

But alone, neither will make you fat.

Besides which calories alone don't make you fat. You could eat 3 portions of fruit that come in at 200 calories, would they make you fat? No.

closed

neither as they are both 200 Calories.

The question was fatter not fat.

notanewuser

1940sGal wrote: »

Yet another pointless post from the attention seeking Mr Unhelpful.

Neither will make you fat. Even if you ate both. In order to put on 1lb of fat a week you would have to eat 3500 extra calories ON TOP OF your recommended daily allowance.

If you have a well balanced diet but have a chocolate bar one day in the week, or even two, it still wouldn't make you fat. If you ate a ton of chocolate then yes, it would make you fat. Just like if you ate a ton of either of those above you would put on weight.

But alone, neither will make you fat.

Besides which calories alone don't make you fat. You could eat 3 portions of fruit that come in at 200 calories, would they make you fat? No.

Yes they would, actually!!!! Fruit is basically unrefined sugar. The way your body processes sugar is different to the way that it processes protein and fat, with excessive sugar consumption more likely to see you gaining pounds than eating fat.

Since the 1950s and 60s people have been told that low fat is good, but low fat usually means high sugar. The low fat diet industry makes more and more money each year, and the levels of obesity continue to rise. It is not a coincidence.

1940sGal

notanewuser wrote: »

Yes they would, actually!!!! Fruit is basically unrefined sugar. The way your body processes sugar is different to the way that it processes protein and fat, with excessive sugar consumption more likely to see you gaining pounds than eating fat.

Since the 1950s and 60s people have been told that low fat is good, but low fat usually means high sugar. The low fat diet industry makes more and more money each year, and the levels of obesity continue to rise. It is not a coincidence.

Strange then that I've been eating between 3-5 portions of fruit a day and yet I've lost nearly 3 stone.

I reiterate, it depends entirely on your overall diet.

1940sGal

closed wrote: »

The question was fatter not fat.

Because there's such a huge difference, isn't there.

Mr_helpful

1940sGal wrote: »

Strange then that I've been eating between 3-5 portions of fruit a day and yet I've lost nearly 3 stone.

I reiterate, it depends entirely on your overall diet.

You will always lose weight with a starvation diet. we know this from the fact that POW's from the japaqnese camps were not fat. However you may well be damaging your health or most likely as I believe you admitted to , you find you hit a wall. And in most cases with people who use anyform of restrictive diet they put it back on again because they have never understood what is driving them to be fat in the first place or they have been taken in by the speel from the diet organisation which as someone said makes billions out of peoples desperation
fruit contains a lot of good things but the sugar in it is not good at all. It is not glucose and it is not metabolised in the same way as glucose. Much of the sugar people consume is not from fruit either. The RDA of sugar for an adult is given as 90gms (aprox 3 ounces) but this figure is horribly misleading as it doesnt say what sugar they are talking about. (0 gms of crystaline fructose would have a very different effect from 90gms of glucose or even sucrose which is half fructose.

1940sGal

Mr_helpful wrote: »

You will always lose weight with a starvation diet. we know this from the fact that POW's from the japaqnese camps were not fat. However you may well be damaging your health or most likely as I believe you admitted to , you find you hit a wall. And in most cases with people who use anyform of restrictive diet they put it back on again because they have never understood what is driving them to be fat in the first place or they have been taken in by the speel from the diet organisation which as someone said makes billions out of peoples desperation
fruit contains a lot of good things but the sugar in it is not good at all. It is not glucose and it is not metabolised in the same way as glucose. Much of the sugar people consume is not from fruit either. The RDA of sugar for an adult is given as 90gms (aprox 3 ounces) but this figure is horribly misleading as it doesnt say what sugar they are talking about. (0 gms of crystaline fructose would have a very different effect from 90gms of glucose or even sucrose which is half fructose.

I'm not on a starvation diet. Are you ever going to get your facts right?

In fact, that you compared my diet to the way Prisoners of War were treated is laughable at best, nothing short of ridiculous.

Yes, I hit a wall. Who doesn't when they're losing a large amount of weight at some point? There's nothing wrong with that. It's how you carry on afterwards that matters and I've got back in to it and am losing weight again.

As I've also said before, I had a medical recently and the doctor noted that it was obvious I took care of myself. If he had any concerns over my health he would have raised them. Or are you going to choose to ignore this like you did on the other thread? Because wouldn't it be awful if the tripe you spout was proved to be just that, tripe.

Mr_helpful

1940sGal wrote: »

I'm not on a starvation diet. Are you ever going to get your facts right?

In fact, that you compared my diet to the way Prisoners of War were treated is laughable at best, nothing short of ridiculous.

Yes, I hit a wall. Who doesn't when they're losing a large amount of weight at some point? There's nothing wrong with that. It's how you carry on afterwards that matters and I've got back in to it and am losing weight again.

As I've also said before, I had a medical recently and the doctor noted that it was obvious I took care of myself. If he had any concerns over my health he would have raised them. Or are you going to choose to ignore this like you did on the other thread? Because wouldn't it be awful if the tripe you spout was proved to be just that, tripe.

Oh dear. A starvation diet is one that stops the body getting everything it needs which means that the body goes into starvation mode. I am not saying you literally starve by having half the food you need every day which is what happened to the POWs. I just used them as an example and wasnt relating it to any particular diet. As mis understood by you on the other theread the body sees food as a source of calories for energy and nutrients. Modern food tend to be nutritionally starved in the first place so fasting or low fat diets or low carb dietts are all going to create a mind body conflict. Some people with lots of will power will carry on and eventually get to a stage where they have lost weight but just find it harder and harder to stay still even. Dont take my word for it look at the various different threads they all have thet in common.
Another problem which I am sure you also come across is the need for surgery afterthese diets where people have lost a lot of weight and now have hanging folds of skin.
The fact that this quiz has provoked many different answers show that people are thinking differently. perhaps you should vote and show where you stand before I publish the scientific answer.

1940sGal

Mr_helpful wrote: »

Oh dear. A starvation diet is one that stops the body getting everything it needs which means that the body goes into starvation mode. I am not saying you literally starve by having half the food you need every day which is what happened to the POWs. I just used them as an example and wasnt relating it to any particular diet. As mis understood by you on the other theread the body sees food as a source of calories for energy and nutrients. Modern food tend to be nutritionally starved in the first place so fasting or low fat diets or low carb dietts are all going to create a mind body conflict. Some people with lots of will power will carry on and eventually get to a stage where they have lost weight but just find it harder and harder to stay still even. Dont take my word for it look at the various different threads they all have thet in common.
Another problem which I am sure you also come across is the need for surgery afterthese diets where people have lost a lot of weight and now have hanging folds of skin.
The fact that this quiz has provoked many different answers show that people are thinking differently. perhaps you should vote and show where you stand before I publish the scientific answer.

So you're not suggesting I am on a starvation diet but answered my post, that stated how much weight I'd lost, by saying 'You'll always lose weight on a starvation diet'. You could see then how I might misunderstand you :doh:

As for the excess skin, that's not something I've personally come across since my weight loss has been, bar the odd week, steady and at the recommended 1-2lbs a week loss.

My body gets what it needs. I eat plenty of fruit and veg (most of which I grow myself in my garden), I don't go easy on carbs but nor do I over indulge in them. I eat a balanced diet, but for 2 days a week I restrict my calorie intake. There's nothing wrong with this, and it hasn't had an adverse effect on my health.

If you don't want people to misunderstand you I suggest you be a bit clearer in your posts. No one mentioned starvation until you did and used the Japanese PoW's as an example when it was unnecessary. In fact the conversation was generally about balanced diets until you threw the word starvation in after I posted.

Mr_helpful

1940sGal wrote: »

So you're not suggesting I am on a starvation diet but answered my post, that stated how much weight I'd lost, by saying 'You'll always lose weight on a starvation diet'. You could see then how I might misunderstand you :doh:

As for the excess skin, that's not something I've personally come across since my weight loss has been, bar the odd week, steady and at the recommended 1-2lbs a week loss.

My body gets what it needs. I eat plenty of fruit and veg (most of which I grow myself in my garden), I don't go easy on carbs but nor do I over indulge in them. I eat a balanced diet, but for 2 days a week I restrict my calorie intake. There's nothing wrong with this, and it hasn't had an adverse effect on my health.

If you don't want people to misunderstand you I suggest you be a bit clearer in your posts. No one mentioned starvation until you did and used the Japanese PoW's as an example when it was unnecessary. In fact the conversation was generally about balanced diets until you threw the word starvation in after I posted.

So according to your logic you have restricted / fasted / starved your body to between 3500 and 7000 less calories per week ie in one form or another instead of 14000 calories per week you are now resticting yourself to between 7000 and 10500. per week. To lose 2lbs by your logic you need to eat 50% od the recommended daily amout every day for a whole week.:eek:
i dont think it quite works like that.