What is a "normal" eating and metabolism?

[Georgiana]

Oops! I think I didn't read your post correctly the first time.

When I wrote "super metabolism" in the post you quoted above, what I had in mind was not a synonym for "good metabolism" or "normal metabolism", but rather one for "extreme metabolism" (I'm not sure everyone understood it this way). Regarding a "normal" metabolism, if I ask grandma what I should eat to lose weight or just to be healthy, she will tell me to some guidelines similar to OWL Rung 3 of Atkins (plus OWL Rung 4 during summer and occasional upper rung foods, like fruits, starchy vegetables or grains). In fact, in my family, grandma was the easiest person to convince about how healthy and efficient Atkins is --- she just gave me a "d'oh" look. With my mom it was relatively easy --- she still doesn't like the fact that I am eating "a lot" (by her standards) of saturated fat, but has nothing against fat in general. But then, whenever I try to explain Atkins to friends my age, what I most often hear are the myths Dr. Atkins discussed in Chapter 9. In my opinion, those myths perfectly describe the way the low-fat, high-carb crowd thinks about healthy eating. But those myths, at least in Romania (which is decades behind the US or Germany, not only economically), you rarely see among people who are about the age of my parents or older (40+). Looking just at this example, I believe somehow, along the way, something happened that changed the way people think about food.

What exactly, I have no idea. I think the question is not why we, in general, believe a normal metabolism should be able to handle a lot of carby/sugary foods, but why we are recommended to give our bodies a bunch of carbs and told that a high-carb diet is THE healthy (or at least healthier) way to eat. Because most people will simply eat what they are told is healthy, either by some health organizations or by friends (who heard the "facts" from a friend's friend's friend) or by the media. As you said, there was the whole "fat will kill you" scare at one point, and to substitute the missing fat, carbohydrate was added (a lot of it, to compensate for the caloric difference). And before the Low Carb Team had time to react, the Sugar Team was already out of the blocks, sprinting to "educate" the public. I think much of the high carb craze that is going on these days is driven by the inertia (and money?) the Sugar Team gained in that first moment rather than by evidence supporting high carb in favor of low carb.

[not2late]

I understood what you meant by "supermetabolism". But is having one really "normal"?

If the ability to metabolize large amounts of carbohydrates is the "normal" metabolism, then why is there more obesity, diabetes type 2 and other similiar acquired diseases? A "normal" metabolism would be able to handle all that carb. But it seems the majority of people have a metabolism that can't handle it. So are they abnormal or are they really normal, but the dietary guidelines at fault?

[RitaCeleste]

Some people loose a lot of weight in induction and think Atkins is a super fast way to loose weight. I loose one to two pounds a week on it. But I loose on it. Not so much loosing going on counting fat grams, or living off low cal frozen dinners to control my portions. Once I tried loosing weight eating rice cakes. This convinced me I was abnormal because my calories could be insanely low and no weightloss. But I didn't get fat because I felt required by a food guide to eat extra cerial and fruits. I got fat eating stuff I knew was bad for me. I got fat eating too much food of all kinds. I have learned that eating too many carbs makes me a very hungery person. Eating low carb makes me less hungery. This may not be true for everyone. I eat the foods my family would call healthy on atkins. Mostly meat and veggie, with a good amount of dairy. I most of the foods I skip are ones they would never eat if they were trying to loose weight, anything with sugar and starch. Ofcourse my grandparents are all pushing 90 now and never really updated to unhealthy eating. Well, one watches the fat some and eats eggbeaters. But his wife cooks with butter and eggs. When I get to maintance, I may have a serving of oatmeal. I may have more fruit. But no one in my family looks at my diet meals as unhealthy! And they are living FOREVER so I tend to trust them.

[Georgiana]

Originally Posted by not2late

I understood what you meant by "supermetabolism". But is having one really "normal"?

If the ability to metabolize large amounts of carbohydrates is the "normal" metabolism, then why is there more obesity, diabetes type 2 and other similiar acquired diseases? A "normal" metabolism would be able to handle all that carb. But it seems the majority of people have a metabolism that can't handle it. So are they abnormal or are they really normal, but the dietary guidelines at fault?

Although it kind of contradicts the definition of "normal", I think we are all abnormal.

I agree with you that a normal metabolism is not one that is able to handle large amounts of carbohydrate, from all food groups. But even so, are the majority of people really following the dietary guidelines? From what I've seen in the US, they aren't. I am not saying the dietary guidelines are good (or else I would go by them), but I am not convinced current health problems, such as obesity and diabetes, can be blamed exclusively on "dietary guidelines".

[not2late]

Originally Posted by Georgiana

Although it kind of contradicts the definition of "normal", I think we are all abnormal.

I agree with you that a normal metabolism is not one that is able to handle large amounts of carbohydrate, from all food groups. But even so, are the majority of people really following the dietary guidelines? From what I've seen in the US, they aren't. I am not saying the dietary guidelines are good (or else I would go by them), but I am not convinced current health problems, such as obesity and diabetes, can be blamed exclusively on "dietary guidelines".

Unless you prepare your foods yourself, you're exposed to hidden sugars and starches, so you probably are eating well above the guideline amounts. (I was surprized to see starch added to "roasted nuts". I didn't see the point, but someone in marketing research did.)

However, the statistics show that most Americans eat the majority of the meals outside of the home. So you would think the experts would have taken that into consideration when these guidelines were developed: hollandaise sauce you make from real eggs, lemon juice and butter is alot different than hollandaise sauce you make by mixing a packet of powdered stuff with water.

And I agree with you that the dietary guidelines aren't solely to blame. I think lifestyle has alot to do with it too. In the US, being able to cook isn't something well-educated, career-driven people do. So there is an over-reliance on the pre-packaged meals on the go. (see this article for a more eloquent explanation: Reclaiming the Kitchen) So people, even when they try to make good food choices, make bad ones because they can't control the contents of their foods.

[Georgiana]

Originally Posted by not2late

Unless you prepare your foods yourself, you're exposed to hidden sugars and starches, so you probably are eating well above the guideline amounts. (I was surprized to see starch added to "roasted nuts". I didn't see the point, but someone in marketing research did.)

Regarding the guidelines, I believe many people also think like in your example with the cow & the corn. For example, yogurt is healthy (low fat, of course ), fruits are healthy... so fruit yogurts are not only yummy, but also healthy.

Originally Posted by not2late

And I agree with you that the dietary guidelines aren't solely to blame. I think lifestyle has alot to do with it too. In the US, being able to cook isn't something well-educated, career-driven people do.

So there is an over-reliance on the pre-packaged meals on the go. (see this article for a more eloquent explanation: Reclaiming the Kitchen) So people, even when they try to make good food choices, make bad ones because they can't control the contents of their foods.

I was discussing this with Jo not long ago. Do you think it is just a lack of time to blame or rather a lack of interest in cooking or the impression that cooking is not for the well-educated? In that article (which was awesome, btw; thanks of sharing the link), the author writes:

I belong to the generation of women who took as our youthful rallying cry: Allow us a good education so we won’t have to slave in the kitchen.

That is exactly how my mom thinks. It's not so bad since I started Atkins and keep talking about it (oops! ), but sometimes she still lets go to a, "If you let me stay at your place for a week [which I'm not very happy to do, obviously, since I live with two other students ], I can cook for you and then you can focus on your studies." As if studying and cooking would exclude each other, or as if cooking is an activity reserved for those who "have nothing better to do". And this comes from someone who is cooking almost any meal/snack and, I believe, loves cooking. If I had not been on this Board, I would have likely... "listened to mom"... and thought the same way.

So it makes me wonder if this is the impression children in general are being given at home --- that cooking is not necessary as long as you have better things to do --- and from here a whole vicious circle as these children grow up and have their own kids. Dietary guidelines, which I have a feeling many people believe can be summarized in, "avoid fat, carbs are okay", only support this kind of thinking, because following those guidelines doesn't require many cooked meals (Atkins does, imo, if one is to follow it correctly and stick to it).

[ziggy]

this is my opinion on things i think are metabolisms and bodys are basically all the same its just what we do to them over time that makes one look much better than the other

for example i used to look horrible if you ever saw me you would have thought i had horribley messed up genetics or something but now i look great and people would think i have perfect genetics

as for metabolisms again imo it depends what you do to them this video explains some stuff
YouTube - Why You Got Fat

your cells if you abuse them over time become insulin resistant thats why people say carbohydrate abuse is the cause of type 2 diabetes and for alot of people when there cells have become insulin resistant they cant combat the high toxic blood sugar spikes anymore and it must store it as fat before it reaches there kidneys


i believe we are ment to eat what God has given us for example you go into a forest and you hunt and gather and out of the 3 macro nutrients you bring back carbohydrates will be the lowest

the only time carbohydrates will be higher is 1-2 months out of the year when all the fruit and berries are ready so for 10-11 months you will not have that

also along time ago fruit had less sugar in it

fruit does not keep fresh for very long at all

and fruit in nature is hard to come by for a reason because its natures candy we were never ment to eat it year after year cause if we were it would be there for us year round like animals

[EmDee]

Originally Posted by Georgiana

I was discussing this with Jo not long ago. Do you think it is just a lack of time to blame or rather a lack of interest in cooking or the impression that cooking is not for the well-educated?

I am an attorney and a single mom of a teenager. I enjoy cooking and love the taste of freshly prepared, fresh food. But the shopping, preparation, and cook time can be a significant time drain when you work 60-70 hrs a week, and then add to that all the other chores/errands/chauffeuring about.

[not2late]

Originally Posted by Georgiana

Regarding the guidelines, I believe many people also think like in your example with the cow & the corn. For example, yogurt is healthy (low fat, of course ), fruits are healthy... so fruit yogurts are not only yummy, but also healthy.

Or the "drink your juice" campaigns I vaguely remember from my childhood---it was always drink your juice, not "eat an orange". Of course the campaign was paid for by the Florida citrus growers.

I was discussing this with Jo not long ago. Do you think it is just a lack of time to blame or rather a lack of interest in cooking or the impression that cooking is not for the well-educated?

Maybe well-educated isn't the best term. Perhaps "sophisticated", "stylish" and "modern" are better words. My office door is right next to the waiting room (lucky me.) So I get to hear whatever talk show is playing on the waiting room tv. Sometimes I hear women celebrities on those shows indignantly proclaim, "I don't cook!" as if knowing how to cook was akin to something like being a child molesterer. And okay, so you might be a super-rich celebrity who doesn't have to know where the kitchen is in their 300 room mansion and can eat at Michelin starred restaurants every day. But they tend to be the exception rather than the rule.

I have a cook book (like I don't own enough of them!) by Marion Cunningham called "Lost Recipes". It contains "lost recipes"---dishes that were popular several decades ago, and aren't popular anymore. She writes that cooking is associated with lower class or menial labor. Because cooks cook and maids serve the food, the lady (of gentleman) of the house doesn't do those things. So there is an adversion to do menial work.

That is exactly how my mom thinks. It's not so bad since I started Atkins and keep talking about it (oops! ), but sometimes she still lets go to a, "If you let me stay at your place for a week [which I'm not very happy to do, obviously, since I live with two other students ], I can cook for you and then you can focus on your studies." As if studying and cooking would exclude each other, or as if cooking is an activity reserved for those who "have nothing better to do". And this comes from someone who is cooking almost any meal/snack and, I believe, loves cooking. If I had not been on this Board, I would have likely... "listened to mom"... and thought the same way.

My mom thought the same way. But I think that's how mom's think.

So it makes me wonder if this is the impression children in general are being given at home --- that cooking is not necessary as long as you have better things to do --- and from here a whole vicious circle as these children grow up and have their own kids.

I think this generation of children have another thing working against them. I don't know how it is in Europe, but here in the US, if you walk down the baby aisle in the grocery store, you see the usual jars of strained/pureed baby food. But in the last several years, there are also "toddler food" choices---chicken nuggets, pizza-like things, etc. I remember when my younger sister was a toddler: she was eating the same stuff I was eating, which was the same food mom prepared for herself, dad and my elder sister. Only her food was cut into smaller pieces.

And I have young relatives who " have" to eat processed foods, like chicken nuggets, because they don't like real food. Every year at Thanksgiving, while the extended family is gobbling down turkey and all the trimmings, these children are eating their chicken nuggets or heat and eat pizza snacks, etc. Same thing during the summer at family picnics---they won't eat "real" food. Even the hamburgers---won't eat the ones cooked on the grill. So they bring their bag of McDonald's or Burger King.

I am an attorney and a single mom of a teenager. I enjoy cooking and love the taste of freshly prepared, fresh food. But the shopping, preparation, and cook time can be a significant time drain when you work 60-70 hrs a week, and then add to that all the other chores/errands/chauffeuring about.

I agree with you: it's not easy to shop, prepare and cook a meal when you work long hours. It takes alot of planning ahead and organization. But when you look at the bigger picture: in the long run, is saving time by eating less nutritious foods better than spending the time and eating nutritious foods?

[sallyseachange]

Megs... how very sad that cooking is seen as something menial in the USA. I think it will change though.

Here in Italy, cooking has always been seen as something creative and enjoyable... an activity everyone can get involved in. Men cook here, and cook very well (though they always like to have women clear up!!). If Italians have a dinner party, more often than not, half the cooking goes on when the guests are already present and everyone chats about the dos and don'ts of the various dishes.

In the UK, cooking was pretty much the realm of the housewife... now, it seems to me that it's picked up and become very fashionable.... for men too, which is good. If nothing else, we have Jamie Oliver to thank for making cookery an activity that men can indulge in with no shame!

Things are improving... despite the fact that you can now buy almost anything ready made at the supermarket!