Patsy Kensitt and That weight watcher ad

[pauldavid]

Not that I recall, but I am getting forgetful in my old age.

At that time, and obviously I don't know if it's still the case, they didn't have the best of relationships and weren't really speaking. I recall coming into work one morning and remarking that I'd seen the headline on some paper about Patsy being pregnant. His response was something along the lines of 'is she? I wouldn't know'.

The birth certificate for the baby most probably showed "North London Weight Watchers Group" under the title Name of Father

Always difficult to pinpoint the father conclusively after a really successful weigh in evening!

 

[Over The Hill]

Stop ridiculing yourself any further by insisting in naive comments that only prove you ignorance.

Knowing when to admit defeated is sing of wisdom and a virtue that clearly you do not possessed.

As for the no-starch carbs diets are well known in many names and very healthy approach in nutrition. It was also part of my tailor made plan in the past by RSTCS the group of nutritionists that treat well known members of the sports world.

Sorry but you seem to be stooping to the level of others who just resort to personal abuse. You are on strike one.

As to the comments between the abuse you give no substance to your argument as to why you believe me to be incorrect. The idea of debate is to put forward a view supported as needed - not just hurl abuse at the other person.

As to your diet, as we established some time back that you were on a specific diet aimed to meet the needs of an athletic requirement, I am sure you accept that such is far different to the needs of anyone without such specific requreiments and so it seems clear that such will not be suitable to people who are generally consuming more calories than they burn. My comments have assumed that it was fairly clear that we are all on the same page and generally talking about people with eating and activity habits typical of a Weight Watchers customer.

Are you of a view that "members of the sports world" have the same dietary needs as a lethargic office worker? What is healthy for you may perhaps not apply to them dont you think? Or is this just me being naive and ignorant?

 

[Over The Hill]

No apparently it's better for us.

I eat a lot of carbs but I still have the "Find me food" message from my body all the time.....

Just out of interest - do you eat your carbs in 3 big meals or lots of smaller amounts?

 

[T.M.H.N.E.T]

Just out of interest - do you eat your carbs in 3 big meals or lots of smaller amounts?

Where's the relevance?

 

[redcard]

While you are on the point, we seem to have got side tracked by someone onto picking over numbers.

The thread got side-tracked because you got your numbers muddled. Again.

 

[Marshmallow_Fluff]

[QUOTE 2263168, member: 1314"]Are you a famous athlete? Can I have your autograph?[/quote]

No you cannot, because you're goint to flog it on eBay..

 

[Marshmallow_Fluff]

Sorry but you seem to be stooping to the level of others who just resort to personal abuse. You are on strike one.

As to the comments between the abuse you give no substance to your argument as to why you believe me to be incorrect. The idea of debate is to put forward a view supported as needed - not just hurl abuse at the other person.

As to your diet, as we established some time back that you were on a specific diet aimed to meet the needs of an athletic requirement, I am sure you accept that such is far different to the needs of anyone without such specific requreiments and so it seems clear that such will not be suitable to people who are generally consuming more calories than they burn. My comments have assumed that it was fairly clear that we are all on the same page and generally talking about people with eating and activity habits typical of a Weight Watchers customer.

Are you of a view that "members of the sports world" have the same dietary needs as a lethargic office worker? What is healthy for you may perhaps not apply to them dont you think? Or is this just me being naive and ignorant?

Let me break it down for you then..

This particular approach is adopted under many different names (as previously stated but you chose to ignore). All of them are working (have done for millions of people each) and they are developed by scientist. If I have to chose one's claim, it would be theirs against yours, Dr UpTheHill. Here are some:
Dr Barry Sears - The Zone Diet
Dr Atkins - The Atkins Diet
Dr Agatston - The South Beach Diet

not a weight loss approach, but very important one regardless (in terms of how processed and starchy food are causing fatigue) is also by Frank Lipman MD.

But I appreciate that not all people have done their homework. Your common sense, doesn't tell you that getting your daily requirement in carbs from fruit and vegetable is healthier than getting it from processed, multi-processed and starchy ones, like bread, pasta etc? Do you have to be an athlete to adopt this approach? And do you seriously think that it would work better for a person that's exercising than a person that doesnt? Doh? And then you feel like we are abusing you?
Please do some reading (not quick google search) before replying.. FFS!

 

[Over The Hill]

Where's the relevance?

If we enough to get a full feeling the body then switches off the "find food" alert and also we are then is a state of plenty where the body is quite happy to burn up what we have.
Contrast that with a eating small snacks all day. We then are constantly going around with the "find food" alert switched on as we are not satisfied with what we have eaten and so never trigger the "satisfied" button. The constant state of wanting food from this becomes a perminant habit and the light is on all the time, instead of it being on just when we are actually hungry just before a meal. Also with the limited food intake the body goes onto starvation mode and will try to hang on to all the energy it has as it thinks it has to last through a famine and grab all it can.

A bit more for the sheep to pick on.

 

[Marshmallow_Fluff]

If we enough to get a full feeling the body then switches off the "find food" alert and also we are then is a state of plenty where the body is quite happy to burn up what we have.
Contrast that with a eating small snacks all day. We then are constantly going around with the "find food" alert switched on as we are not satisfied with what we have eaten and so never trigger the "satisfied" button. The constant state of wanting food from this becomes a perminant habit and the light is on all the time, instead of it being on just when we are actually hungry just before a meal. Also with the limited food intake the body goes onto starvation mode and will try to hang on to all the energy it has as it thinks it has to last through a famine and grab all it can.

A bit more for the sheep to pick on.

Again, the "find food" mode is called "cravings" in the world of nutrition..
Cravings are created by the insuline imbalance in your blood, which is caused in its turn by consuming high glycemic index foods (basically processed and starchy carbs.. hello?) and by irregular eating habbits and time that exceeds the 4 hours between meals.
And I will stop here, because you are looking for abuse again..

Read mate! Ready before posting bull..

 

[T.M.H.N.E.T]

If we enough to get a full feeling the body then switches off the "find food" alert and also we are then is a state of plenty where the body is quite happy to burn up what we have.
Contrast that with a eating small snacks all day. We then are constantly going around with the "find food" alert switched on as we are not satisfied with what we have eaten and so never trigger the "satisfied" button. The constant state of wanting food from this becomes a perminant habit and the light is on all the time, instead of it being on just when we are actually hungry just before a meal. Also with the limited food intake the body goes onto starvation mode and will try to hang on to all the energy it has as it thinks it has to last through a famine and grab all it can.

A bit more for the sheep to pick on.

Please correct me if I'm wrong. But you're saying that eating a lot over fewer sittings is better than less over more sittings? So a person on a 3000cal per day maintenance should be eating 3 meals of 1000cals over 5 meals of 600 or 6meals of 500?

Also as MF says, seeking food is symptomatic of cravings and thus probably if not absolutely related to glycemic indexing.

I suggest you do some reading on starvation response and glycemic indexes

 

[Over The Hill]

Let me break it down for you then..

This particular approach is adopted under many different names (as previously stated but you chose to ignore). All of them are working (have done for millions of people each) and they are developed by scientist. If I have to chose one's claim, it would be theirs against yours, Dr UpTheHill. Here are some:
Dr Barry Sears - The Zone Diet
Dr Atkins - The Atkins Diet
Dr Agatston - The South Beach Diet

not a weight loss approach, but very important one regardless (in terms of how processed and starchy food are causing fatigue) is also by Frank Lipman MD.

But I appreciate that not all people have done their homework. Your common sense, doesn't tell you that getting your daily requirement in carbs from fruit and vegetable is healthier than getting it from processed, multi-processed and starchy ones, like bread, pasta etc? Do you have to be an athlete to adopt this approach? And do you seriously think that it would work better for a person that's exercising than a person that doesnt? Doh? And then you feel like we are abusing you?
Please do some reading (not quick google search) before replying.. FFS!

Sorry but that is the definative list of quack diets! I do accept they do shed light on the process of the food actually being processed but the key thing here is as you say "not a weight loss approach" so the question is really if we kicked off the thread on Weight Watchers then why are you recommending a non weight loss approach to one and all?

If you actually read my post I was not recommending a carb only diet but what I was saying that there is no need to cut out carbs and simply used an illustration to show that carbs are not overly high in calories. They then simply fill you up and so stop food becoming an obsession.

Our needs are are very different. If you are burning up vast amounts of calories then you may need 3000 calories - double the normal input. If you are active then you may also not want a lump of carb sitting inside you. So a very concentrated shot of calories would be suitable.
Someone sitting on their bum all day with food cravings on the other hand may only need 1500 calories and be more suited to a nice lump of carb that is not too high in calories and satisfies their craving for food for the morning to and stops them grabbing a mars bar as a mid morning snack.
Add in with that, that the active person will probably want to consume much less quantity of food over a day and clearly they have hugely different food needs.

While what you are advocating may be right for you and may be backed by various experts, I would simply contend that such does not then apply to someone with extreme opposite needs. So you are not wrong in applying your approach to yourself but you are wrong in applying it to others with differnt needs.

 

[Over The Hill]

Please correct me if I'm wrong. But you're saying that eating a lot over fewer sittings is better than less over more sittings? So a person on a 3000cal per day maintenance should be eating 3 meals of 1000cals over 5 meals of 600 or 6meals of 500?

Also as MF says, seeking food is symptomatic of cravings and thus probably if not absolutely related to glycemic indexing.
I suggest you do some reading on starvation response.

Well first of all not 3000 calories!
I am saying that if you eat a sensible intake of food that involves three decent meals per day where you experience a feeling of being full and satisfied is better than splitting it into many small snacks over a day where you are never full.

This I would point out is looking at the matter of food intake from standpoint where the aim is to reduce the persons input and not from a standpoint where we are trying to get the best athletic performance from a person.

Very simply put, if you eat a great big bowl of cerial for breakfast it will be all you need until lunch, if you eat a decent healthy sandwich at lunch time then it sees you though to supper and a good healthy supper sets you up until breakfast. In between you are full and forget about food. Between if you wish then limit yourself to fruit.
Contrast this with snacking all day. The snack tends to be more fatty sugary junk food. A mars bar or packet of crisps. The smaller snack lunch etc tends to be a richer fattier food and so you end up with lots of high calorie junk food inside you.
50 years ago that was how we ate. Most institutions still work in this way.
Athletes need a quite differnt pattern of food. That however does not apply to everyone else.

 

[Marshmallow_Fluff]

Sorry but that is the definative list of quack diets! I do accept they do shed light on the process of the food actually being processed but the key thing here is as you say "not a weight loss approach" so the question is really if we kicked off the thread on Weight Watchers then why are you recommending a non weight loss approach to one and all?

If you actually read my post I was not recommending a carb only diet but what I was saying that there is no need to cut out carbs and simply used an illustration to show that carbs are not overly high in calories. They then simply fill you up and so stop food becoming an obsession.

Our needs are are very different. If you are burning up vast amounts of calories then you may need 3000 calories - double the normal input. If you are active then you may also not want a lump of carb sitting inside you. So a very concentrated shot of calories would be suitable.
Someone sitting on their bum all day with food cravings on the other hand may only need 1500 calories and be more suited to a nice lump of carb that is not too high in calories and satisfies their craving for food for the morning to and stops them grabbing a mars bar as a mid morning snack.
Add in with that, that the active person will probably want to consume much less quantity of food over a day and clearly they have hugely different food needs.

While what you are advocating may be right for you and may be backed by various experts, I would simply contend that such does not then apply to someone with extreme opposite needs. So you are not wrong in applying your approach to yourself but you are wrong in applying it to others with differnt needs.

So what you're saying is that some people might feel satisfied for longer by eating starchy, highly processed carbs with high GI or GL and all that despite the fact that this is causing massive insuline level swings?
And also that for some people the right way to lose weight is by eating Arabiatas and Carbonaras?
And that some actually NEED a plate of lasagna, not just craving it..



Why didn't I think of that before????
People.. we are witnessing a revolution!!!!!

P.S.: I said that Dr Lipman's approach was not a weigh loss one.. I didn't say that you don't lose weigh anyway!


For the last time.. do your homework before posting bollocks mate!

 

[T.M.H.N.E.T]

Well first of all not 3000 calories!
I am saying that if you eat a sensible intake of food that involves three decent meals per day where you experience a feeling of being full and satisfied is better than splitting it into many small snacks over a day where you are never full.

Lets use 3000 as an example from now on,as my previous post exampled. Why not 5 meals of 600cals or 6 meals of 500?

Very simply put, if you eat a great big bowl of cerial for breakfast it will be all you need until lunch, if you eat a decent healthy sandwich at lunch time then it sees you though to supper and a good healthy supper sets you up until breakfast.

Or eat a smaller portion at breakfast and a smaller portion between then and lunch,perhaps even a small portion mid afternoon. If not, why not?

In between you are full and forget about food.

I haven't thought about food for a few years,haven't craved anything either.

Between if you wish then limit yourself to fruit.

Why?

Contrast this with snacking all day. The snack tends to be more fatty sugary junk food. A mars bar or packet of crisps. The smaller snack lunch etc tends to be a richer fattier food and so you end up with lots of high calorie junk food inside you.
50 years ago that was how we ate. Most institutions still work in this way.
Athletes need a quite differnt pattern of food. That however does not apply to everyone else.

Let's ditch the "snacking" all day thing yeah? What about eating smaller portions more often throughout the day, that is not indicative of snacking.

 

[Marshmallow_Fluff]

Well first of all not 3000 calories!
I am saying that if you eat a sensible intake of food that involves three decent meals per day where you experience a feeling of being full and satisfied is better than splitting it into many small snacks over a day where you are never full.

This I would point out is looking at the matter of food intake from standpoint where the aim is to reduce the persons input and not from a standpoint where we are trying to get the best athletic performance from a person.

Very simply put, if you eat a great big bowl of cerial for breakfast it will be all you need until lunch, if you eat a decent healthy sandwich at lunch time then it sees you though to supper and a good healthy supper sets you up until breakfast. In between you are full and forget about food. Between if you wish then limit yourself to fruit.
Contrast this with snacking all day. The snack tends to be more fatty sugary junk food. A mars bar or packet of crisps. The smaller snack lunch etc tends to be a richer fattier food and so you end up with lots of high calorie junk food inside you.
50 years ago that was how we ate. Most institutions still work in this way.
Athletes need a quite differnt pattern of food. That however does not apply to everyone else.

I will let you in a little secret:

If you eat a nice breakfast with 3 eggs and 3 slices of bacon and a nice tomato and a few mushroom, a nice mid-day snack with an apple and a handful of unsalted nuts, a luch with salad with walnuts, goats cheese, chicken breast and lots of colourful vegetable with a good amound of olive oil vinegrette, a nice mid-afternoon snack with a pear and natural peanutbutter spread a nice dinner with any source of protein you fancy (say a nice beef stake) and cooked any way you fancy (yes fried as well) with lots of cooked vegetables and raw salad (say the vegetables to cover 2/3 of your plate and your protein the other 1/3) and then a couple of hours before going to bed a cup of cottage cheese with pineapple and walnuts..
Guess what mate??

YOU DON'T JUST LOOSE FECKING WEIGHT.. YOU LOSE FECKING FAT!!!!
GET IT??