Posts by kunfushuss

Original Post by melika08:

try eating some fatty foods and see if that helps keep u full. Not a whole lot, but usually fat and protein is what keeps u full, along with fiber. 

fatty foods, protein and fiber?  that's pretty much everything edible.  I have never read a study saying that fatty foods make you feel full.  To test this, go eat a large bag of potato chips.  You will certainly feel full not long after, regardless of the fact you probably just ate your daily allotment of calories plus some.  It's not the fat, it's the protein in the foods you're probably thinking of that fills you up.

The other two are good suggestions -- protein is good, especially lean meats like chicken breasts.  They are low calorie and good for you.  Apples, pears, and the like are good at filling you up with fiber.  Corn, beans, etc. are also good and low-cal.

Nuts are good for the protein, but the thing about nuts is that they're relatively high-calorie too, which is why they're in trail mix.  A hiker packs nuts because they get a lot of energy in a small, eat-raw package.

Other tips: 1. eat several small meals instead of 2-3 big ones.  This makes a bunch of sense, and I'm sure you've heard it a billion times.  2. keep occupied.  I used to play basketball, and could play straight through dinner and never get hungry.  Just last weekend I got really into some genealogy stuff I was working on, and nearly forgot to eat.  I tend to get hungry when I'm bored, or when I'm thinking of food for other reasons (tv commercials, perhaps?)  Just thoughts.

Original Post by hayleymajayley:

Original Post by kunfushuss:

Re: gem86 -

  I think the best thing for her to do is continue to use the fake stuff.

 I think the best thing for her to do is to find a new beverage.

good call!  I bet there's something out there worth drinking that doesn't require a pound of sugar to make it drinkable.

And for Ameliaco - I don't doubt "skinny bitch" said that.  However, consider that the two women who write the aforementioned blog/book are models... according to an interview with dietdetective.com, neither has ever been overweight.  Also, neither hold a scientific degree (or for that matter, a degree of any sort) and they are both self-proclaimed animal lovers that are vegans because they love animals, not because of health concerns.  They honestly have no idea what they're talking about, they're just a couple of nuts that can get funding to write a book so people don't eat their beloved cows.  Feel free to trust them, but someday I vow to write a book with just a bunch of incorrect "facts" to prove that I can do it too.

and by the time i posted it, there were 5.  Still good.

we calorie-counters have a problem with the idea of calories.  because we log them and think we understand them, we expect those numbers to mean something.  This sort of phyche actually hurts the process instead of helping it. 

Do you log when you talk on the phone as 'exercise'?  That could burn an extra 50 calories in an hour.  Do you log stirring your coffee?  That probably burns 5.  50 calories is not even a blip on the radar.

Think about it this way, in physics:

E = .5mv^2

Which means that the energy used is a function of your mass and velocity. This is not ENTIRELY true for calories, but is a good general rule. Going slower does not generally help... I don't know who told you that... the only reason it makes sense is because you'll be able to do longer distances, which continues to burn calories for a longer time.

Now, if you run the same distance as you walk (let's say 3.5 miles), you would theoretically burn the same amount of calories, except for one thing: heart rate. When your heart rate increases, you burn more calories because it takes a while to slow back down. High Intensity Interval Training (HIIT, which you'll need to look up) is a great workout plan, one that I highly recommend.

Otherwise, I'd say if you can only run for 1/2 mile, walking 3.5 miles is definitely better, but if you can add in some higher intensity training, that would very much be preferable.

Yeah I'm thinking about taking a shot of vodka and chasing it with the fat I wring out of my Big Mac and fries.  Ewww.

Let's size them up:

• They both make me puke (McD after one meal, vodka after 15 shots)
• If you don't puke, the calories in 15 shots is about the same as a meal
• Also, they are both nutritionally equivalent to rat feces
• You won't regret drinking vodka until the next morning.  McD you'll regret while you're eating it
• I've never been to a Big Mac party
• You can't buy Big Macs in kegs, 24-packs, or handles
• BUT still, they both taste awesome
• HOWEVER, a Big Mac probably doesn't taste good mixed with cranberry juice

I agree with agave - but only because I love myself some tequila. 

 Funny thing though - most farmers that grew agave (a plant in the south and Mexico similar to aloe I believe) are starting to grow corn instead because of the possibility of using corn as a fuel... so I expect agave and tequila to have an increase in price in the next season.

Well I lived in a fraternity house for a couple years and we considered buying an anteater to alleviate our ant problem.  Turns out, anteaters are actually pretty impossible to find/buy and stealing them from a zoo was more than the situation required... but it was a good thought.

"No adverse experiences or clinically detectable effects were attributable to sucralose in either study. Similarly, haematology, serum biochemistry, urinalysis and EKG tracings were unaffected by sucralose administration. In the 13-week study, serial slit lamp ophthalmologic examination performed in a random subset of the study groups revealed no changes. Fasting and 2-hour post-dosing blood sucralose concentrations obtained daily during week 12 of the study revealed no rising trend for blood sucralose. Sucralose was well tolerated by human volunteers in single doses up to 10 mg/kg/day and repeated doses increasing to 5 mg/kg/day for 13 weeks. Based on these studies and the extensive animal safety database, there is no indication that adverse effects on human health would occur from frequent or long-term exposure to sucralose at the maximum anticipated levels of intake."

McLean Baird, N.W. Shephard, R.J. Merritt and G. Hildick-Smith, Repeated dose study of sucralose tolerance in human subjects, Food Chem Toxicol 38 (2000) (Suppl 2), pp. S123–S129.

"2 double-blind challenge studies report difficulty recruiting persons who claim an allergic response to aspartame and failure to reproduce the allergic reaction in controlled experiment conditions"

American Dietetic Association. Position of the American Dietetic Association: use of nutritive and nonnutritive sweeteners. Journal of the American Dietetic Association. 2004; 104(6):1013. 

(this says that it's a psychosomatic effect - a placebo effect - people THINK aspartame makes them sick, and so it actually happens... consider this my response, redkitty)

Google is not a tool for truth.  Try Google Scholar.

I'm the type of dieter that researches what I'm doing.  Google Scholar points to ACTUAL RESEARCH, whereas the sites that come up on normal Google are all propaganda for one thing or another (the author has stock in Stevia products, perhaps).  I have found this to be true, and I have also found that true research has shown no average ill effects on eaters of aspartame, splenda, or stevia. 

I wish others would know how to use Google Scholar instead of thinking that they're going to be everyone's hero because they just found some random nut on the internet who claims something and has bogus 'proof'.

Eat Splenda.

I should write an article on it every day just to counteract the crazies.

yeah, unfortunately even reduced fat peanut butter is disgustingly unhealthy.  We can make it low cal by putting it on the mini-ritz crackers - one m&m and a dime-sized slab of peanut butter... but then you'd want to eat a hundred of them.

how about I stop thinking about this...?  The last time I tried to come up with something, my girlfriend and I spent an entire day making dessert sushi (no sushi, just rolled like it) which was EXCELLENT tasting but TERRIBLE for a diet.   I'll put a pic in my gallery of that...