I need to lose 5ish pounds in 3 weeks.......best way

[golfgal]

Harder to digest is a good thing, as far as many aspects of this issue are concerned: Fiber is harder to digest than sugar.

Nothing is cut-and-dried. The problem with hydrogenated oils is not that they're chemically-altered nor that they're harder to digest.

Since we've avoided sugar and trans-fatty acids we've gotten healthier and lost some weight. Any sugar or fat you avoid is good; but don't just stop at HFCS and hydrogenated oils. Again, without evidence there is no reason to believe that they're any worse for you than any other ingredient in the same class.

Keep in mind that those commercials are put out by the companies that MAKE the HFCS--very unbiased I am sure.

Harder to digest doesn't mean it is good-it means that your body doesn't process it well and then it SITS there or is converted to something that isn't used efficiently, like fat.

 

[bicker]

Harder to digest is a good thing? This is so not true!

Did you read my example? "Fiber is harder to digest than sugar." That's a good thing. With respect, I'm correct. I did a lot of research on this back in 2001, and worked with medical experts for three years who would have let me know if I was off track.

If you really disagree, please provide MEDLINE citations that support your assertion. Thanks.

 

[crz4mm2]

I would just buy a new dress

 

[bicker]

Keep in mind that those commercials are put out by the companies that MAKE the HFCS--very unbiased I am sure.

Absolutely, but they raised a good point, which I've not really thought much about until now. I've done an incredible amount of research, and while I've found loads that indicate, definitely, that simple sugars are bad, I don't recall anything that prove that one type of simple sugar is definitely substantially worse than others. They're all bad, and until enough researchers prove definitively something else, there really is no reason to attack HFCS any more than attacking sugar itself.

Harder to digest doesn't mean it is good-it means that your body doesn't process it well and then it SITS there or is converted to something that isn't used efficiently, like fat.

Okay, I'll be happy to read the research you have that proves that HFCS is converted to fat more than regular sugar. Please provide a MEDLINE citation.

I'm being a little facetious. The point is that many forces work to build mythologies around their perspectives, and that tends to deflect from truth, rather than crystallize it. The most likely reason why there is focus on HFCS is because its use has made sugared product less costly, and therefore people can afford to buy/eat more. The science behind HFCS as being worse, gram for gram, than sugar just isn't as definitive as it needs to be. Reasonable scientific researchers disagree, and so there is no truth to be had, regarding this issue. Hopefully, in time, scientists will gain more insights.

Sugar is bad. I think we all can agree with that.

 

[Rella Bella]

Cut out all soda and eat stuff that makes ya "go", Cut out salt too just makes ya hold in water... eat watermelon its a natual diuretic

NO salt. And watch sodium in soda, condiments and prepared foods, particularly soups! Drink lots of water.

 

[KilimanjaroSafaris]

Did you read my example? "Fiber is harder to digest than sugar." That's a good thing. With respect, I'm correct. I did a lot of research on this back in 2001, and worked with medical experts for three years who would have let me know if I was off track.

If you really disagree, please provide MEDLINE citations that support your assertion. Thanks.

I know for a fact you do not have a degree in Food Chemistry, I do.

 

[bicker]

Ooooookay, and so as a scientist, I'm sure you have those MEDLINE citation handy...

With respect, when having to choose between a food chemist and a physician who specializes in treating obesity, I'll stick with my doctors, thanks! And to be fair, my doctors simply point out that we don't know all that we want to know, and they work to focus us on what we do know.

 

[PrincessKitty1]

Again, without evidence there is no reason to believe that they're any worse for you than any other ingredient in the same class.

I would disagree with this way of looking at it, simply because research tends not to be done until anecdotal evidence lights the way.


For instance (speaking from my own experience, not food-related)--many, many health professionals had noted for many years that some populations (primarily the elderly or people who have pre-existing dementia) have a hard time recovering from general anesthesia. In fact some folks will take such a hard hit to their brains that they will never be the same after a routine operation and will require long-term care. Yet there was virtually no research on this until about 10-12 years ago, and very few people are informed about this issue. But anecdotal evidence caused scientists to start researching the issue.

I think it's very important to consider anecdotal evidence when deciding what to ingest, because research tends to follow behind, not lead the way.

 

[DawnCt1]

Since we've avoided sugar and trans-fatty acids we've gotten healthier and lost some weight. Any sugar or fat you avoid is good; but don't just stop at HFCS and hydrogenated oils. Again, without evidence there is no reason to believe that they're any worse for you than any other ingredient in the same class.

I agree; sugar is 4 calories per gram. Fat, in any shape or form is 9 calories per gram.

 

[acejka]

Go to yahoo and search special k.... do the special K diet you can drop up to one size in 2 weeks. Its not a terrible diet either. I find it easy, but I love cereal and milk!

weight watchers online flex plan is a good one too.


Good luck!

 

[pittypat]

Well, here's what I did and I lost 17 pounds this summer: no white stuff (white flour, white rice, pasta, or potatoes) no dairy and no sugar. I don't plan to be that rigid the rest of my life, but to jump start a weight loss program it did work. But I am sure am sick of lunchmeat!

 

[marshallandcartersmo]

What a great thread this has become!! I'm starting tomorrow, gotta finish off my last bottle of wine tonight . Can't have it sitting there looking at me for the next 3 weeks.
And I'm going to start back walking in the morning before I have to get the kids up for school. Which means at 6am.

 

[fraggle551]

Well, here's what I did and I lost 17 pounds this summer: no white stuff (white flour, white rice, pasta, or potatoes) no dairy and no sugar. I don't plan to be that rigid the rest of my life, but to jump start a weight loss program it did work. But I am sure am sick of lunchmeat!

can I just ask you...what was a typical day like for you? Meal wise I mean. If you wouldn't mind writing it out, I would greatly appreciate it!

 

[dimimi]

High protien, LOW carb. Eat very low carbs...like under 20 - 30. You'll drop the pounds easily...and I'd bet more than 5!

 

[FormrCastMbr]

Weight Watchers always worked for me. I usually lose 3 - 5 #s the first week. WW is basically calorie counting.

I would eat healthy (lots of vegetables and some fruit...not too much because of the sugar), exercise every day (at least 30 min) and drink lots of water. Another thing I have learned is do not eat anything after dinner.

 

[emer95]

Get a toothache! I lost 8 lbs in about a week because I was in agony if I ate anything.

 

[KilimanjaroSafaris]

I eat anything I want and I have lost 97 pounds in under 1 year. I eat higher protein and lower carbs, and I even eat chocolate chip cookies all the time!

 

[Kath2003]

I'm trying to lose the 5lb I gained by using my car all last year by cycling to work from now on. If nothing else, my legs need toning - I used to have beautifully thin legs

Soup is your friend!

 

[C.Ann]

I think it was Merv Griffin - who many years ago - lost quite a bit of weight quickly by eating nothing for dinner but steak and a salad.. (Don't know what he ate for breakfast or lunch..)

 

[bicker]

I would disagree with this way of looking at it, simply because research tends not to be done until anecdotal evidence lights the way.

However, as often as not, anecdotal evidence leads us to the diametrically incorrect conclusion. And in a case like this, where the message could be a muddled-by-controversy "HFCS is bad" or a clear-and-concise "sugar is bad", why settle for the the less definitive advocacy?