Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Yes, we have to do the math ourselves to get net carbs while it looks like they give you net carbs versus total carbs. It's funny, the more they try to make labels "user friendly" the more they complicate matters!
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
I'm beginning to wonder whether a certain amount of 'ignorance' might not be 'bliss'....!
On the face of it, this seems to fly against everything we've been discussing...
However, this pertinent point needs analysis:
'Their lifestyle suggests that a diet low in saturated fats and high in non-processed fibre-rich carbohydrates, along with wild game and fish, [that's protein, to me and you] not smoking and being active throughout the day could help prevent hardening in the arteries of the heart.
No shit Sherlock....
Notice, particularly, what the carbs are made up of: non-processed, fibre-rich. Hmm.....
I think there is a lot of "ignorance is bliss" stuff going on, too. And a complete lack of effort on many people's part. The ability to have foods from all over the planet available at every grocery store comes with a responsibility on our part and a lot of people don't want to accept that responsibility. Which of course is part of a larger problem but is immediately visible with regards to our lifestyles. It certainly was part of my problem and is something I keep working on. It's easy to fall into the idea of something having happened to you rather than accepting that you caused it. Our bodies are almost entirely (leaving room for the uncommon actual genetic disorders) the result of what we do with them and what we put into them. The only way to change that is to accept that, but most people seem to prefer thinking it just happened and how unfair it is. Of course if you don't understand anything about nutrition, then you don't know what happened and the number of people who truly don't know is pretty high. Another one of those things I think we should be teaching in school along with finances and so on, yet we fail miserably while instead trying to find a way to be as good at math as Japanese students are.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
Yes, it's hard to believe that those involved in Education do not, or cannot see, that fundamental changes in the mind-sets of the young, need to be tackled at the 'grass roots' level.
We have no idea what career prospects the young will have in future. One thing is certain: The more technology takes centre stage, the more sedentary people are becoming.
It's sitting down - and nothing more - that makes for fat asses.
@federica said:
Ok, I'm suffering from a mild case of doofus-confusion. @Tosh , @karasti , can you help me out here...?
Question 1:
Tomato passata: per portion, there are 6.2 carbs.
Of which sugars are - 6.2.
Yet there is 2.9 fibre.
That's confusing me. If Fibre passes through undigested, is the carb reading correct?
Question 2:
Carbs 20.5
of which sugars 7.5
(that leaves 13.0 carbs)
Fibre 4.4
What is the remaining 8.6....?!
When they list the carbs, they don't factor in the fiber content. That's for you to do. Usually these diets say to subtract the amt. of fiber from the total carbs.
In your 2nd example, the remaining 8.6 carbs are basic starch in the food. Not all of it is fibrous. For example, bread or pasta: X carbs, 1--fiber. The rest is wheat starch.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited April 2017
@Dakini said:When they list the carbs, they don't factor in the fiber content. That's for you to do. Usually these diets say to subtract the amt. of fiber from the total carbs.
Sorry @Dakini but I'm way past this issue now, because I've established that in the UK, carb counting is different; the fibre has already been taken into account and listed separately. so I don't actually get to deduct anything here; carbs are carbs, excluding the fibre; however the sugar content is listed immediately after the carb content, here, so what I need do, is actually deduct the sugar value to calculate the net carb/starch quantity.....
In your 2nd example, the remaining 8.6 carbs are basic starch in the food. Not all of it is fibrous. For example, bread or pasta: X carbs, 1--fiber. The rest is wheat starch.
Yeah, I'm cool with that. I haven't touched bread, pasta, rice or potatoes for nearly 5 weeks now. I am so over that stuff!
We made cloud bread to have with burgers tonight. That was...interesting. LOL. They are actually really good, they'd be ideal for a dessert type of items. Not for every day, but for a day when you don't wanna eat a burger with a fork, they do the job. "bread" made with cream cheese, eggs, a little stevia (if desired) and cream of tarter. They reminded me of mini versions of oven pancakes.
Cloud bread sounds good. I saw some pictures of the finished product online so I'll probably make some. Just for the experience. I'm not on any special diet. But with bread I like the dense breads with a pungent and strong yogurt made from goats milk.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited April 2017
My H says they taste like Yorkshire pudding, and he's right....
I prefer 90-second bread: I add chia seeds and it's both nutritious and very filling....
I think I posted a link.... Hang on, I'll find it....
ETA: here it is. I made two equal batches, put them into individual plastic takeaway containers, (this is what they look like, here) and nuked them each for 90 seconds. Didn't bother skillet-browning or toasting, I love em 'au naturel'....!
@grackle cloud bread is extremely light and fluffy/spongy. It would make a good replacement for pastry really, with some cinnamon or a small amount of caramel on top. We did use the stevia and they were quite sweet for a bread. They worked for buns, which is what we wanted. they are also a good option for our diabetic son who loves PB&J.
@federica Thanks for the link! We are enjoying trying all sorts of new things. Chia is one thing I want to love but have a really hard time with. I put them in my smoothies but the texture of them when they gel up is completely un-doable for me, lol. I'll have to give it a try in bread and see how it works out.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
There's no change to their texture in the bread, providing you make it immediately; obviously, if you leave them in a liquid base, the inevitable happens.
I'm like you, the texture isn't appealing, so just brush your teeth soon afterwards.... those pesky little seeds have a habit of finding the nooks & crannies in your teeth!
I also add the bicarb of Soda right at the last moment; I find it can make the mix fluff up, which, if nuked immediately, makes for a sponge-cake consistency. Very nice with sour cream and smoked salmon!
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
Had home-made Chawanmushi this evening - 137 calories per pot - hubby LOVED it!
he followed with 2 cod fillets (cooked in butter and oil) HFLC cheese parsley sauce, cauli rice and a small portion of marrowfat peas. Goodness, he ate well tonight, and really enjoyed his meal!
@SpinyNorman said:
In my opinion obesity is basically a result of eating too much and exercising too little.
More walking, less Neapolitan!
I was overweight, yet lifting 3 or 4 times a week and running 30 to 40 miles a week. No amount of exercise seemed to move that spare tire I carried with me.
And the thing about exercise is that it made me hungry, and I'd eat too much.
But when I did LCHF, my hunger cravings weren't nearly as bad; I wasn't needing to snack, and I just naturally gravitated to eating less.
@SpinyNorman except current science no longer supports that. For an average person, yes, it can be that simple. For someone who has met with metabolic issues that is not the case as their body no longer processes food normally. Not that I'm an example to put up there for the whole world, lol, but I've seen it for many years in my own tracking. Over 6 weeks of the exact same calorie content and more exercise, I gained 7 pounds. Over the past 6 weeks with the same calorie content and less exercise (injury) I have lost 15. So no, it's not as simple as counting calories. If that was the case I would have lost weight on the other plan, too. But I gained. My experience is not abnormal for someone who has metabolic issues and no longer processes carbs correctly. Even the most healthy carbs, as in January (when I gained the weight) I was eating an almost entirely vegan diet full of veggies and legumes. It was the healthiest I ever ate by any standard. But it did not work for my body.
It's actually quite fascinating the different pathways by which our food is digested, used and stored. Also complicating matters is they still do not fully understand why someone eating a diet high in nuts won't gain weight despite the large calorie and fat content but someone eating a lot of sugar substitutes and diet sodas will gain weight, despite eating fewer calories. (if you read enough you can parse out the information but it gets pretty complex,and varies by person). The body is vastly more complicated than the calories in-calories out model. If it was that simple people would be so vastly over weight. Some of that comes in people who eat 10,000 calories a day and don't leave the house for 5 years But most of them are people who are throwing up their hands as they do everything they know to lose weight and it still doesn't work, especially including counting calories.
Study after study after study shows that people on low carb diets lose more weight and improve their health markers (triglycerides, cholesterol etc) more so than people on only calorie restricted diets. Not all calories are created equal, by far. And no matter how healthy a food is, not everyone's bodies respond the same to them. Also, even for those that have good luck just on calorie deficit, it's very hard to sustain long term because you have to keep increasing the deficit as your body adjusts to the calories you are eating, and your exercise. So what lost weight for you at 1800 calories and 30 mins of exercise will not continue to sustain weight loss 6 months later.
Older, but a good study with 120,000 people done by Harvard. One of the conclusions:
“What you eat makes quite a difference. Just counting calories won’t matter much unless you look at the kinds of calories you’re eating.”
@karasti
“What you eat makes quite a difference. Just counting calories won’t matter much unless you look at the kinds of calories you’re eating.”
Yes, spot on; a calorie isn't just a calorie, it's a calorie + information.
Depending on what that calorie comes from (a fat, protein or carb), our body will process it in different ways. With a carb calorie it will spike out insulin if we have enough of them, and insulin is the fat storage hormone.
I know you know this, this is just for anyone who doesn't.
@karasti. I noticed some new labeling on food products today. The calories per serving are now in bold type. Very hard to miss. The rest of the info is hard to read. I think a great many older folks would need a magnifying glass.
@grackle The law changed last year and has been slowly rolling out. They are also required now to put the nutrition information for a serving AND the whole package when it's something reasonably expected to be an individual serving, like a bottle of coke or a snack bag of chips etc. Though I still think the serving size for ice cream needs major adjusting, lol.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
@karasti, labelling in the UK usually states the calories per content, and 100g, or per 100g and serving size. Allergens (either deliberately or possibly included) are listed in bold. (what I mean by that is, for example, that a product may contain traces of nuts if it is manufactured in a location where nuts are used in other products. If someone is allergic to nuts, it's safest to avoid the product, even if no nuts are included as a main deliberate ingredient.)
It may be this way in the USA too, I'm just clarifying UK labelling....
Yes allergens have to be listed in bold here, too, including things like gummi worms that are made in candy factories that also deal in nuts. Our serving sizes are usually done by ounces, or grams (less common) but serving sizes are ridiculous for many things. Like half of a coke. Or half a cup of ice cream. Or 1/4 of an ice cream treat. No one eats that way, lol. It was just a way for them to try to make their product look better, and for many to get around the trans fat law, as products can contain it in very small amounts. so if the serving is small enough, they meet the requirements, even if they know the average person is going to eat 3 servings.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
Those ice cream doses are straight out the window for Spiny!
I forget how much alcohol impacts me on a low carb diet. A couple of months ago, a friend bought me a whole case of my favorite beer (which is only released a few weeks a year and is quite expensive) AND he delivered it 250 miles to my house, in person. But, it is 22g of carbs per can so I have had a total of 2 of them. One of them I had last night as it was a low calorie and very low carb day for me. Holy smokes. I feel like I was out for a night of wild partying last night. Woke up at 4am with a headache and have had fuzzy brain all day. Ugh. It's an 11% beer so that didn't help nor did my not having had any alcohol at all the past couple months. Be cautious with even small amounts of alcohol on low carb, it hits you like a ton of bricks. And it's not like I was feeling drunk last night or anything. It just made me tired. I'm sure most of you are better Buddhists than me in that regard
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
Had pork fillet in cream, mushroom and whisky sauce last night. Oh Goodness Me. How delish was that - ?!
I'm still finding it odd that lots of fat, a medium amount of protein and virtually no (deliberate) carbs are having such a marked effect...!
I'm trying to avoid the danger of Fasting/'dieting'... apparently it's a big "problem" with ladies on a LCHF 'regime'... they implement an IF, but then, when going back to eating normally, still keep a low intake, which is problematic in the long-run, I hear....
I'm on a forum discussing LCHF, and they're all really 'into it'... measuring all sorts of different components... electrolytes, Blood sugar, Keto-flu, down to the last infinitesimal grammes...and they've all got access to all manner of electronic gizmos to help them keep tabs on their systems.... Me? I just wanna be fit and lighter than I am....
@Tosh, currently, I have my daily intake calorie count set to 1,500 (Don't ask me why. It's just a figure I plucked out of the air. I have no idea what it 'should' be!) And my proportions are:
I regularly miss all targets - but not deliberately. I'm just not hungry enough to consume more! I'm of the personal feeling that forcing myself to hit targets is counter-productive.... I might lower my daily calorie intake, because I'm actually damned if I know how many I should be having.
Like you said - calories + information....
Carbs are a maximum; there's no problems being under the maximum. Fat is a minimum (you need a minimum amount to be healthy though there's no problems in going over that) and protein is a target (you need a certain amount to be healthy).
I only counted carbs and calories when I wanted to lose weight. You can find calorie calculators on the interweb. Some die-hards call this 'lazy keto', but it worked for me.
Now I'm in maintenance, I tend to just eat low carb foods, and eat when I'm hungry. I try to avoid processed foods too. I don't count, measure, or weigh anything.
The book that started me on this is called Primal Endurance and that's an advocate of 'listening to your body', so if you're hungry, eat, if you're not, don't. Not so easy to do in a family setting without giving it some thought.
However, sometimes, when I listen to my body, it's telling me "Eat chocolate, go on, you deserve it; you're such a good boy, you've been for a run, chocolate, chocolate, chocolate (etc)".
1
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited April 2017
Yep; so far today, I've had 1g of carb; 'limit' is 20g (yay me!!), 125g fat, and 32 of protein. My fat count is 25g over the limit (apparently!) but protein still has 99g to go...
I'm counting, because I'd like to lose weight, but so far, so good..... I shall probably fast until tomorrow evening, because we're invited round to Mother's for an Easter evening dinner.....
My mom, who hosts Easter dinner, decided to grill steaks with cauliflower mashed potatoes. Sweet! I'm still not sure what we will do about vacation. Half my motivation to go to Hawaii at all is to gorge on fresh fruit from the fruit stands, lol. I have the hardest time not eating much for fruit, that is the hardest for me. I could potentially live on fruit and be completely happy. I stick mostly to berries for their low carb and high fiber content, but man, this morning I had one ring of pineapple in my cottage cheese and it was a 15g carb meal! Good thing we are smoking ribs for dinner.
My husband has been lifting weights 3 times a week. I admit I continue to be jealous at the ease most men (including him) have at putting on muscle from basic 30 min weight routines. I have to do months of 45+ mins of weights to even make a visible difference. My husband's arms have increased by 1.5 inches in the past 6 weeks, all muscle. Hating on men right now I don't want to bulk up or anything, but it would be nice to be able to increase muscle that drastically, that fast.
It's actually quite fascinating the different pathways by which our food is digested, used and stored. Also complicating matters is they still do not fully understand why someone eating a diet high in nuts won't gain weight despite the large calorie and fat content but someone eating a lot of sugar substitutes and diet sodas will gain weight, despite eating fewer calories. (if you read enough you can parse out the information but it gets pretty complex,and varies by person). The body is vastly more complicated than the calories in-calories out model. If it was that simple people would be so vastly over weight. Some of that comes in people who eat 10,000 calories a day and don't leave the house for 5 years But most of them are people who are throwing up their hands as they do everything they know to lose weight and it still doesn't work, especially including counting calories.
RE: the italicized--some sugar substitutes (as in diet sodas and low-carb protein bars) provoke an insulin response, so even though they're 0 carb, 0 calories, they cause fat retention and weight gain. This illustrates perfectly that losing weight (and keeping it off) is about minimizing the insulin response, not counting calories.
@karasti said:
My husband has been lifting weights 3 times a week. I admit I continue to be jealous at the ease most men (including him) have at putting on muscle from basic 30 min weight routines. I have to do months of 45+ mins of weights to even make a visible difference. My husband's arms have increased by 1.5 inches in the past 6 weeks, all muscle. Hating on men right now I don't want to bulk up or anything, but it would be nice to be able to increase muscle that drastically, that fast.
Are you sure about the italicized? You won't see the same type of "visible difference" as the results men get, because you don't have as much T in your system as men do. You're comparing yourself to a different specie in that regard. When I did a low-carb diet and worked out 3 x/week, after just a few weeks, people started commenting about how my upper arms were showing some contour, suddenly. Women trim up from building lean muscle mass; they don't bulk up. They are not men. Most women don't want to bulk up. Those that do take supplements of some kind to achieve that, usually; meaning: female bodybuilders.
If you're an apple, you shouldn't be comparing yourself to an orange, and generating frustration about not becoming more orange-like.
Insulin response is the major factor for most people who are overweight, indeed.
As for the weights, @Dakini that was my experience. I did heavy lifting for many months and didn't see near the improvement in that time that my husband has with minimal effort. Yes, I know how men and women are different. I'd rather be more like a man in that respect because I would love to have good definition in my shoulders and upper back but the work it would take to accomplish that is not something my body can withstand, nor do I have the motivation to do so. It does not increase my motivation when men (though I completely understand how and why it happens) can do it so easily. So I just gave up on that pursuit. I actually get more definition from doing yoga an hour a day than I ever got from 1 hour of weight lifting several times a week. This was years past though, honestly I am just about maintaining my health and mobility in my body. I want to be able to do the things I love well down the road. I don't want a frail body holding me back, so my motivations have changed. That doesn't mean I don't enjoy poking my husband for how unfair it is that he can put in such minimal effort (in his words) over just 2 months and lost 35 pounds and put on noticeable muscle gain.
I don't know how old you are, @karasti, but it sounds from your comments like you're on the other side, age-wise, of what I call The Great Hormonal Divide. I don't know if you're doing any hormone replacement at all, but if you are, you could consider adding one of the HGH-stimulant creams they have now, to facilitate lean muscle-mass-building. It would help your sleep, too, if you have any issues there.
I realize it may not be THAT big a deal for you, that you'd want to take such a step. Just throwing the info out there.
I'm 41, haven't broached pre-menopause just yet, lol. My sleep has been fine. It's not important enough to me to take prescriptions. I mostly avoid them like the plague and haven't taken prescribed meds for anything since I went off birth control 10 years ago. But it was an issue even when I was in my 20s. I simply do not easily put on lean muscle for whatever reason. Even when I had knee surgery and had to rebuild muscle in my quad that I lost due to no weight bearing restrictions, my PT comments how much work it was taking to regain mass I lost in the one leg. It took 18 months to get it back after being non weight bearing for 6 weeks.
Edited: I do lack patience. If I don't see visible results I am unlikely to continue something for months on end. Also, I do not have a problem with strength. I do gain strength quite easily, and for a woman am quite strong thanks to spending a lot of time chopping wood and such, lol. But it does not translate into visible muscle as much as other people. Right now, I have weight to lose so there is that, obviously low body fat is what makes muscles '"visible" but like I said it was an issue when I was young and thin, too. I do not particularly like weight lifting (outside of functional activities like chopping and stacking wood) so I find it discouraging to continue doing something I don't enjoy when I don't see the results I expect after 12+ months. But, it doesn't matter enough to me to do more than I already have. I'll just stick with yoga as a focus on anything else leaves me unbalanced and usually injured, lol.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
I would never in a million years touch HRT with a bargepole.
Any of it.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited April 2017
Well I discovered something interesting today...
Nuts are not what they seem. Nor are they otherwise.....
It seems that the majority of packaging detailing the nutritional content of nuts - is really completely misleading...
"Results: One 28-g serving of walnuts contained 146 kcal (5.22 kcal/g), 39 kcal/serving less than the calculated value of 185 kcal/serving (6.61 kcal/g). The ME of the walnuts was 21% less than that predicted by the Atwater factors (P < 0.0001).
Conclusion: Consistent with other tree nuts, Atwater factors overestimate the metabolizable energy value of walnuts. These results could help explain the observations that consumers of nuts do not gain excessive weight and could improve the accuracy of food labeling. "
"When an 84-g serving of almonds was incorporated into the diet daily, the energy digestibility of the diet as a whole decreased by ∼5%. Therefore, for individuals with energy intakes between 2000 and 3000 kcal/d, incorporation of 84 g almonds into the diet daily in exchange for highly digestible foods would result in a reduction of available energy of 100–150 kcal/d. With a weight-reduction diet, this deficit could result in more than a pound of weight loss per month. Nuts and peanuts, being relatively energy dense and high-fat foods, may be expected to contribute to weight gain. However, both epidemiologic studies and intervention studies have suggested otherwise (17–24). These studies show that despite incorporation of nuts into the diet, there were no increases in body weight or fatness. Furthermore, Wien et al (25) observed additional weight loss when almonds were incorporated into a weight-loss diet in place of carbohydrate-rich foods"
"In conclusion, pistachio nuts contain less ME than that
calculated from the Atwater general factors. Consumers rely
on accurate food labels for making informed dietary choices.
Accurate information about ME content of foods is important
for reliable food labelling."
To name but three.... (remember that although peanuts are not strictly 'nuts' it's possible the same discrepancy applies to those, too....)
@karasti said:
My husband has been lifting weights 3 times a week. I admit I continue to be jealous at the ease most men (including him) have at putting on muscle from basic 30 min weight routines. I have to do months of 45+ mins of weights to even make a visible difference. My husband's arms have increased by 1.5 inches in the past 6 weeks, all muscle. Hating on men right now I don't want to bulk up or anything, but it would be nice to be able to increase muscle that drastically, that fast.
What kind of lifting are you doing, Karasti? As in reps and sets and kind of exercises?
I see a lot of guys basically wasting their time in the gym; I don't think it's because they're lazy, they just don't know. They're doing things like single arm rows or single arm bicep curls, and missing their legs. It's not effective.
Heavy compound lifting builds muscle, and working the legs with squats is really important because it creates a hormonal change which encourages muscle building all-over (not just in the legs).
You will build muscle, but tailor it to your capabilities. When Mrs Tosh did it and she increased the weight not by 5 lb per session, but by 2.5 lbs (two small skinny discs) per week.
@Tosh. Its hard to imagine training without the squat. It does the whole body good. Recently I've started using hand grippers. A very different experience. I use grippers made in the US because they are standardized. Years ago my gurus were Bob Hoffman and Perry Rader. Still inspirational. @karasti. Do you do pull-ups both regular and reversed? That might help with the definition.
@grackle said: @Tosh. Its hard to imagine training without the squat.
I've had to drop working legs because it kills my running, which is my main focus now. I'm trying to train for an ultra marathon in November, but have races along the year to help with the training.
I've tried working the legs using heavy weights and low volume, but it still wrecks them for running; I can't find a way around it. Mrs Tosh can, mind, but she's not a normal human being.
So until I've done the ultra, and I have an off-period of running, working the legs is off the table.
I injured both nerves in my elbow doing pullups a few years ago and didn't go back. Not sure why all of a sudden, but I couldn't lift gallons of milk for many weeks after. I do strength training twice a week just for general health, but not with an attempt to gain muscle at this point. I do squats (regular and sumo) and lunges along with bear crawls, pushups, planks. I have some smaller focused stuff I do as I work through PT from a running injury that is now chronic and months old (pain in my arse, literally) so I have hip adduction and abduction exercises I do along with monster steps (side steps with resistance bands) and hip extensions and a decent core workout that goes along with that. I do yoga an hour a day (different types of yoga, 4 days of more power yoga and 3 days of yin/flexibility focused).I work in a lot of functional movement through the day though, which is hard to say because it just depends on the day. I walk every day (usually 5+ miles, can't run right now). I hike, I bike, I swim, I do monkey bars and stuff like that at the park when my son is playing, I rollerblade and skateboard etc. I stay overall pretty active.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
I try planking. God it's a killer after a minute... but am working my way up slowly.... I also do Chi Gung, of course....
It amazes me that people can hold planks for so long! It's fun to see progress and be able to hold them longer. They are definitely not my favorite. But both core and glute strength have contributed to my SI joint/sciatica issue, so I do them anyways.
@Tosh. I was wondering if you had considered body weight squats until you are ready to eventually resume your regular squats. For me even these simple squats help with stamina and agility. I like to feel grounded and to maintain those neural pathways as much as I can. What do you think?
@grackle said: @Tosh. I was wondering if you had considered body weight squats until you are ready to eventually resume your regular squats. For me even these simple squats help with stamina and agility. I like to feel grounded and to maintain those neural pathways as much as I can. What do you think?
I think I naturally assumed body weight squats are just too easy, but now you mention it, I think that's a great idea.
It would - if anything - help maintain flexibility and strengthen muscles not pushed by running.
@karasti said:
It amazes me that people can hold planks for so long! It's fun to see progress and be able to hold them longer. They are definitely not my favorite. But both core and glute strength have contributed to my SI joint/sciatica issue, so I do them anyways.
I do a lot of core work in the gym and can plank easily. My mind gives out before my body; when you plank, you're just there, with yourself; not moving; no distractions.
Our ability to squat is actually quite important to our health, from the pelvic floor in women to flexibility and strength. Most cultures keep that ability, but those of us who think furniture is the answer to being superior over savages (which is really all what furniture has been about, lol) end up quite unhealthy. There was a study a few years ago that linked risk of death to your ability to get up off the floor (as an overall measure of body agility and strength). I spend most of my seated time on the floor these days, so I am doing body weight squats all day. It really does make a big difference.
Pretty happy that I lost weight last week, I wasn't sure how I would do after dinner yesterday. I didn't eat a lot of carbs but more than I normally do (around 75g) because I couldn't pass up wild rice hot dish, lol.
@karasti said:
Our ability to squat is actually quite important to our health, from the pelvic floor in women to flexibility and strength. Most cultures keep that ability, but those of us who think furniture is the answer to being superior over savages
I think the way we 'go No 2' on a modern toilet doesn't help either.
A correct squatting position is the 'no 2 position' if you're doing one outside in the wilderness.
And funnily enough some folk think the correct position to do a No 2 is in the squatting position and you can buy a stool to put your feet on to get you into that position on a toilet:
lol I've seen those stools! The same position greatly aids in birthing children. Our toilet is high off the ground and despite being a tallish female (I'm 5'10"/178cm) I can swing my feet on it! It's interesting how much of modern convenience items actually contribute to the decline of our health in so many ways. The more we try to make things form fit to our bodies, the worse off our bodies become (like lumbar supporting chairs and so on). The more comfortable something is, the worse off it usually is for us. They take all the load off our bodies, and those stress loads are what our bodies are supposed to be responding to to stay strong. The stress loads keep us shifting position frequently which is also important for the same reason.
1
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
@Tosh. Thanks for letting me know you are going to try the body weight squats. As time passes please let me know how effective they are. I also enjoy shadow boxing with dumbells. At present am using a pair of 8 pounders. Start out slowly to get loose then explode. Create your own form. Its make you feel great.
1
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
Am down to 8st 11... it's been very hit-and-miss, slow, somewhat fluctuating and downright frustrating for a while... but I think I've finally got some balance in the bag....
Comments
Yes, we have to do the math ourselves to get net carbs while it looks like they give you net carbs versus total carbs. It's funny, the more they try to make labels "user friendly" the more they complicate matters!
I'm beginning to wonder whether a certain amount of 'ignorance' might not be 'bliss'....!
On the face of it, this seems to fly against everything we've been discussing...
However, this pertinent point needs analysis:
No shit Sherlock....
Notice, particularly, what the carbs are made up of: non-processed, fibre-rich. Hmm.....
I think there is a lot of "ignorance is bliss" stuff going on, too. And a complete lack of effort on many people's part. The ability to have foods from all over the planet available at every grocery store comes with a responsibility on our part and a lot of people don't want to accept that responsibility. Which of course is part of a larger problem but is immediately visible with regards to our lifestyles. It certainly was part of my problem and is something I keep working on. It's easy to fall into the idea of something having happened to you rather than accepting that you caused it. Our bodies are almost entirely (leaving room for the uncommon actual genetic disorders) the result of what we do with them and what we put into them. The only way to change that is to accept that, but most people seem to prefer thinking it just happened and how unfair it is. Of course if you don't understand anything about nutrition, then you don't know what happened and the number of people who truly don't know is pretty high. Another one of those things I think we should be teaching in school along with finances and so on, yet we fail miserably while instead trying to find a way to be as good at math as Japanese students are.
Yes, it's hard to believe that those involved in Education do not, or cannot see, that fundamental changes in the mind-sets of the young, need to be tackled at the 'grass roots' level.
We have no idea what career prospects the young will have in future. One thing is certain: The more technology takes centre stage, the more sedentary people are becoming.
It's sitting down - and nothing more - that makes for fat asses.
When they list the carbs, they don't factor in the fiber content. That's for you to do. Usually these diets say to subtract the amt. of fiber from the total carbs.
In your 2nd example, the remaining 8.6 carbs are basic starch in the food. Not all of it is fibrous. For example, bread or pasta: X carbs, 1--fiber. The rest is wheat starch.
Sorry @Dakini but I'm way past this issue now, because I've established that in the UK, carb counting is different; the fibre has already been taken into account and listed separately. so I don't actually get to deduct anything here; carbs are carbs, excluding the fibre; however the sugar content is listed immediately after the carb content, here, so what I need do, is actually deduct the sugar value to calculate the net carb/starch quantity.....
Yeah, I'm cool with that. I haven't touched bread, pasta, rice or potatoes for nearly 5 weeks now. I am so over that stuff!
We made cloud bread to have with burgers tonight. That was...interesting. LOL. They are actually really good, they'd be ideal for a dessert type of items. Not for every day, but for a day when you don't wanna eat a burger with a fork, they do the job. "bread" made with cream cheese, eggs, a little stevia (if desired) and cream of tarter. They reminded me of mini versions of oven pancakes.
Cloud bread sounds good. I saw some pictures of the finished product online so I'll probably make some. Just for the experience. I'm not on any special diet. But with bread I like the dense breads with a pungent and strong yogurt made from goats milk.
My H says they taste like Yorkshire pudding, and he's right....
I prefer 90-second bread: I add chia seeds and it's both nutritious and very filling....
I think I posted a link.... Hang on, I'll find it....
ETA: here it is. I made two equal batches, put them into individual plastic takeaway containers, (this is what they look like, here) and nuked them each for 90 seconds. Didn't bother skillet-browning or toasting, I love em 'au naturel'....!
@grackle cloud bread is extremely light and fluffy/spongy. It would make a good replacement for pastry really, with some cinnamon or a small amount of caramel on top. We did use the stevia and they were quite sweet for a bread. They worked for buns, which is what we wanted. they are also a good option for our diabetic son who loves PB&J.
@federica Thanks for the link! We are enjoying trying all sorts of new things. Chia is one thing I want to love but have a really hard time with. I put them in my smoothies but the texture of them when they gel up is completely un-doable for me, lol. I'll have to give it a try in bread and see how it works out.
There's no change to their texture in the bread, providing you make it immediately; obviously, if you leave them in a liquid base, the inevitable happens.
I'm like you, the texture isn't appealing, so just brush your teeth soon afterwards.... those pesky little seeds have a habit of finding the nooks & crannies in your teeth!
I also add the bicarb of Soda right at the last moment; I find it can make the mix fluff up, which, if nuked immediately, makes for a sponge-cake consistency. Very nice with sour cream and smoked salmon!
Had home-made Chawanmushi this evening - 137 calories per pot - hubby LOVED it!
he followed with 2 cod fillets (cooked in butter and oil) HFLC cheese parsley sauce, cauli rice and a small portion of marrowfat peas. Goodness, he ate well tonight, and really enjoyed his meal!
I fasted this evening....
In my opinion obesity is basically a result of eating too much and exercising too little.
More walking, less Neapolitan!
I was overweight, yet lifting 3 or 4 times a week and running 30 to 40 miles a week. No amount of exercise seemed to move that spare tire I carried with me.
And the thing about exercise is that it made me hungry, and I'd eat too much.
But when I did LCHF, my hunger cravings weren't nearly as bad; I wasn't needing to snack, and I just naturally gravitated to eating less.
20 lbs were lost - easily - in a few months.
@SpinyNorman except current science no longer supports that. For an average person, yes, it can be that simple. For someone who has met with metabolic issues that is not the case as their body no longer processes food normally. Not that I'm an example to put up there for the whole world, lol, but I've seen it for many years in my own tracking. Over 6 weeks of the exact same calorie content and more exercise, I gained 7 pounds. Over the past 6 weeks with the same calorie content and less exercise (injury) I have lost 15. So no, it's not as simple as counting calories. If that was the case I would have lost weight on the other plan, too. But I gained. My experience is not abnormal for someone who has metabolic issues and no longer processes carbs correctly. Even the most healthy carbs, as in January (when I gained the weight) I was eating an almost entirely vegan diet full of veggies and legumes. It was the healthiest I ever ate by any standard. But it did not work for my body.
It's actually quite fascinating the different pathways by which our food is digested, used and stored. Also complicating matters is they still do not fully understand why someone eating a diet high in nuts won't gain weight despite the large calorie and fat content but someone eating a lot of sugar substitutes and diet sodas will gain weight, despite eating fewer calories. (if you read enough you can parse out the information but it gets pretty complex,and varies by person). The body is vastly more complicated than the calories in-calories out model. If it was that simple people would be so vastly over weight. Some of that comes in people who eat 10,000 calories a day and don't leave the house for 5 years But most of them are people who are throwing up their hands as they do everything they know to lose weight and it still doesn't work, especially including counting calories.
Study after study after study shows that people on low carb diets lose more weight and improve their health markers (triglycerides, cholesterol etc) more so than people on only calorie restricted diets. Not all calories are created equal, by far. And no matter how healthy a food is, not everyone's bodies respond the same to them. Also, even for those that have good luck just on calorie deficit, it's very hard to sustain long term because you have to keep increasing the deficit as your body adjusts to the calories you are eating, and your exercise. So what lost weight for you at 1800 calories and 30 mins of exercise will not continue to sustain weight loss 6 months later.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/19/health/19brody.html
Older, but a good study with 120,000 people done by Harvard. One of the conclusions:
“What you eat makes quite a difference. Just counting calories won’t matter much unless you look at the kinds of calories you’re eating.”
Yes, spot on; a calorie isn't just a calorie, it's a calorie + information.
Depending on what that calorie comes from (a fat, protein or carb), our body will process it in different ways. With a carb calorie it will spike out insulin if we have enough of them, and insulin is the fat storage hormone.
I know you know this, this is just for anyone who doesn't.
I like how you put that, @Tosh. I will have to remember that about calories also being information. So true.
@karasti. I noticed some new labeling on food products today. The calories per serving are now in bold type. Very hard to miss. The rest of the info is hard to read. I think a great many older folks would need a magnifying glass.
@grackle The law changed last year and has been slowly rolling out. They are also required now to put the nutrition information for a serving AND the whole package when it's something reasonably expected to be an individual serving, like a bottle of coke or a snack bag of chips etc. Though I still think the serving size for ice cream needs major adjusting, lol.
@karasti, labelling in the UK usually states the calories per content, and 100g, or per 100g and serving size. Allergens (either deliberately or possibly included) are listed in bold. (what I mean by that is, for example, that a product may contain traces of nuts if it is manufactured in a location where nuts are used in other products. If someone is allergic to nuts, it's safest to avoid the product, even if no nuts are included as a main deliberate ingredient.)
It may be this way in the USA too, I'm just clarifying UK labelling....
Yes allergens have to be listed in bold here, too, including things like gummi worms that are made in candy factories that also deal in nuts. Our serving sizes are usually done by ounces, or grams (less common) but serving sizes are ridiculous for many things. Like half of a coke. Or half a cup of ice cream. Or 1/4 of an ice cream treat. No one eats that way, lol. It was just a way for them to try to make their product look better, and for many to get around the trans fat law, as products can contain it in very small amounts. so if the serving is small enough, they meet the requirements, even if they know the average person is going to eat 3 servings.
Those ice cream doses are straight out the window for Spiny!
I think they are OK provided you have a bit of lettuce afterwards, that is like a balanced diet or something. And Guinness.
I forget how much alcohol impacts me on a low carb diet. A couple of months ago, a friend bought me a whole case of my favorite beer (which is only released a few weeks a year and is quite expensive) AND he delivered it 250 miles to my house, in person. But, it is 22g of carbs per can so I have had a total of 2 of them. One of them I had last night as it was a low calorie and very low carb day for me. Holy smokes. I feel like I was out for a night of wild partying last night. Woke up at 4am with a headache and have had fuzzy brain all day. Ugh. It's an 11% beer so that didn't help nor did my not having had any alcohol at all the past couple months. Be cautious with even small amounts of alcohol on low carb, it hits you like a ton of bricks. And it's not like I was feeling drunk last night or anything. It just made me tired. I'm sure most of you are better Buddhists than me in that regard
Had pork fillet in cream, mushroom and whisky sauce last night. Oh Goodness Me. How delish was that - ?!
I'm still finding it odd that lots of fat, a medium amount of protein and virtually no (deliberate) carbs are having such a marked effect...!
I'm trying to avoid the danger of Fasting/'dieting'... apparently it's a big "problem" with ladies on a LCHF 'regime'... they implement an IF, but then, when going back to eating normally, still keep a low intake, which is problematic in the long-run, I hear....
I'm on a forum discussing LCHF, and they're all really 'into it'... measuring all sorts of different components... electrolytes, Blood sugar, Keto-flu, down to the last infinitesimal grammes...and they've all got access to all manner of electronic gizmos to help them keep tabs on their systems.... Me? I just wanna be fit and lighter than I am....
@Tosh, currently, I have my daily intake calorie count set to 1,500 (Don't ask me why. It's just a figure I plucked out of the air. I have no idea what it 'should' be!) And my proportions are:
Carbohydrates 19g - 5 %
Fat 100g - 60 %
Protein 131g - 35 %
I regularly miss all targets - but not deliberately. I'm just not hungry enough to consume more! I'm of the personal feeling that forcing myself to hit targets is counter-productive.... I might lower my daily calorie intake, because I'm actually damned if I know how many I should be having.
Like you said - calories + information....
Carbs are a maximum; there's no problems being under the maximum. Fat is a minimum (you need a minimum amount to be healthy though there's no problems in going over that) and protein is a target (you need a certain amount to be healthy).
I only counted carbs and calories when I wanted to lose weight. You can find calorie calculators on the interweb. Some die-hards call this 'lazy keto', but it worked for me.
Now I'm in maintenance, I tend to just eat low carb foods, and eat when I'm hungry. I try to avoid processed foods too. I don't count, measure, or weigh anything.
The book that started me on this is called Primal Endurance and that's an advocate of 'listening to your body', so if you're hungry, eat, if you're not, don't. Not so easy to do in a family setting without giving it some thought.
However, sometimes, when I listen to my body, it's telling me "Eat chocolate, go on, you deserve it; you're such a good boy, you've been for a run, chocolate, chocolate, chocolate (etc)".
Yep; so far today, I've had 1g of carb; 'limit' is 20g (yay me!!), 125g fat, and 32 of protein. My fat count is 25g over the limit (apparently!) but protein still has 99g to go...
I'm counting, because I'd like to lose weight, but so far, so good..... I shall probably fast until tomorrow evening, because we're invited round to Mother's for an Easter evening dinner.....
My mom, who hosts Easter dinner, decided to grill steaks with cauliflower mashed potatoes. Sweet! I'm still not sure what we will do about vacation. Half my motivation to go to Hawaii at all is to gorge on fresh fruit from the fruit stands, lol. I have the hardest time not eating much for fruit, that is the hardest for me. I could potentially live on fruit and be completely happy. I stick mostly to berries for their low carb and high fiber content, but man, this morning I had one ring of pineapple in my cottage cheese and it was a 15g carb meal! Good thing we are smoking ribs for dinner.
My husband has been lifting weights 3 times a week. I admit I continue to be jealous at the ease most men (including him) have at putting on muscle from basic 30 min weight routines. I have to do months of 45+ mins of weights to even make a visible difference. My husband's arms have increased by 1.5 inches in the past 6 weeks, all muscle. Hating on men right now
I don't want to bulk up or anything, but it would be nice to be able to increase muscle that drastically, that fast.
RE: the italicized--some sugar substitutes (as in diet sodas and low-carb protein bars) provoke an insulin response, so even though they're 0 carb, 0 calories, they cause fat retention and weight gain. This illustrates perfectly that losing weight (and keeping it off) is about minimizing the insulin response, not counting calories.
Are you sure about the italicized? You won't see the same type of "visible difference" as the results men get, because you don't have as much T in your system as men do. You're comparing yourself to a different specie in that regard. When I did a low-carb diet and worked out 3 x/week, after just a few weeks, people started commenting about how my upper arms were showing some contour, suddenly. Women trim up from building lean muscle mass; they don't bulk up. They are not men. Most women don't want to bulk up. Those that do take supplements of some kind to achieve that, usually; meaning: female bodybuilders.
If you're an apple, you shouldn't be comparing yourself to an orange, and generating frustration about not becoming more orange-like.
Insulin response is the major factor for most people who are overweight, indeed.
As for the weights, @Dakini that was my experience. I did heavy lifting for many months and didn't see near the improvement in that time that my husband has with minimal effort. Yes, I know how men and women are different. I'd rather be more like a man in that respect because I would love to have good definition in my shoulders and upper back but the work it would take to accomplish that is not something my body can withstand, nor do I have the motivation to do so. It does not increase my motivation when men (though I completely understand how and why it happens) can do it so easily. So I just gave up on that pursuit. I actually get more definition from doing yoga an hour a day than I ever got from 1 hour of weight lifting several times a week. This was years past though, honestly I am just about maintaining my health and mobility in my body. I want to be able to do the things I love well down the road. I don't want a frail body holding me back, so my motivations have changed. That doesn't mean I don't enjoy poking my husband for how unfair it is that he can put in such minimal effort (in his words) over just 2 months and lost 35 pounds and put on noticeable muscle gain.
I don't know how old you are, @karasti, but it sounds from your comments like you're on the other side, age-wise, of what I call The Great Hormonal Divide. I don't know if you're doing any hormone replacement at all, but if you are, you could consider adding one of the HGH-stimulant creams they have now, to facilitate lean muscle-mass-building. It would help your sleep, too, if you have any issues there.
I realize it may not be THAT big a deal for you, that you'd want to take such a step. Just throwing the info out there.
I'm 41, haven't broached pre-menopause just yet, lol. My sleep has been fine. It's not important enough to me to take prescriptions. I mostly avoid them like the plague and haven't taken prescribed meds for anything since I went off birth control 10 years ago. But it was an issue even when I was in my 20s. I simply do not easily put on lean muscle for whatever reason. Even when I had knee surgery and had to rebuild muscle in my quad that I lost due to no weight bearing restrictions, my PT comments how much work it was taking to regain mass I lost in the one leg. It took 18 months to get it back after being non weight bearing for 6 weeks.
Edited: I do lack patience. If I don't see visible results I am unlikely to continue something for months on end. Also, I do not have a problem with strength. I do gain strength quite easily, and for a woman am quite strong thanks to spending a lot of time chopping wood and such, lol. But it does not translate into visible muscle as much as other people. Right now, I have weight to lose so there is that, obviously low body fat is what makes muscles '"visible" but like I said it was an issue when I was young and thin, too. I do not particularly like weight lifting (outside of functional activities like chopping and stacking wood) so I find it discouraging to continue doing something I don't enjoy when I don't see the results I expect after 12+ months. But, it doesn't matter enough to me to do more than I already have. I'll just stick with yoga as a focus on anything else leaves me unbalanced and usually injured, lol.
I would never in a million years touch HRT with a bargepole.
Any of it.
Well I discovered something interesting today...
Nuts are not what they seem. Nor are they otherwise.....
It seems that the majority of packaging detailing the nutritional content of nuts - is really completely misleading...
Walnuts....
"Results: One 28-g serving of walnuts contained 146 kcal (5.22 kcal/g), 39 kcal/serving less than the calculated value of 185 kcal/serving (6.61 kcal/g). The ME of the walnuts was 21% less than that predicted by the Atwater factors (P < 0.0001).
Conclusion: Consistent with other tree nuts, Atwater factors overestimate the metabolizable energy value of walnuts. These results could help explain the observations that consumers of nuts do not gain excessive weight and could improve the accuracy of food labeling. "
Almonds...
"When an 84-g serving of almonds was incorporated into the diet daily, the energy digestibility of the diet as a whole decreased by ∼5%. Therefore, for individuals with energy intakes between 2000 and 3000 kcal/d, incorporation of 84 g almonds into the diet daily in exchange for highly digestible foods would result in a reduction of available energy of 100–150 kcal/d. With a weight-reduction diet, this deficit could result in more than a pound of weight loss per month. Nuts and peanuts, being relatively energy dense and high-fat foods, may be expected to contribute to weight gain. However, both epidemiologic studies and intervention studies have suggested otherwise (17–24). These studies show that despite incorporation of nuts into the diet, there were no increases in body weight or fatness. Furthermore, Wien et al (25) observed additional weight loss when almonds were incorporated into a weight-loss diet in place of carbohydrate-rich foods"
... and Pistachios...
"In conclusion, pistachio nuts contain less ME than that
calculated from the Atwater general factors. Consumers rely
on accurate food labels for making informed dietary choices.
Accurate information about ME content of foods is important
for reliable food labelling."
To name but three.... (remember that although peanuts are not strictly 'nuts' it's possible the same discrepancy applies to those, too....)
What kind of lifting are you doing, Karasti? As in reps and sets and kind of exercises?
I see a lot of guys basically wasting their time in the gym; I don't think it's because they're lazy, they just don't know. They're doing things like single arm rows or single arm bicep curls, and missing their legs. It's not effective.
Heavy compound lifting builds muscle, and working the legs with squats is really important because it creates a hormonal change which encourages muscle building all-over (not just in the legs).
If you're a masochist, try the 20 Squat program:
https://www.jackedfactory.com/20-rep-squat-program/
You will build muscle, but tailor it to your capabilities. When Mrs Tosh did it and she increased the weight not by 5 lb per session, but by 2.5 lbs (two small skinny discs) per week.
It changed her body.
@Tosh. Its hard to imagine training without the squat. It does the whole body good. Recently I've started using hand grippers. A very different experience. I use grippers made in the US because they are standardized. Years ago my gurus were Bob Hoffman and Perry Rader. Still inspirational. @karasti. Do you do pull-ups both regular and reversed? That might help with the definition.
I've had to drop working legs because it kills my running, which is my main focus now. I'm trying to train for an ultra marathon in November, but have races along the year to help with the training.
I've tried working the legs using heavy weights and low volume, but it still wrecks them for running; I can't find a way around it. Mrs Tosh can, mind, but she's not a normal human being.
So until I've done the ultra, and I have an off-period of running, working the legs is off the table.
Unless you or anyone has any suggestions?
I injured both nerves in my elbow doing pullups a few years ago and didn't go back. Not sure why all of a sudden, but I couldn't lift gallons of milk for many weeks after. I do strength training twice a week just for general health, but not with an attempt to gain muscle at this point. I do squats (regular and sumo) and lunges along with bear crawls, pushups, planks. I have some smaller focused stuff I do as I work through PT from a running injury that is now chronic and months old (pain in my arse, literally) so I have hip adduction and abduction exercises I do along with monster steps (side steps with resistance bands) and hip extensions and a decent core workout that goes along with that. I do yoga an hour a day (different types of yoga, 4 days of more power yoga and 3 days of yin/flexibility focused).I work in a lot of functional movement through the day though, which is hard to say because it just depends on the day. I walk every day (usually 5+ miles, can't run right now). I hike, I bike, I swim, I do monkey bars and stuff like that at the park when my son is playing, I rollerblade and skateboard etc. I stay overall pretty active.
I try planking. God it's a killer after a minute... but am working my way up slowly.... I also do Chi Gung, of course....
It amazes me that people can hold planks for so long! It's fun to see progress and be able to hold them longer. They are definitely not my favorite. But both core and glute strength have contributed to my SI joint/sciatica issue, so I do them anyways.
@Tosh. I was wondering if you had considered body weight squats until you are ready to eventually resume your regular squats. For me even these simple squats help with stamina and agility. I like to feel grounded and to maintain those neural pathways as much as I can. What do you think?
I think I naturally assumed body weight squats are just too easy, but now you mention it, I think that's a great idea.
It would - if anything - help maintain flexibility and strengthen muscles not pushed by running.
Thanks; I'll do that.
I do a lot of core work in the gym and can plank easily. My mind gives out before my body; when you plank, you're just there, with yourself; not moving; no distractions.
That's the difficult part for me.
Our ability to squat is actually quite important to our health, from the pelvic floor in women to flexibility and strength. Most cultures keep that ability, but those of us who think furniture is the answer to being superior over savages (which is really all what furniture has been about, lol) end up quite unhealthy. There was a study a few years ago that linked risk of death to your ability to get up off the floor (as an overall measure of body agility and strength). I spend most of my seated time on the floor these days, so I am doing body weight squats all day. It really does make a big difference.
Pretty happy that I lost weight last week, I wasn't sure how I would do after dinner yesterday. I didn't eat a lot of carbs but more than I normally do (around 75g) because I couldn't pass up wild rice hot dish, lol.
I think the way we 'go No 2' on a modern toilet doesn't help either.
A correct squatting position is the 'no 2 position' if you're doing one outside in the wilderness.
And funnily enough some folk think the correct position to do a No 2 is in the squatting position and you can buy a stool to put your feet on to get you into that position on a toilet:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-leaf/how-to-poop-properly-a-to_b_7849202.html
lol I've seen those stools! The same position greatly aids in birthing children. Our toilet is high off the ground and despite being a tallish female (I'm 5'10"/178cm) I can swing my feet on it! It's interesting how much of modern convenience items actually contribute to the decline of our health in so many ways. The more we try to make things form fit to our bodies, the worse off our bodies become (like lumbar supporting chairs and so on). The more comfortable something is, the worse off it usually is for us. They take all the load off our bodies, and those stress loads are what our bodies are supposed to be responding to to stay strong. The stress loads keep us shifting position frequently which is also important for the same reason.
@karasti, at your house I might need a ladder.
or scaffolding...
@Tosh. Thanks for letting me know you are going to try the body weight squats. As time passes please let me know how effective they are. I also enjoy shadow boxing with dumbells. At present am using a pair of 8 pounders. Start out slowly to get loose then explode. Create your own form. Its make you feel great.
Am down to 8st 11... it's been very hit-and-miss, slow, somewhat fluctuating and downright frustrating for a while... but I think I've finally got some balance in the bag....