Asparagus with Hollandaise Sauce - POSTED ON: Apr 09, 2011
Makes 1 serving
Ingredients:
6 pieces Asparagus, boiled, drained Sauce: 1/4 cup (1/2 stick) butter 1 package dry McCormick Hollandaise Sauce Mix 1 cup water
Directions:
Break woody ends off 6 stalks of Asparagus, and steam for about 4-5 minutes. Spray non-stick coating on small saucepan Melt butter in pan Stir in Sauce mix Whisk in 1 cup water. Bring to a boil while stirring continuously then simmer for about 1 minute until sauce thickens. 2 Tablespoons is 1 serving. 6 stalks of asparagus and 2 TB Hollandaise Sauce =1 serving 1 serving is:
Calories: 70 Carbs: 4.3 grams Protein 2.4 grams
Starvation Mode - POSTED ON: Apr 07, 2011
Here is a picture of the men who were in "Starvation mode during the famous 1940s Minnesota Starvation Research project of Dr. Ancel Keys.
People online tend to throw around the term "starvation mode" quite a bit. I've done a great deal of research on this issue,and as a result of my study, I agree with the Experts who say that "starvation mode"...as it is commonly defined...is a Dieting Myth. Starvation mode doesn't happen until one is actually starving. Bottom line, unless you are genetically like one of those Zucker rats that Gary Taubes talks about in "Why We Get Fat And What To Do About It"if you have more body fat than the picture above, you aren't in "starvation mode". I very much like this quote from Brad Pilon, author of Eat Stop Eat, on the Metabolism issue:
"Unless you have a degree in human biology…and in many cases even if you do…you do not understand what ‘metabolism’ means. Eating Less Calories isn't Dangerous for your Metabolism, This word gets thrown around the fitness and diet media and is used to scare people into thinking there is a dangerous level of calories that will destroy their metabolism. This of course is a false premise considering your ‘metabolism’ isn’t a thing that can be destroyed or sped up or slowed down (not without drugs). “Metabolism’ is just the sum of the processes of your body on a cellular/systemic level...that’s it…that’s all it’s ever been…nothing more. So what…who cares. Why do fitness marketers keep talking about it?! I’ll never know. And there is virtually nothing you can do to change this. Eating at or below your actual BMR isn’t going to ‘damage’ your metabolism any more than eating above it. And speaking of which, why don’t marketers suggest that there could be ‘metabolic damage’ when people overeat!?…anyone…anyone? Right, just what I thought, this lie doesn’t lead to lucrative weight loss products. The following claims are false, and are your best way to know that a person is clueless about biology and physiology and nutrition if they say: "Eating too few calories is going to ’slow’ your metabolism" (unless they’re referring to people who are starving to death…and are in fact about to die) "That there are foods that can ‘damage’ your metabolism" That you can speed up or slow down your metabolism (without drugs…and that this would be a good thing in either direction) That a slow metabolism is responsible for weight gain That a fast metabolism is responsible for weight loss That you have any control whatsoever over your metabolic rate That your meal timing or exercise timing can affect your metabolic rate …and any other garbage claim you hear from any fitness marketer with the word “metabolism” in it… If you see any of the above claims, you can be assured that the person who said them is sorely lacking in their understanding of how the body works. If you want to lose weight…EAT LESS than you are currently eating. End of story."
"Unless you have a degree in human biology…and in many cases even if you do…you do not understand what ‘metabolism’ means. Eating Less Calories isn't Dangerous for your Metabolism, This word gets thrown around the fitness and diet media and is used to scare people into thinking there is a dangerous level of calories that will destroy their metabolism. This of course is a false premise considering your ‘metabolism’ isn’t a thing that can be destroyed or sped up or slowed down (not without drugs). “Metabolism’ is just the sum of the processes of your body on a cellular/systemic level...that’s it…that’s all it’s ever been…nothing more. So what…who cares. Why do fitness marketers keep talking about it?! I’ll never know. And there is virtually nothing you can do to change this. Eating at or below your actual BMR isn’t going to ‘damage’ your metabolism any more than eating above it. And speaking of which, why don’t marketers suggest that there could be ‘metabolic damage’ when people overeat!?…anyone…anyone? Right, just what I thought, this lie doesn’t lead to lucrative weight loss products. The following claims are false, and are your best way to know that a person is clueless about biology and physiology and nutrition if they say:
"Eating too few calories is going to ’slow’ your metabolism" (unless they’re referring to people who are starving to death…and are in fact about to die) "That there are foods that can ‘damage’ your metabolism" That you can speed up or slow down your metabolism (without drugs…and that this would be a good thing in either direction) That a slow metabolism is responsible for weight gain That a fast metabolism is responsible for weight loss That you have any control whatsoever over your metabolic rate That your meal timing or exercise timing can affect your metabolic rate …and any other garbage claim you hear from any fitness marketer with the word “metabolism” in it… If you see any of the above claims, you can be assured that the person who said them is sorely lacking in their understanding of how the body works. If you want to lose weight…EAT LESS than you are currently eating. End of story."
Habit vs. Willpower - POSTED ON: Apr 06, 2011
Successful weight-loss requires establishing new eating Habits. For successful maintenance of that weight-loss, one must create a new “normal” which is based on those Habits.
A Habit is a settled tendency or usual manner of behavior. Specifically here, a behavior pattern acquired by frequent repetition that shows itself in regularity or increased facility of performance; and an acquired mode of behavior that has become nearly or completely involuntary.
Habit comes from repeated behavior.
Willpower is defined as energetic determination.
Willpower and Habit are related. because Habits are ESTABLISHED… i.e. brought into existence via some act of will… …..one’s choice or determination… and it initially takes willpower to establish a habit.
Body Mass Index: What about the BMI? - POSTED ON: Apr 04, 2011
No one wants to be in the "Obese" category, because that label goes past a little bit "Overweight", and defines one as actually too "Fat".
The numbers I previously posted in "Normal, Overweight, or Obese" are standard BMI (Body Mass Index) numbers. BMI categories are:
• Underweight = <18.5 • Normal weight = 18.5–24.9 • Overweight = 25–29.9 • Obesity = BMI of 30 or greater
Many athletic people who are carrying a lot of muscle under their fat strongly protest that their muscles make them an exception, and therefore they don't fall into the standard BMI categories. However the following quote from Bodybuilding expert, John Barban, is very on Point about this issue. QUOTE:
BMI chart – What is all the Fuss About?
I was reading a blog about the BMI (Body Mass Index) chart the other day and noticed that many people were saying that it’s not accurate and is an outdated measurement and needs to be replaced/revised. So I started to think about why anyone would say this. The BMI chart was created over 100 years ago as a way of charting body ‘fatness’ or ‘thinness’. With the influence of Ancel Keys (visionary scientist way ahead of his time) BMI became a prominent tool in the 1970′s for assessing population health risks. There is a criticism that the BMI doesn’t account for different ‘frame’ sizes of people (endomorphs and ectomorphs) or athletes who have built up their muscles to a much larger degree than the regular population. Both of these criticism’s seem to be weak as true ecotmorphic or endomorphic people are very rare…in other words, for MOST of the population the BMI works just fine, and that was the point in the first place. The athlete argument doesn’t hold much water either, as they represent a very small percentage of the population and many of them at all levels use steroids and other drugs that artificially elevate their lean body mass. In other words, the BMI was never meant to be applied to people taking steroids and GH. So what about ‘natural’ athletes and bodybuilders who don’t use drugs but just build lots of muscles? Surely they wouldn’t be in the ‘normal’ BMI range…right? Wrong! A few days ago I posted pictures of myself after a 5 day fast (I weighed 176 lbs in those pics…granted this was mostly a water reduction)…as of the moment I am writing this my bodyweight fluctuates between 180-183lbs. In both cases I am still within the normal BMI range. And this is where the argument about athletes being in the ‘overweight’ BMI range because of increased muscle mass falls apart for me. In these pictures -> DO I LOOK SKINNY? I’m well within the normal BMI range…and I don’t think I look too small or lacking in muscle development. In fact I’ve spent the past 15 years trying to build as much muscle as I can…and I STILL fall within the ‘normal’ BMI range. If anyone was a candidate for being ‘overweight’ due to muscle mass I thought surely I would be it…but nope I’m still ‘normal’. So the argument that athletes can build enough muscle to somehow push them out of the normal BMI range seems a bit wonky to me (unless of course they are using steroids or were true endormorphs to begin with…which is an exceedingly small portion of the population). Look at those pictures of me again, do I really look like I could possibly get bigger? Do I look like I NEED to be bigger? AND do I look unhealthy at the size I am? The problem people have with the BMI is not the chart itself, but what the chart MEANS to them. The chart is meant to show ‘fatness’ and categorize it as normal or abnormal on both the high and low end. The key word here is ‘normal’. What SHOULD be normal for a human body and what has BECOME normal in modern western societies are two different things. The BMI chart shows what SHOULD be normal, not what is currently considered normal. If most of the population is overweight (according to the BMI chart) the error in logic could be that the population is right and the BMI chart is wrong. I think many people have a sharp emotional reaction to things like the BMI chart because it categorizes you in a way that feels discriminatory and prejudicial. Of course there is no emotion behind the BMI chart, it’s just a mathematical equation…but there is some thought and research into it, it’s not just a random idea, so you know there is some validity to the category you’ve been placed in according to the chart. And this is why it bothers people. If there is some good reason why you are categorized as ‘overweight’ then you’re faced with the following dilemma about your belief in the normalcy of your current body size: Either the chart is wrong, or YOU are wrong. It’s much easier to dismiss the chart as being inaccurate and not useful for your specific body shape and size or whatever excuse you like, than it is to accept the fact that perhaps you’re in fact simply overweight. The final point on this topic is the view from being in the normal category vs the overweight or obese categories. I used to be much heavier than I am now and I used all the same excuses explaining away the BMI as antiquated and outdated and didn’t account for the mountains of muscle I had built over the years. In reality, I was just fat. Once I went through my cut down and got rid of all the excess weight I ended up right where the BMI chart predicted me to be at the high end of the normal range…which makes perfect sense as I’ve built as much muscle as I can without drugs. If I’m currently in the normal category, and I’ve spent my whole life trying to build muscle, and all of my measurable health markers are in very good shape, and I’m happy with the look and shape of my body, and I have a golden Adonis Index ratio…then how is it possible for me or anyone with roughly my frame (which is average) to actually be in the overweight category without simply having more fat mass on their body and subsequently looking worse than I do right now? In other words, if some people suggest the BMI cutoff for ‘overweight’ is too low, then what does that make me in these pictures? Underweight? Or is it that people who don’t like the category the chart puts them in immediately react by dismissing the chart as being wrong instead of heeding the guidance it provides to lose some weight. This of course is cognitive dissonance at its finest. For anyone who is in the ‘normal’ range the BMI chart seems to make perfect sense, or at least it does to me. by John Barban, Bodybuilder, (www.johnbarban.com) who currently has a business association with Brad Pilon, the author of Eat Stop Eat.
I was reading a blog about the BMI (Body Mass Index) chart the other day and noticed that many people were saying that it’s not accurate and is an outdated measurement and needs to be replaced/revised.
So I started to think about why anyone would say this. The BMI chart was created over 100 years ago as a way of charting body ‘fatness’ or ‘thinness’. With the influence of Ancel Keys (visionary scientist way ahead of his time) BMI became a prominent tool in the 1970′s for assessing population health risks.
There is a criticism that the BMI doesn’t account for different ‘frame’ sizes of people (endomorphs and ectomorphs) or athletes who have built up their muscles to a much larger degree than the regular population. Both of these criticism’s seem to be weak as true ecotmorphic or endomorphic people are very rare…in other words, for MOST of the population the BMI works just fine, and that was the point in the first place.
The athlete argument doesn’t hold much water either, as they represent a very small percentage of the population and many of them at all levels use steroids and other drugs that artificially elevate their lean body mass. In other words, the BMI was never meant to be applied to people taking steroids and GH.
So what about ‘natural’ athletes and bodybuilders who don’t use drugs but just build lots of muscles? Surely they wouldn’t be in the ‘normal’ BMI range…right? Wrong!
A few days ago I posted pictures of myself after a 5 day fast (I weighed 176 lbs in those pics…granted this was mostly a water reduction)…as of the moment I am writing this my bodyweight fluctuates between 180-183lbs. In both cases I am still within the normal BMI range. And this is where the argument about athletes being in the ‘overweight’ BMI range because of increased muscle mass falls apart for me.
In these pictures -> DO I LOOK SKINNY? I’m well within the normal BMI range…and I don’t think I look too small or lacking in muscle development. In fact I’ve spent the past 15 years trying to build as much muscle as I can…and I STILL fall within the ‘normal’ BMI range. If anyone was a candidate for being ‘overweight’ due to muscle mass I thought surely I would be it…but nope I’m still ‘normal’.
So the argument that athletes can build enough muscle to somehow push them out of the normal BMI range seems a bit wonky to me (unless of course they are using steroids or were true endormorphs to begin with…which is an exceedingly small portion of the population). Look at those pictures of me again, do I really look like I could possibly get bigger? Do I look like I NEED to be bigger? AND do I look unhealthy at the size I am?
The problem people have with the BMI is not the chart itself, but what the chart MEANS to them. The chart is meant to show ‘fatness’ and categorize it as normal or abnormal on both the high and low end. The key word here is ‘normal’.
What SHOULD be normal for a human body and what has BECOME normal in modern western societies are two different things.
The BMI chart shows what SHOULD be normal, not what is currently considered normal.
If most of the population is overweight (according to the BMI chart) the error in logic could be that the population is right and the BMI chart is wrong.
I think many people have a sharp emotional reaction to things like the BMI chart because it categorizes you in a way that feels discriminatory and prejudicial. Of course there is no emotion behind the BMI chart, it’s just a mathematical equation…but there is some thought and research into it, it’s not just a random idea, so you know there is some validity to the category you’ve been placed in according to the chart. And this is why it bothers people. If there is some good reason why you are categorized as ‘overweight’ then you’re faced with the following dilemma about your belief in the normalcy of your current body size:
Either the chart is wrong, or YOU are wrong. It’s much easier to dismiss the chart as being inaccurate and not useful for your specific body shape and size or whatever excuse you like, than it is to accept the fact that perhaps you’re in fact simply overweight. The final point on this topic is the view from being in the normal category vs the overweight or obese categories.
I used to be much heavier than I am now and I used all the same excuses explaining away the BMI as antiquated and outdated and didn’t account for the mountains of muscle I had built over the years. In reality, I was just fat.
Once I went through my cut down and got rid of all the excess weight I ended up right where the BMI chart predicted me to be at the high end of the normal range…which makes perfect sense as I’ve built as much muscle as I can without drugs.
If I’m currently in the normal category, and I’ve spent my whole life trying to build muscle, and all of my measurable health markers are in very good shape, and I’m happy with the look and shape of my body, and I have a golden Adonis Index ratio…then how is it possible for me or anyone with roughly my frame (which is average) to actually be in the overweight category without simply having more fat mass on their body and subsequently looking worse than I do right now?
In other words, if some people suggest the BMI cutoff for ‘overweight’ is too low, then what does that make me in these pictures? Underweight?
Or is it that people who don’t like the category the chart puts them in immediately react by dismissing the chart as being wrong instead of heeding the guidance it provides to lose some weight. This of course is cognitive dissonance at its finest.
For anyone who is in the ‘normal’ range the BMI chart seems to make perfect sense, or at least it does to me.
by John Barban, Bodybuilder, (www.johnbarban.com) who currently has a business association with Brad Pilon, the author of Eat Stop Eat.
Here are the pictures which are referenced in the quote above.
Giving Up Is Not An Option - POSTED ON: Apr 01, 2011
Many of us have preconceived expectations when we start our weight-loss journey, as to how long it will take.
We think that by doing everything to a T, everything will go as planned. But many times that is not the case.
We must learn to accept the obstacles that are inevitable in this journey, knowing that the end is not what makes us who we are or who we were meant to be. It is the journey of overcoming obstacles that defines who we are and who we are meant to be.
Giving up is not an option.
Mar 01, 2021 DietHobby: A Digital Scrapbook. 2000+ Blogs and 500+ Videos in DietHobby reflect my personal experience in weight-loss and maintenance. One-size-doesn't-fit-all, and I address many ways-of-eating whenever they become interesting or applicable to me.
Jun 01, 2020 DietHobby is my Personal Blog Website. DietHobby sells nothing; posts no advertisements; accepts no contributions. It does not recommend or endorse any specific diets, ways-of-eating, lifestyles, supplements, foods, products, activities, or memberships.
May 01, 2017 DietHobby is Mobile-Friendly. Technical changes! It is now easier to view DietHobby on iPhones and other mobile devices.