Is Subway a healthy option??

neeb

Pilot Pete wrote:

Oh, and a little something extra about bread! http://www.zoeharcombe.com/2012/09/conflicted-nutritionists-defend-bread/#utm_source=feed&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=feed

PP

That is such a load of bollox-with-an-agenda.

She is deliberately focussing on the worst processed breads and ignoring the wealth of nutrients found in real wholegrain breads.

There may be a problem finding good quality bread in the UK, but that's an entirely different issue.

Incidentally, my solution to the butter vs. margarine thing is to avoid both and just use high quality extra virgin olive oil. Stick it in the freezer overnight in a small container until it is frozen solid, then transfer it to the fridge (which needs to be on the cool side). You will end up with a margarine-like spread that is healthy and tasty.

Sure, it's usually a good idea to eat "natural" things, but it's a massive and dangerous simplification perpetuated by new-age airheads to claim that anything natural is good and anything artificial is bad.

Saturated fats are controversial, and while it may be true that no-one has "proved" that they are bad for you in all circumstances, there is an abundance of studies strongly suggesting that diets balanced towards other types of fats are much better for you when it comes to cardiovascular risk.

Taking high quality omega 3 supplements from fish oil (the expensive ones that are filtered for heavy metals) is one of the best things you can do for your blood lipid profile. Not particularly "natural", but better than eating heavy metal contaminated oily fish every day, even if that was practical.

However, anyone with any sense should avoid modified (hydrogenated) vegetable fats. Never eat anything that just says "vegetable fat" without specifying further.

pilot_pete

Hi

Thing is. Starvation mode does not exist. The limitation is in metabolism which will only be able to run to the sum of calories you intake. Calorie deficits(worked out correctly and adjusted, not guessed) do not allow this. Loss does generally plateau but it isn't due to a fictional mode. It's due to calorie intake and body weight being equal enough to maintain. At this point you would adjust slightly.

ok, 'starvation mode' was my term, but the gist is that if you have a deficit daily you end up plateauing. You become lethargic as your body attempts to prevent further weight loss. You constantly feel hungry as your body tries to get you to up your intake to self preserve.

Calorie deficits(worked out correctly and adjusted, not guessed) do not allow this

and therein lies the problem. How many dieters have it all worked out scientifically? Very few. Hence they are doomed to failure and end up eating more after they come off their diet and putting it all back on again. You think the diet industry don't know this? Or do they have a vested interest in people being overweight?

If it is debunked. Why have more people than I can vouch for globablly, lost weight successfully before Zoe Harcombe turned up? Are the people who have lost weight using methods Zoe claims to debunk, wrong?

and why do we have an obesity epidemic if it is that simple to lose weight? I've not claimed that she is the only person who holds the key to weight loss.

I could equally say that there are more people globally that i can vouch for who have lost weight following a diet only to subsequently put it all back on and more when they come off their diet. These are meaningless generalisations. The fact is we have a global obesity epidemic, caused by the food industry pumping sugar into everything processed and us all eating too many carbs, and government advice is skewed by the industry because they want to make more money and have too much power and influence over government policy. What I have said is that she opened my eyes up to the reality of the food industry and government dietary advice. It is obvious that if you don't eat you will lose weight. Look at starving communities around the world. So yes, no calories in equals weight loss. The point is trying to get the ratio right so that you can still function healthily whilst losing that weight. The advice pumped out by governments and agencies is not scientifically based and those sitting on these boards have a vested interest (see my link about bread earlier).

Why are carbs and sugar instantly the devil

they are not instantly the devil. They just happen to be the root of the problem because the government advice is flawed and tells us to eat too much of them. The food companies are more than happy for this to be the case due to their profits. They 'add value' by processing foods using cheap ingredients, hence the pasta, white rice, sugar etc. it's all about profits. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with carbohydrate, it's just the shear volume of the stuff that we consume that has got us to this place.

Processed carbs and sugars are not culprits

I refer you to the paragraph above, as it is the same argument. They are 'culprits' because we eat too much of them, not because we shouldn't touch them as they are intrinsically bad!

I think we are singing roughly from the same song sheet. It is just how we get to the weight loss and ideal weight that differs. Eating a healthy, balanced diet is right. Following government guidance as to what constitutes this is where I have a problem. Eating the governments 'healthy plate' is not gong to do it. Eating less carbs and sugar and more protein and fats will facilitate this and naturally help people to eat a smaller portion and feel satiated. It needs to be a lifestyle change, not a diet as cutting anything out to lose weight ultimately to go back to eating it again will end up in yo-yo dieting.

PP

t.m.h.n.e.t

ok, 'starvation mode' was my term, but the gist is that if you have a deficit daily you end up plateauing. You become lethargic as your body attempts to prevent further weight loss. You constantly feel hungry as your body tries to get you to up your intake to self preserve.

Not true. I am in a calorie deficit now and I'm not lethargic. In fact I'm planning a 40mile run later.

and therein lies the problem. How many dieters have it all worked out scientifically? Very few. Hence they are doomed to failure and end up eating more after they come off their diet and putting it all back on again. You think the diet industry don't know this? Or do they have a vested interest in people being overweight?

If a dieter is serious enough they will look for information or ask. Not blindly stab in the dark.

and why do we have an obesity epidemic if it is that simple to lose weight? I've not claimed that she is the only person who holds the key to weight loss.

Greed is usually the answer. It's easy to blame companies or other people. But other people and companines don't put food into your trolley or onto your plate,nor into your mouth.

I could equally say that there are more people globally that i can vouch for who have lost weight following a diet only to subsequently put it all back on and more when they come off their diet. These are meaningless generalisations. The fact is we have a global obesity epidemic, caused by the food industry pumping sugar into everything processed and us all eating too many carbs, and government advice is skewed by the industry because they want to make more money and have too much power and influence over government policy. What I have said is that she opened my eyes up to the reality of the food industry and government dietary advice. It is obvious that if you don't eat you will lose weight. Look at starving communities around the world. So yes, no calories in equals weight loss. The point is trying to get the ratio right so that you can still function healthily whilst losing that weight. The advice pumped out by governments and agencies is not scientifically based and those sitting on these boards have a vested interest (see my link about bread earlier).

The food industry doesn't force carbs down our throats. They do of course add plenty to many processed foods, but the end result is lack of knife and fork control. That is not fault of the companies,but as us the consumer.

Poor shopping choices are really the culprit, if you weren't buying shite you wouldn't be eating it. There is nobody else but the consumer to blame for that.

they are not instantly the devil. They just happen to be the root of the problem because the government advice is flawed and tells us to eat too much of them. The food companies are more than happy for this to be the case due to their profits. They 'add value' by processing foods using cheap ingredients, hence the pasta, white rice, sugar etc. it's all about profits. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with carbohydrate, it's just the shear volume of the stuff that we consume that has got us to this place.

Greed is the root of the problem.

I refer you to the paragraph above, as it is the same argument. They are 'culprits' because we eat too much of them, not because we shouldn't touch them as they are intrinsically bad!

Greed is the culprit.

I think we are singing roughly from the same song sheet. It is just how we get to the weight loss and ideal weight that differs. Eating a healthy, balanced diet is right. Following government guidance as to what constitutes this is where I have a problem. Eating the governments 'healthy plate' is not gong to do it. Eating less carbs and sugar and more protein and fats will facilitate this and naturally help people to eat a smaller portion and feel satiated. It needs to be a lifestyle change, not a diet as cutting anything out to lose weight ultimately to go back to eating it again will end up in yo-yo dieting.

The government isn't fit to write it's own lunch list.

LegendLust

Pilot Pete wrote:

Zoomer37 wrote:

LegendLust wrote:

Zoomer37 wrote:

Purely on a fat loss tip, this article will (hopefully) make a few on this forum understand what is the most important thing to focus on when trying to shift the flab

A daily calorie deficit

Basic info, but a good read

http://www.aworkoutroutine.com/how-to-lose-fat/

Mmmm I went to see a Sport Nutritionist who looks after some pro's (including Steve Cummings) - he didn't once mention calorie deficit. Yet I managed to come down from 83k to 78k in 6 months. Fat percentage went down to 8% and muscle mass went up.

Calorie deficit is a very simple way of looking at 'weight' loss, and when I mean weight loss I mean losing fat, as an athlete you don't want to be losing muscle.

As an alternative view have a read of this http://blog.metaboliceffect.com/2012/03 ... c-formula/

Uh?

My post and the article I linked too about calorie def is for FAT loss. Nothing to do with weight loss

You keep to around a 500-600 daily def under your maintenance level with a good amount of protein and FAT will go.

Simple stuff really, but again misunderstood..




On a

For those who think tha the calorie deficit idea is a good 'simple' one, they should read http://www.zoeharcombe.com/ and specifically her book http://www.theobesityepidemic.org/ I have posted it on these forums before because it blows apart the current thinking about weight loss, diet, fats etc and questions the supposed 'facts' that are often bandied around when the subject of weight/ obesity is talked about.

So, here is her opening question about the calorie deficit dieting technique;

2) We have got the mathematical formula wrong. “1lb = 3500 calories” and “To lose 1lb of fat you need to create a deficit of 3500 calories” has become folk law. Do you know where it comes from? Could you prove it? Don’t worry, nor can any of our government departments or obesity organisations and yet they use it all the time.

in the book she goes on to explain about thermodynamics (in relation to the burning of energy within the human body) she explains why a calorie deficit diet initially loses you quite a bit of weight, but then plateaus due to the body going into 'starvation' survival mode where it try's to prevent further weight loss to preserve what you have and it does this by making you feel like sh1t and lethargy sets in (to prevent further energy expenditure) and your brain is being constantly signalled to eat, because you are always hungry!

The 'calories in/ calories out' argument is also debunked. I strongly urge anyone who has an interest in weight loss/ maintenance to have a read.....it was revelatory for me and my wife and completely changed our long held views on obesity....most of which were the common held 'facts' pumped out by the various health/ food standards agencies.

So as a cyclist who wants to lose weight what should you do? Eat real food. Eat what our ancestors ate for millennia without obesity being an issue. Eat meat, eggs, butter, vegetables, fruit, grains and seeds. Cut down on the carbohydrates (mainly anything processed) and cut down the amount of sugar you consume. It is the processed carbs and sugar that has lead to our obesity epidemic. Consumption of carbs causes insulin production within the body. The insulin facilitates the storage of excess carbs as fat. The consumption of carbs also delays the chemical signalling to the brain that you are full, thus you eat too much. Eating a larger proportion of protein does not do this, hence you feel fuller earlier. You could say eat a smaller portion size, but you will naturally if you change from carb based meals.

So, going back to your Subway sandwich. Is it good or bad? Well it depends. It is probably not the best, nor the worst. The bread is probably not very good. The meat is probably not organically produced free range turkey, more likely processed slices pumped with other stuff (I stand to be corrected as I am not familiar with the exact contents). If you have salad it is probably ok, but it depends what it is. Peppers, tomatoes etc are good, lettuce is lettuce! But what about the spreads or sauces? Probably terrible nutritionally.

The solution? Buy a quality whole grain bread with as few additives as possible. Use butter, not margarine. Choose organic, free range meat and fresh salad and make your own sandwich. We have all got to lazy and convenience food is pumped full of sugar/ salt and anything else to make you crave more of it.

Oh, and finally, Zoe points out that saturated fat is not/ has never been proven to be linked to coronary heart disease by ANY study, yet the government advice is to cut down on its intake. Why? Ask them; they don't know why, or more honestly don't want to tell you why because the food industry has conveniently got the spotlight on saturated fat, which keeps it off the processed carbs and sugars being the real culprits! It all comes down to money........

PP

p.s. I have no links to Zoe Harcombe or her book in any way. Just a convert to her way of thinking. I have lost a stone in a year by cutting out the crap and eating more healthily. I don't watch portion size, don't count calories and never feel hungry.

Good post. This is what my my nutritionist preaches. I've cut carbs down and eat a lot more natural food, loads of eggs, even butter and bacon.