Thread: Fatter than God
View Single Post
Old 10-10-2005, 07:37 PM   #13
marichiko
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fudge Armadillo
This statement is not entirely correct; your metabolism will slow down if you make a dramatic cut to your average caloric intake, but in order for this to happen, you need to reduce it to well below what you burn every day (an average person would burn around 1700 calories a day with no exercise). To slow your metabolism down a significant amount, you’d probably have to cut your caloric intake to ~1200 calories. If you cut it to 600, you can really slow it down, but it’s hard to get any reasonable nutrition at that level.
Folks will go on crash diets out of desperation and not worry about nutrition. This is very counter-productive. You yourself admit that low caloric intake will slow down the metabolism. That was my point, also.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Fudge Armadillo
Wine has far fewer calories that most other beverages. It is far better to drink wine than beer or soda (or even juices, if you are concentrating only on calories).

http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts-001-02s02yv.html
The body will burn the acetates which are a product of alcohol consumption in preference to burning stored fat. Thus the calories in a glass of wine or shot of vodka are far more lethal than the calories in a can of soda pop.

http://www.thefactsaboutfitness.com/...ch/alcohol.htm



Quote:
Originally Posted by Fudge Armadillo
Whole milk is fairly high in calories, but reduced fat (and skim, for that matter) milk really isn’t. A cup of 1% milkfat milk has about 100 calories. Dairy products are in general fairly high in fat (which is a better reason to avoid them than for caloric levels).
I didn't say avoid dairy products merely because of calories. I stated that cow's milk - from which dairy products are all derived - is a substance dedicated to the production of an animal which will one day weigh 800 pounds or more. Why eat dairy products if you want to be a slim 120 pounds?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Fudge Armadillo
Humans have likely not evolved their metabolisms at all over recorded history. People can subsist on rather bland and homogeneous diets quite well; the only survival advantage to eating high on the food chain is that you can get more caloric density. Humans do not need to eat meat, whole grains, or fruit to survive.
I did not state that humans have evolved their metabolisms over recorded history. Human history is a mere blink of the eye to Old Mother Evolution. Our metabolisms remain the same as they were when we were wandering around in the plains of Africa. Whole grains, fruit, and lean meat are not high on the food chain - OK, meat is, but fruit and grains are NOT. And, no, we don't need to eat these things to survive, but you were worried about nutrition in the first paragraph of your response, why are you forgetting it here?
  Reply With Quote