Guest guest Posted October 27, 2003 Report Share Posted October 27, 2003 - >Eating low carb is very difficult for most people. Bread, pastry, >potatoes are omnipresent in our society. I guess that would explain the stunning popularity and effectiveness of Atkins dieting nowadays -- but note that I qualified my statement by saying that ease in giving up addictions requires sufficient fat (which is to say lots and lots of it) and quality foods, factors many Atkins dieters neglect. Whenever my fat consumption dips, my cravings come back. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 27, 2003 Report Share Posted October 27, 2003 > Mike, > > I don't see anything hilarious about this. Especially for those > practicing CRON, this is a near god-send. Sure it's not the only way > to lose weight/eat less, but it seems like a good way to do so. > Perhaps you have no problem eating less, but a cursory glance at the > obesity epidemic in modern nations leads me to believe that > over-eating is an easy thing to fall prey too. If what has been > discovered about the cactus is true (and no ill-effects are reported > in the next few years) this may potentially save millions of people > from early deaths and eradicate the obesity epidemic. I know I'd use > it as a way to fast every second day or so. Or perhaps 2-3 days in a > row, per week. Am I the only one enthused by this discovery? > > - @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ what i thought was hilarious was the way it was discussed and the claims made for it; i didn't even give a second's thought about the value of the hoodia itself, since it's obviously not necessary for most of the world's population to thrive, and doesn't interest me at all. WE ALREADY HAVE A " CURE " FOR OBESITY AND OVER-EATING, BUT MOST PEOPLE EITHER DON'T KNOW ABOUT IT OR CHOOSE NOT TO IMPLEMENT IT. the " cure " is multi-dimensional, of course, involving multiple aspects of diet, exercise, lifestyle, psychological health, social structure, etc. we don't need any magic bullets, and probably basic nutrition would be enough. maybe you're right, though, that this might be good for some people, like CRONers, who might need a little extra help with appetite control. certainly i'm skeptical about the net worth of something with such an exotic pharmacological effect. variety, adaptation, flexibility, multiple solutions, etc... i can't make too many judgements... i agree with your response to that we can't assume any correlation between the healthfulness and difficulty of a practice. people make such a big deal about CR, when it's just eating a little bit less. maybe i'm just lucky, but i'm sure most people can adapt to it within a few years if they wanted to. , in your posts expressing frustration with various dietary experiments, i don't see how you could draw too many conclusions about certain things after only a few months or so, especially what i'm assuming has been a time of intense experimentation with food selection and eating habits. patience! i think one of the reasons why my appestat is so robust is that in my early undergrad years i frequently didn't eat more than one meal a day, typically in the evening, because i would always be finishing difficult math problems and stuff at the last minute, pulling all-nighters, etc, and let myself fall into situations where i couldn't take a single minute to even think about eating. DISTRACTION IS THE ULTIMATE APPETITE SUPPRESANT!! that might be a more general principle, though, because i've also found that when i'm enjoying stimulating social interactions--the synergy of a handful of close friends having a sprawling late-night conversation, a date, etc- -i can go hours and hours without sleep or food and not even notice it at all, whereas if was alone i would be either starving or asleep. the pressure of finishing assignments for a class definitely shuts off the food intake system! maybe this is a special case of the primitive behavioral mode shifts of the " four F's " ... now that i'm a gruff, grumpy, stuffy, arrogant old hermit , hardly any of these things apply to my current lifestyle, but the point i wanted to make is that my body experienced these irregular, slightly WD-ish (maybe AWD--academic warrior diet??) eating patterns for several years, not just a few months, and maybe even going back through the teen years i never followed any regular habits either, never ate breakfast, etc. maybe patience, adding in some obsessive hobbies, and plenty of dietary fat/bulk is really what you need! mike parker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 27, 2003 Report Share Posted October 27, 2003 >The problem is that I'm not convinced that the body actually 'knows' >what is best for it. Clearly appestats easily get messed up as >evidenced in modern societies. Primitive societies gave up delicious >wholesome foods for empty disease inducing filth. Why? I cannot >conceive of the body as some omnipotent being which understands what >it should and shouldn't it. Most obese people feel hungry yet clearly >don't need any more food. I guess there is some truth to what you're >saying...but I've yet to discover how to figure out what exactly. > >- There is actually a fair bit of evidence of exactly that. Most animals, and people, will normally eat EXACTLY what they need to an amazing amount of precision. The fact that we in America do not, is exceedingly WEIRD. There are lots of theories for that weirdness, but it is being studied as an anomoly. One theory is that the problem is our low-nutrient density food, which makes us eat more calories to get more nutrients. Another is that allergens cause us to overproduce cortisol, which triggers hunger. Another is the " junk food " somehow causes hormonal imbalances (shown on rats: rats fed junk food overeat, but with regular rat chow they do not). People in this group seem to have shown these three to be true in at least some cases: eating high-nutrient good food that one is not allergic to causes hunger to go away. But if a pill just " turned off " the hunger, the the person would just be eating, say, low nutrient density food which would cause problems later. On the other hand, can you truly believe we would be so oddly designed as to be in a constant state of hunger NORMALLY? That would mean that the choice is for folks to either be overweight or constantly hungry. That just does not make sense! -- Heidi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 27, 2003 Report Share Posted October 27, 2003 - >and fast our way to hungerless nirvana, How about eating our way to hungerless nirvana instead? - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 27, 2003 Report Share Posted October 27, 2003 >Heidi, > > " Tell me about it. I cook lunch for 5 people, and don't eat it! " > >I'm glad you can manage it. Most people, from my experience, could not >manage it...nor would they want to fight temptation the way you do. >It's dangerous to assume everyone can eat the way you do. Quoting : " Since I adopted NT, and did the Garden of Life protocol, the desire for candy has all but disappeared. I actually looked at a bowl of candies the other day and remembered what it was like to want them, but didn't actually want them! This is a miracle for me! " If your body is balanced, food cravings really DO go away. I do not fight temptation -- I do snack on whatever I'm cooking, I'm just not motivated to eat much. If I really craved it, I'd go ahead and eat it! A few years ago I was ALWAYS hungry and had to measure what I ate to keep from becoming a total pig. Now if I had a pill to stop the hunger, I might never have experimented to figure out WHY. Using hoodia would not be about 'fixing' the problem. The problem is >there, and you want to avoid it. Oh sure, maybe some of us can >construct the perfect diet and fast our way to hungerless nirvana, but >this isn't the case for most. If the problem is no longer there...why >fix it?? " Hungerless nirvana " is the normal way of life for a human, or a rat for that matter. Living in constant hunger is not normal. It would be like having chronic back pain -- if you HAVE chronic back pain, sure, take painkillers. But I'd at least try to figure out why the pain is there and see if it can be fixed. That's probably what irritates me about diet remedies in general. They are saying that unless you do XYZ, you will be fat, that people normally overeat and are normally fat, without special products. Historically this is just not true. > " Now it could be that this cactus does in fact fix the underlying >problem, but my guess is it just masks it, and the hunger comes back >(maybe even more so) when you stop taking the pill. " > >My question is: so what? It's like eating healthy: once you stop >eating healthy negative symptoms re-appear. Which makes you a great target audience. They can sell these pills to you forever, at $30 a month, $365 a year. It's a great market! > It ELIMINATES the problem! Who cares about fixing it? I realize it's >somewhat sad that it should come to this...but if an easy solution >comes along I see no reason to fight it and try to force a harder >solution upon everyone (which has not and will never work within our >modern framework). How does it eliminate the problem? It just gives a person a pill to take so their low-nutrient, probably low fat, allergenic, toxic diet kills them slower. The modern French and Japanese eat within a modern framework and do much better than modern US folks. ly I find the idea of a good French meal much better than the idea of taking a pill. >CR, in the VAST majority of people leads to hunger. There are some >exceptions...but I'm certain most people would feel hungry on a >calorie restricted diet (even the most nutrient dense one). In that case I'd doubt the use of CR -- or that it is being done right. But if in fact it makes people live longer than the Feast/Fast diet (which does not involve hunger as far as anyone has said here) then I'd cede the point, if the only way to do CR is to be hungry all the time. I'd have to say that living longer wouldn't be much compensation for living hungry always. You're fighting a straw man. Of course we'd both prefer that everyone >had a perfectly functioning appestat and was eating the NT way. But >that is not the case. So which do you prefer: the way people eat >now... or people eating like they are now, but eating less??? And once >people lose weight, it also enables them to exercise and gain self >esteem. Oh, I'm not preferring other people do anything. The question was, " is no one else excited about this? " and my answer was, why I'm not excited. I've seen large numbers of weight loss schemes come and go, and this is another one and I'm not excited about it. The WD I AM excited about because it is fundamentally a different concept. Weight loss pills are, well, " ho hum " . >But if Hoodia is what they say it is, it'll be completely different. >You won't feel hungry, and there will BE NO SIDE effects. Come to >think of it, it's sorta of like taking a hypothetical smart pill >everyday. I know I'd sure as hell do it...even if when I stopped >taking it I became my usual dumb self again. That's no argument >against using it. I'm not sure the body is that stupid though. It's like the fat blocker pills. Yeah, they block fat. Then the body adapts and eats more fat. Suppose I do take these pills and I eat 1,000 calories less per day. So I lose 1/3 lb of fat per day. Or, I lose muscle because that is way too much cut in calories. 1/3 lb of fat a day releases a lot of toxins. But eventually, my body says " ok, we aren't getting enough nutrients here " and scales back my metabolism. So now I'm running " cold " and won't gain muscle. I adapt to 2,000 calories a day, and stop losing fat. My body, being in " survive the famine " mode, will store fat when it can. Anyway, I lived on 1,200 calories a day for over a year. It can be done. It didn't do me any good. If other folks want to do it, great! It's your experiment. I'm healthier now. > " It isn't marketed as a cacti leaves. It is marketed as pills. " > >It's not being marketed at all. Pfizer holds the rights to it and >won't come out until 2004-2007. I'm sure some crooks are selling >'hoodia' but it's probably a scam. Seriously? That is interesting. > " Now coffee is a food too, but it's also a drug. It works by acting on >the brain. From the sounds of this Hoodia, it too works on the brain. >Hence, it is a drug. " > >That seems like very specious reasoning to me. Something that acts on >the brain is a drug? Is playing video games a drug? Is eating pasta? Some people claim so! (Pasta especially!). I don't know how you define " drug " but usually it means, in the colloquial sense, some kind of mind-altering substance. Food gives nutrients, drugs change the brain. A lot of foods act as drugs. >I'm not saying it cures any of the problems we're experiencing. But >it's a HUGE step in the right direction. ??? So what is the right direction? Just eating fewer calories? I don't see how that will help if the quality of the food doesn't improve. >Personally, I'd love it only because I hate worrying about food. I >hate getting nagging cravings during the day. I'm quite lean in fact, >get plenty of exercise, and it clean (no sugar icecream is as >unhealthy as I get). For me, it's just a convenience thing. I enjoy not worrying about food too. Why are you worrying about it? If you are lean, why not just eat? > The talk about drugs which make sleep obsolete excite me even more! Oh sheesh, does that mean do away with sleep? I hope not! I love sleeping ... -- Heidi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 27, 2003 Report Share Posted October 27, 2003 >Eating low carb is very difficult for most people. Bread, pastry, >potatoes are omnipresent in our society. > >- They ARE omnipresent, but at my age, anyway, a LOT of people somehow manage to " Do Atkins " quite easily. Shoot, go into a restaurant and order steak with salad. Or buy hamburger at the grocery. (I don't personally believe low-carb is the optimal answer, but it works for some folks, and is relatively easy in a moderate income bracket). -- Heidi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 27, 2003 Report Share Posted October 27, 2003 Chris- ly, I think CR is tantamount to a religious movement, and there's no arguing with the faithful over matters of faith. >At what point does it become apparent that CRON might be a sub- >optimal choice for most people when they need such an obscure and >rare molecule in order to practice it effectively and retain their >happiness? - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 27, 2003 Report Share Posted October 27, 2003 I agree, Perhaps most who attempt Atkins continue down that road (I didn't). But many people don't even try it. Hoodia is an easy fix for these people. Obviously, getting them to ditch their junk carbs is even better. - > - > > >Eating low carb is very difficult for most people. Bread, pastry, > >potatoes are omnipresent in our society. > > I guess that would explain the stunning popularity and effectiveness of > Atkins dieting nowadays -- but note that I qualified my statement by saying > that ease in giving up addictions requires sufficient fat (which is to say > lots and lots of it) and quality foods, factors many Atkins dieters > neglect. Whenever my fat consumption dips, my cravings come back. > > > > - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 27, 2003 Report Share Posted October 27, 2003 Hi Mike, I'm not disputing the fact that obesity can already be resolved and without all that much sacrifice. Afterall, many NT foods are more delicious than the commercial junk people are buying. But my point was that, within our societal framework, major changes WILL NOT HAPPEN. Hoodia, a quick fix, is the only thing which I see making an impact. Everything else, so far, has failed miserably. You raise a good point; I have only tried several food lifestyles for a few months. Perhaps that isn't long enough. I can see how the body might adapt to eating less over the course of several years. I guess since I'm still young, I'm just experimenting with everything a little bit. When I move out I'll try to settle my diet down. You're right about distraction making fasting very easy. Happens to me all the time during school. Contrary to you, though, I don't thrive under stress. I work beforehand these days and try to do things ahead of time. I try to get plenty of sleep. My problem with cravings really only arises during weekends. It's not a huge hindrance or anything...I just find it annoying. All the talk about my body NEEDING that food for some or other reason is confusing me. I'm not sure whether my body is craving something in particular because it needs it, or simply because the presence of food has made me hungry (and those extra calories provide me with nothing beneficial). - --------- > what i thought was hilarious was the way it was discussed and the > claims made for it; i didn't even give a second's thought about the > value of the hoodia itself, since it's obviously not necessary for > most of the world's population to thrive, and doesn't interest me at > all. WE ALREADY HAVE A " CURE " FOR OBESITY AND OVER-EATING, BUT MOST > PEOPLE EITHER DON'T KNOW ABOUT IT OR CHOOSE NOT TO IMPLEMENT IT. > the " cure " is multi-dimensional, of course, involving multiple > aspects of diet, exercise, lifestyle, psychological health, social > structure, etc. we don't need any magic bullets, and probably basic > nutrition would be enough. maybe you're right, though, that this > might be good for some people, like CRONers, who might need a little > extra help with appetite control. certainly i'm skeptical about the > net worth of something with such an exotic pharmacological effect. > variety, adaptation, flexibility, multiple solutions, etc... i can't > make too many judgements... > > i agree with your response to that we can't assume any > correlation between the healthfulness and difficulty of a practice. > people make such a big deal about CR, when it's just eating a little > bit less. maybe i'm just lucky, but i'm sure most people can adapt > to it within a few years if they wanted to. , in your posts > expressing frustration with various dietary experiments, i don't see > how you could draw too many conclusions about certain things after > only a few months or so, especially what i'm assuming has been a time > of intense experimentation with food selection and eating habits. > patience! i think one of the reasons why my appestat is so robust > is that in my early undergrad years i frequently didn't eat more than > one meal a day, typically in the evening, because i would always be > finishing difficult math problems and stuff at the last minute, > pulling all-nighters, etc, and let myself fall into situations where > i couldn't take a single minute to even think about eating. > DISTRACTION IS THE ULTIMATE APPETITE SUPPRESANT!! that might be a > more general principle, though, because i've also found that when i'm > enjoying stimulating social interactions--the synergy of a handful of > close friends having a sprawling late-night conversation, a date, etc- > -i can go hours and hours without sleep or food and not even notice > it at all, whereas if was alone i would be either starving or > asleep. the pressure of finishing assignments for a class > definitely shuts off the food intake system! maybe this is a special > case of the primitive behavioral mode shifts of the " four F's " ... > now that i'm a gruff, grumpy, stuffy, arrogant old hermit , hardly > any of these things apply to my current lifestyle, but the point i > wanted to make is that my body experienced these irregular, slightly > WD-ish (maybe AWD--academic warrior diet??) eating patterns for > several years, not just a few months, and maybe even going back > through the teen years i never followed any regular habits either, > never ate breakfast, etc. maybe patience, adding in some obsessive > hobbies, and plenty of dietary fat/bulk is really what you need! > > mike parker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 27, 2003 Report Share Posted October 27, 2003 Heidi, What evidence? I've never run across any. If you have any revolutionary evidence about how our appestats function, please share it! I don't think you're following what I'm saying. I'm not anti-NT. You are fighting a straw man. What I'm saying is: people eat LOADS of crap. With hoodia they eat less crap. Certainly, having them eat perfect diets is better, but it is unrealistic. And I don't aboard the subject of human motivation for food from a teleological perspective. We evolved at a time when food was scarce. It makes sense that we eat attempt to eat CONSTANTLY. This is not an ideal mechanism because of the negative consequences of over-eating. But one can postulate that because this was such a rare occurrence in evolutionary times, this negative aspect never showed up sufficiently. My point: evolutionary arguments on this can run both ways on this. I certainly don't think we can say " Look, overeating is bad, and the body doesn't want you to overeat, so we evolved with perfect appestats " . - ------ " > There is actually a fair bit of evidence of exactly that. Most animals, and > people, will normally eat EXACTLY what they need to an amazing amount > of precision. The fact that we in America do not, is exceedingly WEIRD. > There are lots of theories for that weirdness, but it is being studied > as an anomoly. > > One theory is that the problem is our low-nutrient density food, > which makes us eat more calories to get more nutrients. > > Another is that allergens cause us to overproduce cortisol, which > triggers hunger. > > Another is the " junk food " somehow causes hormonal imbalances > (shown on rats: rats fed junk food overeat, but with regular > rat chow they do not). > > People in this group seem to have shown these three to be > true in at least some cases: eating high-nutrient good food > that one is not allergic to causes hunger to go away. > > But if a pill just " turned off " the hunger, the the person > would just be eating, say, low nutrient density food which > would cause problems later. > > On the other hand, can you truly believe we would be > so oddly designed as to be in a constant state of > hunger NORMALLY? That would mean that the choice > is for folks to either be overweight or constantly > hungry. That just does not make sense! > > -- Heidi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 27, 2003 Report Share Posted October 27, 2003 Heidi, " Which makes you a great target audience. They can sell these pills to you forever, at $30 a month, $365 a year. It's a great market! " I personally couldn't care less if corporate greed factors into this. The benefits for society are too huge. OF COURSE THIS ISN'T IDEAL. But look at our modern framework! Perhaps it's a tragedy that it has come to this, but this is absolutely the best solution out there. Or do you plan on convincing the entire world that they should eat NT? Hell, raw milk isn't even legal... " How does it eliminate the problem? It just gives a person a pill to take so their low-nutrient, probably low fat, allergenic, toxic diet kills them slower. The modern French and Japanese eat within a modern framework and do much better than modern US folks. ly I find the idea of a good French meal much better than the idea of taking a pill. " Look, the French or Japaneese don't live any longer than Americans so their habits are not what I strive for personally. But you fail to see my point. Hoobia eliminates the problem of hunger. Sure people still eat crap, but they eat less of it. I, contrary to you, appear to be realistic about this. There will not be any NT utopia any time soon. " In that case I'd doubt the use of CR -- or that it is being done right. But if in fact it makes people live longer than the Feast/Fast diet (which does not involve hunger as far as anyone has said here) then I'd cede the point, if the only way to do CR is to be hungry all the time. I'd have to say that living longer wouldn't be much compensation for living hungry always. " Which is where Hoobia comes in!! And doesn't it stand to reason that eating less, by definition, than your appestat would want you to, would cause hunger?? " I'm not sure the body is that stupid though. It's like the fat blocker pills. Yeah, they block fat. Then the body adapts and eats more fat. " The body is not some omnipotent being. Are you claiming that after eating hoodia the body would magically compensate and make you eat more? The whole point is that this DOES NOT happen! " So what is the right direction? Just eating fewer calories? I don't see > how that will help if the quality of the food doesn't improve. " Would you rather people consume 140lbs of sugar a year...or 70? " I enjoy not worrying about food too. Why are you worrying about it? If you are lean, why not just eat? " I find food to detract from other aspects of life. I also hate the cravings triggered while EATING food. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 27, 2003 Report Share Posted October 27, 2003 I sometimes get that feeling as well, about some CRONies, but I'd consider that statement quite offensive. If you think people like Mike take CR on faith, you're sadly deluded. I don't even read some calorie restriction boards because the science is too advanced for me. - > Chris- > > ly, I think CR is tantamount to a religious movement, and there's no > arguing with the faithful over matters of faith. > > >At what point does it become apparent that CRON might be a sub- > >optimal choice for most people when they need such an obscure and > >rare molecule in order to practice it effectively and retain their > >happiness? > > > > - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 27, 2003 Report Share Posted October 27, 2003 , >my point was >that, within our societal framework, major changes WILL NOT HAPPEN. >Hoodia, a quick fix, is the only thing which I see making an impact. >Everything else, so far, has failed miserably. True, changes will not happen for any so called fat society until optimal, individualized health is the purpose and not generic, one size fits all miracle products or foods whose purpose is profit to the developer. Quick fixes are convenient. They are competitive, give ownership and continue the cycle of tunnel vision, looking at minute pieces not what makes up the whole puzzle. Watched this documentary. The San did claim hoodia to be an aphrodisiac. Not that it gave you the energy or desire to not sleep. The BBC reporter and the human rights lawyer both tried hoodia from the plant. One noted no aphrodisiac effect and no hunger for about 24 hours. The other got the aphrodisiac effect and went unhungry for around 30 hours. The San men found hoodia and used it on hunts that needed to be extended because they hadn't got any meat to bring home. If I understand correctly you're doing a caloric restriction diet, Its my experience that restricting either calories, fat and/or protein will make you hungry or thinking of food. Was computerless for two months recently. Came back having missed the Warrior Diet thread. Found it interesting in that the cycle of eating is how I've eaten for the last 30 years pretty much. My health problems were from eating too many simple carbohydrates in the undereating phase or not eating in that phase. When it included low fat and protein in the overeating phase it made me crave more simple carbs. Do you use coconut milk and or oil? These were the first and only new additions to my diet two years ago. Within 2 days l found that for all those years l'd experienced not true hunger to what l really needed just a gnawing need for whatever was available quick. On workdays I'm out the door with black, organic coffee and 1/4 of a Thai Kitchen 5.5 oz. coconut milk can in me. Am fine 3 hours later after doing 2-3 hours of physical work. Have an avocado, four slices of raw cheese, another coffee before the next 3 hours of work. Don't have the 3 PM hypoglycemic crash that would send me to whatever store l was driving by on the way home for a pastry or candy bar. At night we have a high protein, fat, low carb home cooked meal instead of the old high carb, low protein, fat home cooked meal. Don't gorge to fill up like l used to when the carbs didn't tell my stomach it was full. Only protein and fat do that. Am fine after that. Still have a cup of herb tea when l sit down before going to bed. More of a ritual than need. Daughter in high school and husband either dislike breakfast or prefer very little. Same with lunch. We eat more calories with less food. Major changes can happen if only on an individual basis when the quality replaces quantity. Wanita Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 27, 2003 Report Share Posted October 27, 2003 > >Heidi, > >What evidence? I've never run across any. If you have any >revolutionary evidence about how our appestats function, please share >it! I'll have to look them up. It's not new stuff, they've been studying it for years. >I don't think you're following what I'm saying. I'm not anti-NT. You >are fighting a straw man. What I'm saying is: people eat LOADS of >crap. With hoodia they eat less crap. Certainly, having them eat >perfect diets is better, but it is unrealistic. I'm not really fighting. I just type a lot. But low calorie diets don't work, long term, for weight loss. They mess up your metabolism, as many of us older folks know. Cutting down calories by taking a pill -- any pill -- will cause short term weight loss and long term metabolic problems. Once your metabolism drops a person can gain weight off tiny amounts of food. >And I don't aboard the subject of human motivation for food from a >teleological perspective. We evolved at a time when food was scarce. >It makes sense that we eat attempt to eat CONSTANTLY. This is not an >ideal mechanism because of the negative consequences of over-eating. >But one can postulate that because this was such a rare occurrence in >evolutionary times, this negative aspect never showed up sufficiently. >My point: evolutionary arguments on this can run both ways on this. I >certainly don't think we can say " Look, overeating is bad, and the >body doesn't want you to overeat, so we evolved with perfect appestats " . If that were true, then that perspective is totally logical. It's not true though. SOME folks in the past were constantly starved, and I don't think most snacked all day (see WD posts). Basically Prices' folks often had all the food they wanted, and the French and Japanese certainly do. The newer perspective is in fact that if the appestat works, no one will overeat regardless, and unless you have a tumor or other major disease, the appestat SHOULD work. -- Heidi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 27, 2003 Report Share Posted October 27, 2003 - Many people don't try Atkins because of the culture of fear surrounding at and the vast official and institutional support for high-carb diets. That doesn't account for all the people who don't try low-carbing, but believe me, it covers an awful lot of them. And how much better off are people really going to be if the only change they make to their SAD habit is to cut down a bit? >But many people don't even try it. Hoodia is an easy fix for these >people. Obviously, getting them to ditch their junk carbs is even better. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 27, 2003 Report Share Posted October 27, 2003 - >But my point was >that, within our societal framework, major changes WILL NOT HAPPEN. Major changes happen all the time. Low-carbing is a really major change, and it's happening -- and at least at the moment, it looks like institutional medicine may be forced to change its stance if more and more studies keep coming in supporting that manner of eating. But even if low-carbing doesn't become accepted immediately, other factors will force change: declining fertility, the continuing skyrocketing of obesity, diabetes, and other syndromes. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 27, 2003 Report Share Posted October 27, 2003 Wanita- >The San men found >hoodia and used it on hunts that needed to be extended because they hadn't >got any meat to bring home. That kind of usage makes a lot more sense to me -- as an occasional crutch when you have to go longer than usual without eating. Since I am terribly hypoglycemic, I have real problems going anywhere for an appreciable amount of time unless I can bring food with me or find an adequate source of food where I'm going, because otherwise, I'm going to crash and then have real problems. If hoodia worked to stave off disaster, then depending on side effects I might carry some around with me for emergencies. But as a daily supplement? No way. And in support of CR, which strikes me as rank idiocy unsupported by meaningful evidence and probably founded on foolish moralistic fantasies? Never. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 27, 2003 Report Share Posted October 27, 2003 , >>The San men found >>hoodia and used it on hunts that needed to be extended because they hadn't >>got any meat to bring home. > >That kind of usage makes a lot more sense to me -- as an occasional crutch >when you have to go longer than usual without eating. Since I am terribly >hypoglycemic, I have real problems going anywhere for an appreciable amount >of time unless I can bring food with me or find an adequate source of food >where I'm going, because otherwise, I'm going to crash and then have real >problems. If hoodia worked to stave off disaster, then depending on side >effects I might carry some around with me for emergencies. But as a daily >supplement? No way. And in support of CR, which strikes me as rank idiocy >unsupported by meaningful evidence and probably founded on foolish >moralistic fantasies? Never. Know what you mean. Don't want to be driving on auto pilot. Tried the six small meals a day suggested for hypoglycemia but was eating the wrong foods. Still was always hungry and loagy not only from food but likely excess digestion. To me there is definitely something there with the Warrior Diet, sympathtic nervous system predominance during the day of undereating in relationship to my being a sympathetic dominant protein type metabolically. All those trying it here seem to be metabolic protein types. Can't see a carb type going through the undereating phase with less than 30% of calories from fat. Wanita Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 27, 2003 Report Share Posted October 27, 2003 Wanita- I'm interested in it too, because when I eat a very big, fatty low-carb meal at night, I'm often not hungry the next morning until lunch, and big, fatty low-carb meals are what let me go for up to, I don't know, six hours without needing to eat. >To me there is definitely something there with the >Warrior Diet, - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 27, 2003 Report Share Posted October 27, 2003 " > I'll have to look them up. It's not new stuff, they've been > studying it for years. " Make sure to post it... " Cutting down calories by taking > a pill -- any pill -- will cause short term weight loss and long > term metabolic problems. Once your metabolism drops a person > can gain weight off tiny amounts of food. " You can take this pill indefinitely. I made a point about taking a smart pill everday, which I think is quite analogous. You're point would only be correct if people planned on using hoodia and then stopping, which would be relatively pointless. " It's not true though. > SOME folks in the past were constantly starved, and I don't think most > snacked all day (see WD posts). Basically Prices' folks often had all the > food they wanted, and the French and Japanese certainly do. The newer > perspective is in fact that if the appestat works, no one will overeat > regardless, and unless you have a tumor or other major disease, > the appestat SHOULD work. " You're assuming that because people are thin they are consuming optimal amounts of calories. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 27, 2003 Report Share Posted October 27, 2003 , If I honestly believed you could transform the entire food industry, I'd definitely agree that hoodia doesn't serve much purpose. But that is not the case yet (for reasons you mention). - > - > > Many people don't try Atkins because of the culture of fear surrounding at > and the vast official and institutional support for high-carb diets. That > doesn't account for all the people who don't try low-carbing, but believe > me, it covers an awful lot of them. And how much better off are people > really going to be if the only change they make to their SAD habit is to > cut down a bit? > > >But many people don't even try it. Hoodia is an easy fix for these > >people. Obviously, getting them to ditch their junk carbs is even better. > > > > - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 27, 2003 Report Share Posted October 27, 2003 You need to read up on the literature. It makes you look ignorant to defiantly bash CR without any facts. - > Wanita- > > >The San men found > >hoodia and used it on hunts that needed to be extended because they hadn't > >got any meat to bring home. > > That kind of usage makes a lot more sense to me -- as an occasional crutch > when you have to go longer than usual without eating. Since I am terribly > hypoglycemic, I have real problems going anywhere for an appreciable amount > of time unless I can bring food with me or find an adequate source of food > where I'm going, because otherwise, I'm going to crash and then have real > problems. If hoodia worked to stave off disaster, then depending on side > effects I might carry some around with me for emergencies. But as a daily > supplement? No way. And in support of CR, which strikes me as rank idiocy > unsupported by meaningful evidence and probably founded on foolish > moralistic fantasies? Never. > > > > > - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 27, 2003 Report Share Posted October 27, 2003 - How do you know? >You can take this pill indefinitely. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 27, 2003 Report Share Posted October 27, 2003 I'm assuming that's the case. If it is not the case, it becomes an almost meaningless product (an no discussion is necessary). - > - > > How do you know? > > >You can take this pill indefinitely. > > > > - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 27, 2003 Report Share Posted October 27, 2003 - Well, no offense, but if you're just making an assumption, then you shouldn't phrase it as a declarative statement of fact. >I'm assuming that's the case. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.