This is why juicing is bad, specially if you consume it too quickly. Smoothies are better but eating whole fruit and vegetables is the best.
The difference is the chewing effort and the time taken.
Eating more than two apples makes me tired even thinking about it. I never eat more than one at a time in practice. Similarly with carrots, I'll happily crunch through maybe half of a large carrot, but never a whole one.
Meanwhile, most people can just gulp down four to six apples or carrots worth of juice -- pulp and all -- without feeling immediately satiated.
That's the difference: in juice form we can happily ingest far more food than we would prefer to eat via normal chewing.
Note that it's entirely possible to eat the same amount of apples! It's just exhausting and even unpleasant.
I wish people would apply this logic to things like olive oil where a tablespoon contains about 20 pressed olives and about 120 calories. It's one of the easiest way to eat hundreds of extra calories more than you should and lots of recipes suggest using a lot of it for frying and dressings.
I think the common encouragement of "but you need fat, it's healthy fat and it's part of the Mediterranean Diet!" is a weird dietary blindspot when the goal is calorie reduction and fat deficiencies aren't the problem. It feel like it's only quite recently that fruit juices are being discouraged and that was a blindspot too.
I don't advocate that there's some magic to a "whole food" diet except that not eating pressed, blended etc. stuff is a decent rule of thumb to slowing down much you can eat in one sitting.
Sorry, I don't mean to be snarky, but you can't just make baseless claims and expect others to believe them. It's far easier to make claims than to verify them so there's a significant asymmetry at play here.
We can eat very high carb or very high fat diet for quite some time, but we very definitely cannot eat very high protein diet without getting seriously, potentially fatally sick within weeks.
Protein poisoning is a thing in humans!
But presumably this was coupled with a fairly taxing exercise routine? (Lifting, calisthenics, climbing, or whatever?)
After 100%, do you wait some days and then do... 50%? 100%, 50%, 75% is during a week?
Or one week in between each?
Or is 100%, 50% and 75% on the same day? -- but that'd mean 75 reps, sounds like far too much
https://www.dragondoor.com/b31/
https://smile.amazon.com/Beyond-Bodybuilding-Strength-Traini...
I'll check out this six/seven weeks DeLorme cycle thing ... Update: now done, seems it's lower weights and many more repetitions, to build more muscle mass (hypertrophy program), rather than strength, and seems it's not that compatible with lots of running and cardio .. maybe not for me then, thanks anyway :-)
I'm wondering if you're very strong then (and maybe don't run that much?), since these specialized programs seems to be for people who lift a lot already
This is a larger blindspot than the calories in oil. It's actually pretty hard to eat 2000 calories a day with olive oil as the main source. Pasta and meat on the other hand are pretty easy.
There's an increasingly large body of evidence that there is 'magic' to 'whole foods,' mainly through the avenue of microbiome health. The human body evolved to handle eating fruit, not diet soda.
Calories are not just calories. That level of reduction is pseudoscience to the point where it's not really science.
It's better than nothing, sure, but hair's breadth.
Food is insanely complex and messy. The body's digestive chemistry is messy - a process of soups of enzymes, acids and bases. Metabolism is messy.
Imagine the difference between chewing a stick of celery, a nut, drinking honey and drinking soda.
Mechanically, the breakdown process of these differ wildly. Celery and nuts will be broken down very roughly. Honey is nice and viscous. Soda is lovely and runny.
Now take those mechanically broken down food items and then pass them through a base bath and an acid bath and you'll unlock x% of compounds ready for metabolysis where x will differ wildly thanks also to the weird and wonderful world of solvation chemistry.
THEN those compounds of varying energy richness will get broken down.
The "calories" of an energy dense nut really aren't the same as a fructose-laden drink
I am not a nutritionist but I'd probably choose something akin to blood glucose over calories for food consumption.
If I had to go so simple I'd probably optimise for sugar reduction. And after that carbohydrate reduction.
You'll find you can eat a lot of food and food will be filling if you have a pseudo keto diet. You have to work so much harder to get your calories and fats (when not mixed with sugar) is much more satiating.
What subgoal would you recommend for overall health when you're very overweight if not calorie reduction? Obviously I'm not saying don't exercise and eating junk is okay as long as it's within 2000 calories.
I personally don't find e.g. 200 calories of olive oil (which could be 10% of your calories for the day) filling at all in say a salad dressing (vs more salad) so skipping it is a simple way to eliminate excessive calories per day if required. Eating fat is fine though as long as you're watching the calories.
The human body's caloric needs are not fixed at some number of calories per day; the human body's caloric needs adapt to inputs. You can lose weight by starving in the short term, but over the long term it is an ~extremely~ ineffective method of weight loss. There's been a lot of research looking at this over the past 10 years, and it is basically unanimous that the calorie defecit model of weight loss doesn't a really work. The number of very overweight people who have returned to and maintained a healthy weight through counting calories is vanishingly small. A good introductory source on this effect is Why Diet's Make us Fat by Susan Aamodt, but a google search will lead you to many studies.
My personal recommendation for improving overall health for very overweight people would be, first off, to focus on a goal of physical capability rather than weight loss. Excessive fat is a hinderance to most physical acitivty, so you will lose weight naturally as you progress. This has the benefit of being a positive goal rather than a negative/mixed one. Many people lose large amounts of weight after getting cancer; few become better boxers.
As for diet, here are some simple rules than I find improve physical capability and promote healthy weight: 1) drink water 2) quit sugar/sweeteners 3) eat when hungry, not for emotional reasons 4) more cooked green vegetables and fish. In my personal experience, rebalancing psychological relationships with sugar/sweetness and chewing/swallowing is much more effective than counting calories.
I agree with you. All I'm saying is if you're going to follow simple rules like e.g. eat more cooked vegetables, I think skipping or really limiting oils is a good rule too as it's about the most calorific food stuff you can eat and easy to overdo. You could easily eat 200 calories of oil in a salad without really thinking, but not 200 calories of carrot.
I do think most people would benefit from counting calories for at least some part of their life though. I've known friends and family that have been trying to lose weight for years where they couldn't even guess how many calories they eat or roughly what has more calories than what e.g. they'll say a big sandwich is 200 calories, a whole pizza is 400 calories and a bar of chocolate is 100 calories. You don't need to count everything but I don't see how you can ignore calorie counts completely or at least be aware where the big wins are.
Your simple rules have some of this knowledge encoded inside them even if you're not technically counting calories e.g. water has less calories than soft drinks and fruit juice. Same with "eat whole foods". I assume your "green vegetables" rule is encoding something about avoiding potatoes too, not that non-green is somehow bad by itself?
More anecdotes but I've never seen the problem with sweeteners. I wish they weren't demonised by some people who then use sugar with x10 the calories instead.
The goals of my simple rules have nothing to do with calories; that calorie reduction might pop out if you are overeating is simply a happy side effect of mindful eating (rule 3) and avoiding foods that disrupt the body's feedback systens (rules 1 and 2). Artifical sweeteners are especially dangerous because by weakening the connection between 'sweetness' and 'energy density' they tend to induce people to eat more calories than they otherwise would [1]. If you are trying to count calories while feeding your sweet tooth with splenda you are probably doing yourself a disservice by fighting against human biology. It is better to simply not feed the sweet tooth at all and allow biology to work for you.
I'm really not sure what a 'big win' in calorie counting even is. One of my friends used to eat glorified carboard mixed with artifical sweeteners so she could 'enjoy' the experience of eating while not conusming calories. I think this was a 'big win' for her, but she didn't lose weight. It was an unhealthy behavior.
The green vegetables rule is about eating more green vegetables. They're good for you. High quality vegetables contain important micronutrients. You should cook them because fire is what allowed early apes to stop spending their entire day chewing and develop civilization. One of the problems with the oil prohibition is that it discourages people from eating sauteed vegetables, which are probably one of the best things you can eat. If you are ditching sauteed vegetables for 100 calorie bags of Doritos because you are afraid of olive oil you are probably not living the healthiest possible lifestyle.
--
Why do unhealthy things taste great then? Why would our natural biofeedback be well tuned to modern lifestyles where an abundance of food is the new norm?
> I'm really not sure what a 'big win' in calorie counting even is.
I mean getting people to realise what surprise foods they're eating that are wiping out their calorie target for the day so they can replace these foods with something more healthy e.g. people drinking 1000 calories of coffee drinks or 2000 calorie pizzas and not realising how many calories they're consuming are never going to lose weight.
> The green vegetables rule is about eating more green vegetables.
Why? So no sweet or white potato, eggplant, carrot, red peppers, cauliflower, tomato, beetroot, red cabbage?
> One of the problems with the oil prohibition is that it discourages people from eating sauteed vegetables, which are probably one of the best things you can eat.
I'm not saying never use oil but you can fry without oil, bake, boil, steam, slow cook, pressure cook and microwave. You don't need oil to cook lots of things. Why not deep fry if you shouldn't be concerned with oil and rely on biofeedback?
Taste is only one component of the feedback system. The other ones are more important honestly. The toungue is easily tricked by sweetness, which pervades almost all easily obtainable foods in this country.
If you quit sugar and sweeteners for a few months, you will be amazed how sweet everything tastes, and you probably won't want to eat much of it.
> people ... not realising how many calories they're consuming are never going to lose weight.
This is not true. You can lose weight without thinking about calories at all. There are other methods. Of course gorging yourself on pizza and sweet drinks is never going to help you, but people doing that are generally not serious about losing weight.
> Why? So no sweet or white potato, eggplant, carrot, red peppers, cauliflower, tomato, beetroot, red cabbage?
I have literally no idea how you are arriving at this interpretation of the rule. "More green vegetables" does not mean "no beets". It's a simple rule of thumb to get people to eat more vegetables with high mineral and low carbohydrate content. It's far from an exclusive list of all good vegetables, but that list is too high word count for simple rules. Potato probably shouldn't be included in this category as it is a culinary starch and you shouldn't trick yourself into thinking french fries with ketchup are vegetables. But that doesn't mean potato is banned.
> Why not deep fry
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with deep frying. If you listen to your body, you probably will realize you don't actually want that much deep fried food, but in moderation it is fine. The key is to have a properly tuned feedback system and to actually listen to it. Eating slowly with attention while avoiding sugar and sweeteners will probably get it fixed up in a few months unless you have a genetic condition.
I’m not sure if that’s a typo, as the question is related to the difference between whole fruits and smoothies, and that’s also how your argument starts out.