I Cannot Believe I Fucking Picked Up The Phone

[redbrunja]

So my mom called to read me part of an article she was reading regarding weight loss which said, in short, a billion years of evolution is working against you when you try to lose weight and calorie counting/dieting tends to not work in the long term. Which is all stuff I know. However, what the fuck else am I supposed to do? Because when I don't count calories, I a.) gain weight and b.) make up 'deals' regarding what I can eat and when in a (vain) effort to have control over my weight, so telling me to stop counting calories is like telling me to take off a parachute and jump off a building - oh, don't worry, you'll figure out how to fly on the way down.

And I know my mom is telling me this because she's worried about me starving myself but frankly, my (unhealthy, admittedly) response to that article was, 'well, given that I never learned how to eat like a normal person, I guess I am just going to have to accept that I will be keeping track of every fucking bite of food I eat for the rest of my entire life.'

Comments

[crickets.livejournal.com]

There are diets that are not based around counting calories. It can come into play but isn't the basis for the way of eating. Maybe that's what she is trying to say? I don't know? If what you're doing is working for you then I say just ignore her. If it's not, then maybe she wasn't exactly saying "don't diet at all" (unless she was.)

The one diet that I tried once that seemed to really work is low-glycemic index and a lot of the very popular diets (like paleolithic aka cave-man diet) are actually low-glycemic (incidentally) and so my suspicion is that that's one of the major reasons why they work.

To make it sound super boring and NOT AT ALL something you would ever want to try, the idea behind a low GI diet is that it basically regulates how quickly and how high your blood sugar rises, and blood sugar regulation makes your metabolism work better and that's the whole reason the diet legitimately works. 100% science. The reason I personally found it "easier" to do is because you can easily alter the GI of a food by pairing it with different types of foods, or even by cooking it differently. The trouble for most people is, however, it's definitely a mostly low-carb diet. (I was saved when I wanted carbs by using sourdough bread, egg noodles, al dente spaghetti noodles, new potatoes, sweet potatoes, wild and basmati rice, which are all, I think medium glycemic, some may actually be low -- and for me personally, they were super easy substitutions to make.)

The lack of sugar though just made me sad. But right now I have all but kicked my sugar addiction and rarely have it at all, so this could be a good time to start this diet again. WOW how did I turn this around and make it about me instead of about you? Anyway, back to sugar. Dark chocolate was okay, but it wasn't advocated to eat tons of it. Just a couple of ounces a day. Not my favorite. But fruit dipped in it is a whole other matter entirely. Delish! As with any diet, treats are permitted in moderation, but with this one I think these treats can make less of an impact because like I said you can easily alter the GI by altering what you pair it with. For example if you occassionally have a small dessert at the end of a meal, as long as you eat it IMMEDIATELY after your dinner or what-have-you and as long as your dinner has been low-medium glycemic, then your blood sugar should not spike.

ETA: One random bit of sciencey info. Scientists have no idea why, but foods paired with acid (say lemon juice for example) tend to have a lower GI than the same food without it. No clue what causes it. It's just a mystery of science. So if you sprinkle some lemon over your dinner, the whole meal will have (at least a slightly) lower GI value. Weird! (ETA again, this is the same reason sourdough is better for you, because of the acid produced during the fermenting process.)

WOW TMI. But what I mean to say is, according to what I've read, cal counting is not always the most effective way to do it. So hopefully your mom wasn't advocating that you "give up." Maybe she just wanted you to change the way you were thinking.

[redbrunja.livejournal.com]

There are diets that are not based around counting calories. It can come into play but isn't the basis for the way of eating. Maybe that's what she is trying to say? I don't know? If what you're doing is working for you then I say just ignore her. If it's not, then maybe she wasn't exactly saying "don't diet at all" (unless she was.)

What my mom was ACTUALLY saying was, 'I'm concerned you're not eating enough nutrient-dense food and are starving yourself.' What I HEARD was, 'science says you're fucked.'

The reason I personally found it "easier" to do is because you can easily alter the GI of a food by pairing it with different types of foods, or even by cooking it differently.

That is really interesting. And I'm always interested in ways to make my body run more like a perfect machine.

Scientists have no idea why, but foods paired with acid (say lemon juice for example) tend to have a lower GI than the same food without it. No clue what causes it. It's just a mystery of science. So if you sprinkle some lemon over your dinner, the whole meal will have (at least a slightly) lower GI value. Weird!

That is weird. And remember, this is LJ, so there's no such this as TMI (okay, there is, but you haven't hit that line).

[greynonentity.livejournal.com]

....I'm type one diabetic and this post kind of looks like my life. o__O;;

J-Just popping by to say that.

*scuttles away*

[qualapec.livejournal.com]

Just commenting because I've actually been flirting with the Paleolithic diet lately (more meat and fish, more veggies, fewer grains), but I can't quite bring myself to entirely cut out rice, bread, and pasta, just shift the ratio.

The GI diet you mention actually sounds a lot like what I've been trying to do as far as balancing it goes. What resources were you using? And why aren't you on the diet any longer, if you don't mind my asking? I'm genuinely curious.