Of course I remember Olestra! I was in dairy NPD at the time, developing Shape low cal yogurt. Fat replacements were absolutely front. sides and centre of my life at that time. We looked at it but there were regulatory difficulties in using it and still calling the product yogurt. That's before we started with the big problem of an oily substance that your body can't digest. If it's not being digested, where does it go? Oh dear. Ladies and gentlemen, may I introduce you to anal seepage?
Part of what happened to my friend who had stomach reduction. The medics don't look enough at what's happening in people's heads.
I refer you to my thoughts on herbs, spices and sauces. Broccoli or cauliflower are thought to be boring, usually because over cooked, but when al dente can be transformed by a light dusting of paprika or cayenne.
The GI of different foods can be surprising too. Chocolate has a medium GI as all the fat slows absorption. Mashed potato has a super-high GI. I love a big portion of buttery mash but as a T1 diabetic it sends my blood sugar through the roof : (
No you can't deny yourself the carbs once the weight has come off. And that's the next part of the "diet" which is portion control and eating the right foods which has already been mentioned. We don't want to live like jockeys. The biggest challenge is keeping the weight off once it's off.
Ironically, given the more homogeneous nature of processed foods the accuracy for such foods is probably higher. Personally, I have no reason to doubt the calorific figures on the side of food packaging. There have been some fairly high profile cases of innaccuracy historically, but those are almost certainly outliers.
I don't believe that's even relevant. To the best of my knowlege any study in to diets etc has always worked on the calorific values of the food consumed, not on the believed amount of calories the body actually absorbed.
Totally true, but you'll become very unhealthy in the not so long run
But the nuance that's totally lost in that change is the fact that by subsituting carbs with veg (which are carbs too btw - just far lower % than rice etc), meat etc you will have significantly lowered your calorific intake without realising it, and it's that, not the macronutrient change, that lead to the weight loss.
All true, but it must be rememembered that the body can also convert protein and fat to bodily fat stores. The mechansims are less efficient and non preferencial but they exist and do occur. The carbs=fat and protein doesn't is the biggest myth of modern dietary fads.
They are generally accurate. I do have a habit of reading the panel and sense checking the results, sometimes the arithmetic is wrong. Aldi are particularly bad at this IME.
Hmm, interesting. Obviously without the pack in question I couldn't check it. Do be aware however that naturally occurring sugars can be quite high, onions are about 7% iirc, tomatoes similar. Tom puree can be double conc so 15% sugar. Put a good glug of that in a dish, it does taste good and it thickens it up nicely, and you can very easily add a few grams of naturally occurring sugar before you have thrown in a little bit of corn starch to raise the viscosity a bit.
I'm not convinced that it is. I've done it. You have to concentrate and you have to execute constraint, but it doesn't have to be actually uncomfortable.
Well now, you're talking. This IS the hard bit.
It is. There have even been studies made where people have been put into an insulated box and food calories in compared with waste product calories out calculated. Lo and behold, the calories in and out all stack up. The calories extracted are close to what you would get from a bomb calorimeter. Yes, there are a few calories in undigested food that drop out as waste, and of course faecal material itself contains calories, albeit not in a form you would want to use, but the model as a whole works as well as it needs to. "Humans are not bomb calorimeters!" you may hear. No, they aren't, but they are close enough approximations to one.
I have no doubt that's the case, however my point was though that as far as I'm aware the majority of "diet" studies in to weight loss/control etc, have based the calorific intake of the subjects on the known properties of the food being eaten. Most such studies are fairly simple, they tell people to eat foods x, y, z in given portion sizes over a period of time and they track the weight changes and possibly body composition. Maybe all those studies were aware of the results of such studies as you mention, and that's why they didn't go to the effort (as it was unnecessary), but I have my doubts personally. I'd put my money on most of the people doing the studies just doing it the easy way, to keep things as simple and low cost as possible.
