parents

In aus.motorcycles on Tue, 01 Jan 2008 23:39:24 -0000

And it's also about per 50gm of carb as I recall. WHich is why carrots
are so high, but getting enough carrot in you to get the high HI
effect is ahrd work.

Zebee

 

You also have to include the cost of time into the diet cost as well,
however even ignoring that, the worst of the fattening foods
healthwise, are also the cheapest. Volume and calories for dollars,
things like a serve of hot chips are very cheap. If money is tight, $3
worth of chips and gravy will stop the tummy rumbling...

I've never analysed it (or read any studies) but there's a been been a
lot of discussion in various forums indicating that poor people eating
high calorie/low nutrition foods (in western cities) is not an
irrational or uninformed choice, it is unfortunately often their
optimal choice. I'd be curious if you had seen anything substantial on
it.

JL

 

This is the first thought that occurred to me on reading the "good
eating is cheaper than bad eating" remark. But as I've not read
anything convincing to this effect, I held my peace. I'd be very
interested in knowing where you got the information to to convince you
that chips n gravy might be an optimal (economically if not health
wise) choice for those of inadequate means. I know you indicated
you'd not analyzed it or read any studies, but you must have got the
idea _somewhere_, right?

This topic is officially adrift.

 

Where I got the info ? Errm purely based on observation of being
impoverished myself in my late teens. I left home at 16, I've no
interest in discussing the circumstances further, just accept I was on
my own with no assistance.

You've got $5 in your pocket and an empty belly, back then $2.50 got
you a large serve of chips and gravy that would make two meals (cold
chips suck but they're better than being hungry). You've got nothing
to cook with so the only veges you can eat will be raw, and even then
they aren't actually that filling. (Refer earlier post about satiety
or "fullness" you need a certain amount of fat as well as bulk to feel
full).

Yup experience. It's not a scientific study, but I can assure you I
spread those dollars where they got the best bang for buck !

JL

 

In aus.motorcycles on Wed, 2 Jan 2008 14:24:11 -0800 (PST)

so how much weight did you gain, and if you did gain weight, how
quickly did you lose it and keep it off?

Zebee

 

I lost weigh. I went from being heavily muscled to as thin as a rake.
Then again my calorie intake for a period of 6 months was pretty
small. There were quite a few days with nothing.

I didn't rebound into a fat lard arse though because I managed to get
a job doing hard physical labour and which supplied meals ( homegrown
meat &veg) free (working on a station). So I never actually got fat.

JL
(keeping it off now while doing an office job is harder - if I don't
exercise it goes on quick)

 

Actually a more useful response to the above is to note that the
opinion that it's an economic optimisation outcome is one that has
been posited by a number of socio-economic discussion papers (which is
what I was referring to above), but I have to say I'm struggling to
recall where I read them. There was a whole heap of articles written
on the subject back a few years ago when there was a class action suit
against McDonalds for making people obese.

Most probably mags like the Economist and etc I would guess (I read a
lot of stuff and don't always remember to file a copy)

JL

 

In aus.motorcycles on Wed, 2 Jan 2008 19:31:52 -0800 (PST)

Heh. I do 6-8 hours of cycling a week and don't lose any weight at
all. Genetics apears to matter more than anything.

Zebee

 

Not really sure I agree, I lost weight because my total calorie
intake, even with my body in starvation mode was less than my
outgoings. The key differences to your situation were firstly that I
started off with lean muscle (very low fat %), everything I've read
suggests your body will metabolise your own muscle more readily than
fat stores. Secondly the differential between outgoing and ingoing
calories was in the crash diet category (which I doubt your current
situation is - I certainly hope not). Everybody no matter their body
type, metabolism etc WILL lose weight if their intake is hugely
different to their outgoing. The problem with crash diets is almost
everyone rebounds to a higher weight as soon as they stop being
starved (and it goes straight to fat first too).

While 6-8hrs cycling is good, if that's primarily commuting then it's
not really probably enough. Particularly if your diet is high in carbs
(refer earlier). On average Sydney terrain your not going to see any
real fat burning until you've done a constant 35-45mins non stop - up
to that point you're burning blood sugar. If it's stop start then it
will take longer. How does your intake compare to your total calories
burnt - have you calculated it ? While the resting burn rate is always
a rough finger in the air, adding it up plus a factor for incidental
exercise (most of us get far too little of that though) plus
deliberate exercise (your cycling) will give you a rough out of what
you're burning plus or minus 10%. Compare that to an honest calorie
count for the week (don't forget the alcohol it's usually a killer in
everyone's diet) . If the two are around the same plus or minus 10%
then you probably need to up the exercise rate. Note exercising more
not eating less is the best way to lose weight - as your muscle mass
goes up your resting burn rate goes up and hence the same intake will
let you lose weight (within reason - assuming it's relatively
healthy).

In short, try doing two long cycles a week in addition to your
existing (at *least* an hour and half preferably more if you can find
the time - go to work via Penrith twice a week (out the M4 and back on
the M2) !! Cut all carbs out of your diet that aren't found in whole
fruit or vegetables, eat in combination with lean meat. Eat 5-6 times
a day with the "between major meals" being snacks of nuts or fruit.
Make breakfast your biggest meal of the day.

The above is the only "diet" regime that has ever survived close
scientific examination and won't cause a rebound. It's also bloody
hard to stick to <shrug> depends on what you want most - the meat pie,
or a svelte figure. I vacillate between the two personally.

JL

 

In aus.motorcycles on Wed, 2 Jan 2008 21:37:10 -0800 (PST)

Yup. Right now it's a bit over an hour, with almost no stops,
heartrate hovering around 140.

Because the commute is flattish, some hills, mostly back road and
cycle path, almost no stops.

The intake's cereal in the morning, some fruit, some rice and vegies,
a little meat, same in the evening. Oddly enough I've been rather
interested in this, so I've been checking.

I do have hi fibre wholemeal bread and vegemite in the week, plus the
usual chocolates and such. The occasional takeaway. But on the whole,
the calorie intake isn't massive.

Basically everything I've seen in the reasearch matches my own
experience - the set point's almost impossible to shift, especially
as you get older.

Zebee

 

That, and your metabolism adjusting to the extra demands by making more
efficient use of any calorific intake.

 

In aus.motorcycles on Thu, 03 Jan 2008 20:44:49 +1000

Yup. SOme people have one set weight, some another. By serious
calorific restriction it is possible for someone genetically of one
weight class to lose lots, as in more than a few pounds, but it has to
be kept up for a lifetime, and it causes other problems.

Any calorie restriction will have some effect which is how most diets
get the results they get. But everything I've seen from actual long
term tests show regain *on the same calorie level* within a year or two
and usually gain past original baseline weight.

MInd you, most diet studies appear to have massive dropouts, up to 60%
in one "successful" one I saw.

Zebee

 

Two meals PLUS sex!!