Counting down 2012.

There isn’t One-Diet-For-Everyone,
and there are lots of good eating plans available to us all.
Each of us can find way-to-eat-less that we can make fit our lifestyle.

Here’s a diet recommendation from one obesity doctor.

A Life of Thoughtful Reduction

Why not live a life of thoughtful reduction?
No blind restrictions, but also no blind consumptions.
Ask yourself whether or not something's worth its calories
and how much you need of it to be happily satisfied.

             Yoni Freedhoff, MD

As part of my dieting hobby, I visit many different websites here on the internet,
and sometimes I post comments on different forums and other blogs.
Today, I've decided to post a copy of some dialogue from one of these forums,
consisting of another member's unusual comments, and my responses to them.

This member and I have been corresponding for more than 4 years, and we have developed a rather close relationship. She is an educated person who is quite religious. Although her desire and efforts for weight-loss have been ongoing, she has been consistently unwilling to work toward exercising conscious control over the amounts of food that she eats, and has been unsuccessful with her dieting attempts throughout that time period.

Quote from a forum member:: 

"Portion Control is Evil"

My Response:

I challenge this offensive, incorrect, and illogical statement.
Just because we dislike something doesn't mean we get to redefine it.

Portion Control is simply using the brain that God has given you,
to work toward eating the correct amount of food for the body he has given you.
Portion Control simply means = eating less food.
How Much Less? That depends on WHAT you are choosing to eat.
The goal is to take in the same amount of energy as your body, at it's healthiest, uses.

If we are talking in terms of Good vs. Evil,
Portion Control must be Good,
BECAUSE
it is the opposite of the "evil" behavior: "Gluttony",
which Christianity (and many other Religions) define as sinful, bad, "evil".
If Gluttony equals bad; then Portion Control equals good.
Therefore, Portion Control is Godly Behavior.

Avoiding obesity requires limiting your food intake...
no matter what method you use to do this will always involve some form of portion control.
The concept of "free will" means that we can choose NOT to use our brain
to help us eat less food,
However, an attempt to redefine "good" as "evil" is Foolishness.

Quote from a forum member:

Gluttony used to mean eating before the time to eat,
according to a book on medieval eating that I bought.
Webster's online dictionary now says "an excess in eating or drinking."

Why, then, would there be a Shrove Tuesday or a Twelve Days of Christmas
when people were expected to and encouraged to eat more than they required?

I think our society may have changed the meaning of the word, with disasterous results.

Think about this:
What if portion control really is a new concept
and really is the cause of the obesity epidemic?

My Response:

The term "Portion Control" is merely a modern term for an ancient concept.
The term is commonly used to indicate "eating less".

..........Question: What is a "portion" of food?
..........Answer: It is an amount of food.

..........Question: What is "control"?
..........Answer: It is to exercise restraint or direction over, to command,
.........................to hold in check, to regulate, to curb.

I, personally, choose not to think of eating in terms of “good” and “evil”.
However, in support of my above-post, it is easy to see
that the definition of Gluttony has been fairly consistent for thousands of years.

Regarding the past definition of “Gluttony”, even a brief review of the Bible
makes it clear that in ancient, biblical times, “gluttony” meant overeating to excess,
and a “glutton” was often equated with a “drunkard …
which shows that they were considered to be similar behaviors.

The English word, "Gluttony", was derived from the Latin gluttire meaning to gulp down or swallow,
It means over-indulgence and over-consumption of food, drink, or wealth items
to the point of extravagance or waste.

In some Christian denominations, Gluttony is considered one of the seven deadly sins
and it is specifically defined as - a misplaced desire of food…
... eating more than needed, eating more than one’s share.

The word "Greed" is defined as a selfish and excessive desire
for more of something (like food or money) than is needed,
A "Glutton" is "Greedy", and both of these words are often used to define similar behavior.

Deuteronomy 21:20 says:
”And they shall say unto the elders of his city,
This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice;
he is a glutton, and a drunkard.”

Proverbs 23:20-21 warns,
“Do not join those who drink too much wine or gorge themselves on meat,
for drunkards and gluttons become poor, and drowsiness clothes them in rags.”

Proverbs 28:7 declares,
“He who keeps the law is a discerning son,
but a companion of gluttons disgraces his father.”

Proverbs 23:2 proclaims,
“Put a knife to your throat if you are given to gluttony.”

Biblical New Testament Scripture tells Christian believers
that they are not to let their appetites control them,
but they are to have control over their appetites.
(See Deuteronomy 21:20, Proverbs 23:2, 2 Peter 1:5-7,
2 Timothy 3:1-9, and 2 Corinthians 10:5.)

The ability to say “no” to anything in excess—self-control—
- is one of the fruits of the Spirit common to all believers
(Galatians 5:22).


It seems clear that IF one chooses to think of eating in terms of “good” and “evil”,
that eating less = i.e. portion control is “good”, and overeating is “evil”.

The establishment of various historical customs which appear to encourage overeating, don't change the definition of Gluttony.

Quote:

The Origins of Shrove Tuesday Shrove Tuesday originated during the Middle Ages. As in contemporary times, food items like meats, fats, eggs, milk, and fish were regarded as restricted during Lent. To keep such food from being wasted, many families would have big feasts on Shrove Tuesday in order to consume those items that would inevitably become spoiled during the next forty days. The English tradition of eating pancakes on Shrove Tuesday came about as a way to use as much milk, fats, and eggs as possible before Ash Wednesday began. In France, the consumption of all fats and fatty foods on this day coined the name "Fat Tuesday" or Mardi Gras.

Quote:

The origin of the Twelve Days of Christmas is complicated, which is related to differences in church traditions, and different cultures observe this tradition in a variety of ways. By the 16th century, European and Scandinavian cultures had combined the Twelve Days of Christmas with (sometimes pagan) festivals celebrating the changing of the year. These were usually associated with driving away evil spirits for the start of the new year. Over the centuries, differing Christian denominations have had different customs involving the Twelve Days of Christmas, which are currently celebrated in widely differing ways.

What is hunger?

We grow up thinking that hunger is our body’s way of telling us that we need food, but that isn’t usually the case for most of us. Very few of us are so fit, or have so little body fat, or are so active that our bodies start calling for energy if we miss lunch.

We feel hunger when we haven’t eaten for a while. We may feel hunger if the food looks good; or if we are in a social situation in which eating is going on; or because we think it’s time to eat.

We tend to identify a feeling that comes along with eating behavior as the cause of the behavior. But “hungry” only means we are in a situation in which we are used to eating. It doesn’t mean that feeling hungry will make us eat, or, more important, that we have to eat.

 Hunger is a sign that we are used to eating in a particular time or situation. We are not required to answer the signal.

Some of us are familiar with the statement: “We eat too much because we are fat.” Currently, there’s a strong tendency to think of hunger in terms of hormones, emphasizing the body regulates hunger like it regulates body temperature. While there is truth in this concept, thinking like this can lead to confusion because … ultimately, Behavior trumps hormones. The hormonal causation analogy isn’t really all that helpful, because we humans don’t regulate our temperature merely by hormonally means. Our major control of the body’s temperature is behavioral. We put on clothes, and we hide in caves.

It has become popular to focus on an error in the statement: “a calorie is a calorie.” A critique of the energy balance model is: 

             dietary carbohydrate = insulin = +other hormones = increased appetite = greater consumption.

This explanation is limited because it mixes up metabolism with behavior, and implicitly accepts the idea that the effect of macronutrients on one’s body affects how much we choose to eat. Specific macronutrients clearly have different effects on satiety. However, no matter what our hormonal state, if there is NO food, we will not increase consumption. Although we have no choice in our genetics, and the way our metabolism functions is not within our control, our eating Behaviors are ultimately still a matter of personal choice.

It is helpful to figure out what kind of hunger we’re talking about.
Behavioral psychology stresses the difference between “tastes good” and “hunger” which really only means that eating good-tasting food increases the probability that we will eat more of it than the body needs.

No matter what our calorie eating allowance is when we are working toward weight-loss, it seems like bad advice to eat if we aren’t hungry. We frequently hear nutritionists say that “everyone needs to have a good breakfast”. Why we would specifically want to have a “good” anything if we are trying to lose weight is not easy to answer.

Nutritionists say that this is true because this will cause us to eat too much at the next meal ….
 as if, in the morning, we can make a rational decision to eat breakfast in the face of not wanting to eat  but, at noon, we are suddenly under the inexorable influence of urges beyond our control.   It would be more reasonable to add the condition … “if you find that you eat too much at lunch when you don’t eat breakfast…,” Many people have the opposite reaction to eating breakfast -- sometimes food can be more reinforcing than satiating.

Semantics … the words that are used to present a diet concept tend to influence our food choice behaviors. For example, nutritionists like to say that diets are high in fat, but alternatively, say that they are rich in whole grains. Portion Control actually means “don’t eat too much”, but the term is used by nutritionists as though it was a great new scientific principle.

 Hunger is a feeling or a signal. We get to choose how we respond to it.

It’s simple, but not easy.

I recently posted an article: Do Calories matter ... discussing this issue with regard to Low-Carb eating.  Here is a Paleo expert's recently stated viewpoint on whether or not Calories matter.

Low Carb and Paleo: My Thoughts Part 1
                    By Rob Wolf

Slowly I realized, both by experimentation and by really looking at the literature: CALORIES MATTERED MORE THAN CARBS FOR BODY-COMP.

I have to say this was a pretty big shake-up for me. I’d assumed one could eat as much fat as one desired and STILL get leaner. As I mentioned above, when I first started eating Low Carb, or more specifically, cyclic low carb (CLC) I was leaner than ever in my life. I know based on blood work and fat deposition that I had insulin resistance while vegan, and CLC helped with this immensely, but it was my new-found energy and activity level that drove my leanness, not an inability to store fat in the absence of significant insulin.

I think this is one of the most damaging messages that comes out of the Low Carb camp to this day, I was duped by this, so I’m not going to do what a lot of other recovered Low Carb writers do and make folks out to be idiots for still believing this…but, it is time to face facts. In every damn study it is clear that for fat loss we’d like adequate protein, and a calorie restriction scenario. Low Carb is fantastic for this in that one typically feels satisfied on high protein, moderate fat, loads of veggies. If one is insulin resistant, this approach can be nothing short of miraculous. HOWEVER! If one manages to cram enough cheese, olive oil and grass-fed butter down the pie-hole, this is in fact, a “mass gain” diet.

Low Carb is fantastic for the insulin resistant individual, as it addresses both glycemic load and satiety. But if one manages to bypass normal satiety mechanisms, or if one can find some combinations of highly palatable, but low-carb foods, it’s still a ticket to Fat Camp.

The insistence on the part of the Low Carb community in adhering to the “no insulin, no fat gain” dogma ends up discrediting the real therapeutic benefit of Low Carb and hurts us all. The insulin resistant, crack-addicted individual really benefits from Low Carb, I cannot say that sufficiently, and the ease with which people lose weight (fat) on these programs is remarkable, but insulin control takes a backseat to calorie reduction via highly satiating foods. This whole situation further damages the ability to push ketosis as a therapeutic treatment for everything from cancer to neurodegenerative disease. It’s a tool folks, not an end-all-be-all.”

  ROBB WOLF is a former research biochemist and is regarded as one of the world's leading experts in Paleolithic nutrition.  He authored the best-selling book: The Paleo Solution (2010). Other books by him are: Practical Paleo (2012); Paleo Slow Cooking (2012); Paleo Comfort Foods (2011); Everyday Paleo (2011).

Wolf is a former California State Powerlifting Champion (565Lb Squat, 345lb Bench, 565lb Dead Lift) and a 6-0 amateur kickboxer. He coaches athletes at the highest levels of competition and consults with Olympians and world champions in MMA, motocross, rowing and triathlon.

I count calories. I read food labels, and I weigh and measure my food. My calorie counting method is to record all of food in a computer food journal, which provides me with nutritional values for that food, and does the daily calorie math for me. The food journal that I use, DietPower, has an enormous food dictionary, and it also allows me to input food information from the labels of the food I actually use.

However, all of this carefully calculated calorie number is only an estimate.

We cannot be exactly certain of the amount of calories contained in the food we eat. This is partially because of labeling inaccuracies, partially because of measuring inaccuracies, and partially because of other things affecting calories, such as the the fact that even two pieces of the same fruit which are exactly the same size, can have small calorie differences due to the fruit’s ripeness etc.

Calories In:
      The amount of calories going into a body are estimates, 
                                 
Calories Out: 
       How many calories a body burns once those foods are inside that body is also an estimate.

It is an undisputed fact that different bodies burn different amounts of calories. All of the charts and graphs and formulas for BMR and RMR, are merely based on AVERAGES. Different people, even those who are the same sex, the same age and the same size, with similar activity levels, will burn calories at a lower level or a higher level than the BMR and RMR average calculations which these formulas provide.

We cannot exactly KNOW how many calories we are taking in, or how many calories our bodies are using. However, even though this information is inaccurate, It provides us with useful Guidelines, which makes it well worth the effort. Calorie Counting has helped me achieve a large weight-loss, and it is helping me to maintain that weight-loss.

Many long-term, Low-Carb people seem to be coming around to an understanding that Calorie Intake matters. Although the Low-carb position continues to be “that it’s not a simple matter of calories in, calories out”, many long-term low-carb “experts” are now speaking out in support of the fact that calories do matter -- in that calories have a strong influence within a carbohydrate restricted context, and that low-carb eating is not a license for eating large and unlimited amounts of food.

This is based on the position that although “a calorie is a calorie” going into the body, calories are handled differently within a body, “downstream”, and while the basic process is the same for everyone, not all bodies handle the same number of calories in exactly the same way.

Regina Wilshire of Weight of the Evidence Blog, who defines herself as “Low-Carb Health Examiner”, states this position in the following way.

“while those who initially follow a low-carb diet do not need to count calories, calories do count - in context. The context is physiology, the chemistry within our metabolism which is driven by our endocrine system. It isn't simply a math problem to calculate input of calories and output of energy expenditure - it requires actual nutrients within the context of those calories because a calorie is not a calorie in our body - a sugar calorie acts differently in our body than a fat calorie. Context.”

I recently ran across a video about calories by Barry Groves, Oxford, United Kingdom, who holds himself out as a Nutritional author, lecturer and journalist; with a doctorate in nutrional science.

Dr. Groves is a well-known low-carb guy, and the author of books: Natural Health & Weight Loss (2007) and Trick or Treat (2008), and he blogs at Second Opinion. I’ve purchased and read both his books, as well as his blog, and found them interesting and informative with regard to providing support for the Theory that a low-carb diet should be high-fat, and not high protein.

I find this video posted below, “Why You Can’t Count Calories”, to be an interesting analysis of the calorie counting process.
A Note of Caution about inaccurate statements within this video about Protein calories and Protein requirements. People have a maximum and a minimum requirement for Protein. The official protein requirement is between 0.8 and 1.2 grams per kilogram (2.2 lbs) of Ideal Body Weight.  Very few people have a 300 lb ideal body weight ... but if someone does, their protein requirement would be around 110 to 135 grams of protein daily.  A generally accepted explanation regarding excess protein (and fat) is set forth below.

"So, what happens if you consume too many calories and/or too much protein? Basically, when energy sources are high, both glucogenic and ketogenic amino acids are converted to fatty acids through the intermediate acetyl CoA. Other amino acids that are degraded to intermediates in the Krebs Cycle are siphoned off into the production of urea, a nitrogenous carboxyl compound that is filtered through the kidneys and secreted in the urine.

Put another way, you now have fatty acids that can store as body fat.

It is for this reason one should not consider a low-carb diet as an all-you-can-eat buffet, just hold the carbs. Whether you're new to carbohydrate restriction, or a long-term veteran, you need to know how much protein you need at minimum, and also understand where the maximum is for weight loss and weight maintenance." ....... Regina Wilshire, Weight of the Evidence Blog.