I needed to disable self sign-ups because I’ve been getting too many spam-type accounts. Thanks.
Fat
Saw this just now
Uploaded files:
Beautiful @jessica2 I guess you can see I'm not supporting any diet nor pouring my opinion on this topic. My only intention is to bring about some information I think can add up to the discussion for those who have time to watch it (having time is usually a matter of prioritizing).
Not wanting to know certain facts is a reaction I face almost everyday when dealing with believers, and the reason why I rarely say what I think. Cognitive dissonance combined with the Dunning-Kruger effect is something I don't want to confront anymore.
I hope I didn't bother you.
"The biggest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance; it is the illusion of knowledge" Daniel J. Boorstin
Beautiful people, if I'm allowed I'd like to make just a comment off topic: most of the documentaries/movies about health/ecology are biased and fallacious. One of the most fallacious I remember is "Cowspiracy". It proposes cows are a source of greenhouse gasses, and the director takes advantage of the ignorance of some officials about the carbon cicle.
I think we all should be voracious on gathering information in order to make freer choices, and humble enough to accept the possibility of being wrong.
I am still on Grant's beef'n'beans but with grains instead of rice and no setbacks since I started.
Quote from Jessica2 on May 24, 2023, 1:25 pmHere Jiri, read this long refutation of the Kempner Rice diet by keto/fasting expert Jason Fung who is also no fan of the calorie model and is a nephrologist himself, and if you don't read it and respond to all the points, remember, you're a close-minded a-hole. Have a great day! 😀
https://blog.thefastingmethod.com/thoughts-on-the-kempner-rice-diet/
I might just make trouble now, but it's not my intention. Alos still not promoting the diet I think it's good to be very presice with facts. First of all he doesn't really debunk anything at all. He just says it might not work for all kidney-diseases and that it might work for other or simpler reasons then what he claims Kempner said. And then he patently lies about the calorie consumption. He translates dry weight rice to wet weight and makes his calorie guesses from that. Also he ignores that the program was running for over 70 years by the hospital running it and that a lot of the time the calorie intake would be closely monitored to be what Kempner says it was. So that paper is nothing but fluff. Now I know we talked about Kempner before and my only point was it was doable not good and same here. I dont recomend eating like that but there is no arguments at all presented. The program is btw still running with some of the same people from the hospital. It lost state funding a bit over 10 years ago along with some other economical interventions (i.e. cuts as far as I know) and is now continued with parts of the same team from the hospital still running it so like it hate it or not care at all- all good but its running and still works for what it claims to do for a large majority of the people.
Quote from Jessica2 on May 22, 2023, 11:37 am@Jiri if you truly believe calories are the most important metric to lose weight, then you would believe a diet of donuts, candy, and lard would help you lose weight if you ate at a caloric deficit. You don't truly believe this it sounds so, you know there's other metabolic factors going on. Again, the body has no idea what a calorie is. That's a human imposed metric that doesn't translate to how the body actually uses and metabolizes food.
The vast majority of us are NOT elite competing athletes so trying to do what they do eating wise isn't very smart in my opinion. For instance I recall Michael Phelps talking about how much pasta he ate to fuel his Olympic swims and rigorous training. It was a LOT of pasta. if a regular person ate like him they would be fat. A regular person doesn't have that level of activity suppressing prolonged insulin spikes.
I can loose weight on lard candy and donut without any trouble at all personally its not a problem I just eat less. I think we are quite differnt as individuals in general as we talked about with the heritage too. But the thing with the calories in and out is that the proponents of that perspecitive are of course right theoretically as there is no way to magically make or rid one self of energy which is what the body uses. BUT also if a food disrupts your metabolism then you dont loose weight the body just uses the energy differnetly/ less. Like the Peat example where he quotes women in metabolic ward actually not loosing weight on 700 calories a day due to hormone responses. Or metabolism being wrecked by different stuff in the food. SO maybe you dont loose weight but instead your temp drops, or you get brain fog or whatever. And also we dont know how much of what is eaten is taken up. So even if theoretically true it still isnt always a very practical way of looking at it I agree. It's not like the body handles all calories the same just because they are calories. But if that food makes the body rearrange some hormones etc that will include some effect on metabolism so it doesnt break any laws on thermodynamics. If you just use less energy for say subtle things like calcium levels in the cells or other hard-to track stuff for all practical purposes a calorie isnt a calorie. I think you agree with this its just something that seems to make a lot of fuzz in this forum and elsewhere. I am among the people where my body does different things and doesnt really change the metabolic rates by eating crap - I do get sick though but not fat. So it completly negates the whole hoped-for effect of calories in/ calories out. The only way I know of to actually find out is to measure every drop of water you ingest during a day and then how much you sweat and pee and see the difference. In a temperate surrounding yoou burn about 1 calorie per mililiter of dissapeared water. You ingest 2 liters and let out 1 you used 1000 calories. Its sort of a replica for metabolic tests. And doing this one would see that for some people eating certain foods would change this and then even if they eat less they get fatter. And then there's of course the water- retention. I'm not saying that is your case, not even implying it somehow, but in general that is the only way to mathematcially bypass the in/out concerning weight gain. You see it from concentration camp examples from the war. I had a grand-cousin in Auswitch i think it was and he survived and looked like a skeleton but then he ballooned as a sausage from water weight for many years when he got out. That's the only way to avoid the thermodynamic law. BUT as I said, my point is , some people can some cant, I eat 4 times the amount of my mother and she gains and I don't. So indivicual makeup will in PRACTICE override the mathematical viewpoint even if it is THEORETICALLY still true. There. You both win 😛 are none of us lol
Quote from Jessica2 on May 30, 2023, 4:16 pm@henrik I think I trust Fungs double credential as a nephrologist and obesity specialist and his successes treating patients over Kempner, who physically abused and beat his patients with whips to get them to eat a diet they were disgusted by (which meant they didn't eat it. What a miracle that they lost weight- because they barely ate anything. Fasting works!). No one today uses the Kempner diet nor recommends it. I think enough said on it.
Sorry sort of disappointed to your answer. Im agreeing its true that he was crazy and the diet not very recomendable but what are you trusting Fung in??? He doesnt say anything of what you claim in his article. I agree with what he says that it might have worked for different reasons , but the statement that they ate 1400 calories is patently wrong I showed you this before but Fung even quotes it in his article that it was the dry rice weight. So yes I too prefer Fungs authority to yours and his article states that it worked for other reasons then some claim and then he lists the wrong calories, as you can see in his own article. And how can you claim noone uses it or recomends it. There is a whole institute still running it. Dont make stuff up just because you - like me - dont like the diet. I dont even understand how you mean that Fung and Kempner are disagreeing??? Personally I dont trust neither of them but I do trust science reports and if there is team posting peer-reviews of the calories being mointored I see no reason to not belive them when they appear of a course of 70 years . I trust research reports not people
Here is wikis description :https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice_diet
"Contemporary forms
Kempner retired from the Duke Faculty in 1974, but consulted until 1992. The commercialization of drugs to treat hypertension reduced both demand for the program and the need to make it strict in order to prevent death. In 2002 the program became independent of Duke University, and in 2013 the Rice House Healthcare Program opened in Durham, North Carolina.[1] The Rice House Healthcare Program is an inpatient facility where people are put on a diet akin to the original diet and are monitored.[8]
also the patients are monitored for calorie intake so no they did not all undereat. I posted research for you on this before. If you insist on denying facts it makes your valid points which I belive you have, look shit. Sorry to say it. I am actually not arguing about results or diets or health but factchecking here.
Quote from Jessica2 on May 30, 2023, 5:41 pmIf you read the whole article he actually catches the error he made and which made the calories (and carbs) go lower than 1400. I'm not sure why you're harping on that issue or why the strident defense of a diet by a doctor who physically beat his patients?
I did read that but he still insists calories was generally lower even if in some cases it was not. Im not defending the diet or the doctor at all. I just belive it to be important to get facts right so we all can make our conclusions. It doesnt really prove anything from my point of view that they didnt undereat I just find it wrong. And wether he beat his patients (though they signed an agreement that he should do so though to be precise even if it might still be argued about the ethics!) has no bearing on why and how the diet worked or didnt work. I mean there is still lot of good coming out of the research done by the nazis on starvation - even if the experiments was morally discusting, and I wish we didnt have those papers for sure. Im just trying to sort through the facts and that seems to be that it works and wasnt generally calorie deficient even if now a lot of new research has neuanced stuff and he was a very bizarre and maybe unethical person.
Quote from Jessica2 on May 30, 2023, 5:44 pmKey word in the contemporary "rice house diet" would be "akin". I wonder if they employ the beatings Kempner gave his patients as well lol.
lol I guess not I think that wouldnt really "hit it off" in 2023 right?
Quote from Jessica2 on May 30, 2023, 5:54 pmNot sure how you're coming to the conclusion that they actually ate the calories they were supposed to WHEN THEY HAD TO BE WHIPPED to eat such monotonous junk.
I too can quote wikipedia information about the rice diet:
"The modern version of the rice diet has been categorized as a fad diet with possible disadvantages including a boring food choice, flatulence, and the risk of feeling too hungry.[12]
Most people cannot follow the rice diet over extended periods, as it is too restrictive. Loren Cordain has commented that "the tenets of the Rice Diet are inconsistent with the best science of the 21st century".[13]
Nutritionist Yvette Quantz has suggested that although the rice diet has some good short-term benefits in the long term it does not provide "enough calories or protein for most people to sustain."[14]
I understand your disgust with his methods but I mean the body doesnt care if you are whipped or not regards to the amount of calories consumed. And your quotes concerns the modern adaption of the diet in later books not Kempners original diet. But yes I agree its unsustainable and not a good at home diet and that it normally would lead to undereating. It just wasnt so at Kempners institution as calories was monitored. I do belive its sustainable though not healthy to pick up on Quantz but as a general guideline to people I agree with her 🙂 I come to my conclusion about the amount of calories because they were locked in and forcefed at the worst examples. And detailed reports issued. The calories WAS eaten. For most people it would lead to undereating though if not "whipped" or in fear of their lifes because of disease.
EDit add: I might be tempted to meet you a bit and say maybe even parts of the reason they lost weight is they ate even more before and that the diet was so nutritionally deficient that they couldnt take up much calories but pooped them out? Or if its like Grants idea that the low A on the diet helped them - Grant is after all the only reason I have red about this diet at all. I think the only point is they did eat 2400 calories and they did loose weight. Whatever the reason.
Quote from Jessica2 on May 30, 2023, 6:05 pmI've devoted too much of my life to this idiotic diet that I never wanted to talk about in the 1st place because I saw the 1st time I read about this diet how extreme, faddish, and stupid it was. i'm done talking about it now. It proves nothing other than monotonous fad diets make you eat less.
Go ahead and tell me my opinions are shit and that i'm close minded because i'm done talking about it now. Now please with all sincerity have good night.
We dont need to discuss it I am serioudly tired about it myself and the only reason I ever invested any time in it was because it was crucial for Grant developing his theory. But its hard to accept that you claim it to be calorie deficient when a ton of published research papers say different. I have no idea why I would think anything about you or your opinion is shit. Last thing on my mind. I just quoted the papers and you refuse to accept what they say and I cant change that . Good night 🙂