Nutrition plans....

[federerfan19]

Hello everyone
So seeing as all of the tennis courts are opening up again in my town and since I gained like 10 pounds while being in quarantine and I feel like santa clause now . I was wondering if there are any nutrition plans that would help me lose some of this weight, or hey even if you have a nutrition plan and it work for you, I would love to see it.

I don’t really know what I should be eating either then like greens and fruits and such which are the obviously ones. I like meat and always seem like I can’t steer away from it since it’s so good

Let me know
Cheers
Pat

 

[Deleted member 768841]

I’d say continue with the fruits and vegetables, but take a look into vitamins and minerals and what your amount should be per day. Also stay away from fried food, as always! However you can treat yourself every now and then, just not every day. Enjoy life, and stay happy!

 

[Crocodile]

Once you get moving again you should return to your normal self. I like the idea of eating foods that have the least human interference as possible, meaning fresh and unprocessed.
As far as nutrition plans the top 2 lifelong eating plans are the Mediterranean diet and the DASH diet. Many of the more radical diets are difficult to maintain long term and therefore counterproductive in the long term.

 

[Born_to_slice]

Once you get moving again you should return to your normal self. I like the idea of eating foods that have the least human interference as possible, meaning fresh and unprocessed.
As far as nutrition plans the top 2 lifelong eating plans are the Mediterranean diet and the DASH diet. Many of the more radical diets are difficult to maintain long term and therefore counterproductive in the long term.

I've never tried fresh broccoli, cauliflower, spinach, beetroot, etc. until recently. To my surprise, all of those have much better taste when eaten fresh and uncooked. Plus no nutrients are lost that way.

 

[T1000]

Carbs - potatoes, sweet potatoes, rice, oats, quinoa, strawberries blueberries pineapple oranges

Protein - eggs (whole egg don’t get rid of the yolk) steak bison beef chicken fish

Fats - nuts, olive oil, avocados, nut butters

Veggies - broccoli, spinach, kale, chicory, collard greens, beets, carrots

 

[Harry_Wild]

Nutrition plan is to eat only around 1,500 calories a day for 30 days! You wil loose 10 lbs. in a month. Start at 2,500 and work down to 1,500 calores over a 3 day period. Eat every 5-6 times a day. No fried stuff, no pizza, no candy, no pop, no bread, no potatoes or corn chips, no noodles, etc... No salty foods! Drinks lots of water too. If you exercise, you will loose more but you will probably eat more and be nonproductive!

DISCIPLINE IS THE KEY! EAT LESS -> LOOSE WEIGHT!

I am on the Joe Rogan diet shown below:

 

[PURETENNISsense]

I don’t really know what I should be eating either then like greens and fruits

Here is is green juice I've been having for a little while. It's pretty yummy and I recommend it to many of my students as an easy way to get veggies and fruits in an easy way.

 

[Harry_Wild]

If you trying to loose weight the only sure fire way is to eat less! Hollywood has been using this methodology since the 1930s and they know and test every conceivable way to loose weight over these years and it is back to math; eat less then your body consumes daily and eat nutritional food - no sugars, process foods, junk foods, etc... Basically 1,500-2,000 calories a day depending on how big a person is. You do not have to workout at all!

 

[ollinger]

To my surprise, all of those have much better taste when eaten fresh and uncooked. Plus no nutrients are lost that way.

Key exceptions are cooked carrots, which have more available carotenoids than raw carrots, and cooked tomatoes, which have much more available lycopene than raw tomatoes. And the microwave seems to be the best way to preserve vitamins when cooking most vegetables, per data in the NY Times perhaps 5 or 10 years ago

 

[bobleenov1963]

Bryan Dechambeau gained lot weigh during the pandemic and won the 2020 US Open golf. He hit the ball longer than everyone.

 

[Born_to_slice]

Key exceptions are cooked carrots, which have more available carotenoids than raw carrots, and cooked tomatoes, which have much more available lycopene than raw tomatoes. And the microwave seems to be the best way to preserve vitamins when cooking most vegetables, per data in the NY Times perhaps 5 or 10 years ago

Cooked carrots with onions and parsley is one of my favorite side dishes and when making any kind of stew, adding a lot of chopped up tomatoes is a great way to make the stew more thick instead of adding unhealthy corn starch.

Microwave is something I would never use.

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

Microwave cooking and nutrition - Harvard Health

Is microwave food healthy? Some people believe cooking food with microwaves is dangerous and somehow makes food less healthy by zapping away nutrients....

www.health.harvard.edu

Cooked carrots with onions and parsley is one of my favorite side dishes and when making any kind of stew, adding a lot of chopped up tomatoes is a great way to make the stew more thick instead of adding unhealthy corn starch.

Microwave is something I would never use.

Note that the oxalic acid in raw spinach and other foods can significantly reduce the absorption of calcium and iron. Cooking can reduce the level of oxalic acid in these foods and provide better absorption of nutrients. Availability of lycopene is much higher in cooked tomatoes than in raw. Other foods are also more digestible and might provide better absorption of some nutrients when they are cooked even tho some vitamins (and a few other nutrients) might be diminished somewhat by the cooking process.

What exactly is your objection to microwave cooking? The link above from Harvard Health and from other sources indicate that more nutrients are retained thru this type of cooking than with other cooking processes.

The only downside that I am aware of is that the microwave cooking of some foods might not allow them reach a high enough temp to completely minimize some unhealthy bacteria.

 

[Born_to_slice]

Microwave cooking and nutrition - Harvard Health

Is microwave food healthy? Some people believe cooking food with microwaves is dangerous and somehow makes food less healthy by zapping away nutrients....

www.health.harvard.edu

Note that the oxalic acid in raw spinach and other foods can significantly reduce the absorption of calcium and iron. Cooking can reduce the level of oxalic acid in these foods and provide better absorption of nutrients. Availability of lycopene is much higher in cooked tomatoes than in raw. Other foods are also more digestible and might provide better absorption of some nutrients when they are cooked even tho some vitamins (and a few other nutrients) might be diminished somewhat by the cooking process.

What exactly is your objection to microwave cooking? The link above from Harvard Health and from other sources indicate that more nutrients are retained thru this type of cooking than with other cooking processes.

The only downside that I am aware of is that the microwave cooking of some foods might not allow them reach a high enough temp to completely minimize some unhealthy bacteria.

Food industry is a big business and I think most Western research receives undisclosed funding by it. Soviet research deemed the technology unsafe for human use and I find it generally more trustworthy than the Western, which is generally tending to turn the blind eye to harmful effects of EMF technology of any kind.

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

If you trying to loose weight the only sure fire way is to eat less! Hollywood has been using this methodology since the 1930s and they know and test every conceivable way to loose weight over these years and it is back to math; eat less then your body consumes daily and eat nutritional food - no sugars, process foods, junk foods, etc... Basically 1,500-2,000 calories a day depending on how big a person is. You do not have to workout at all!

2k calories or less would not seem to be an adequate intake for me (or for any others) even tho I am not particularly large. My FitBit indicates that I am expending 2700-3300 calories on most days even though I'm considerably less active than I was a decade ago.

My resting / BMR appears to be greater than 2k calories, possibly as high as 2200 or more. Best to take in a bit fewer calories than expended is a good way to lose weight. Creating too large deficit, on a regular basis, might results in the loss of muscle mass and the tendency of the body to retain body fat.

The body may regard an extended period of low calori intake as "famine" and may compensate by holding on to fat storage. Probably best to create only a minor deficit and use exercise as a means to increase metabolism / BMR.

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

Food industry is a big business and I think most Western research receives undisclosed funding by it. Soviet research deemed the technology unsafe for human use and I find it generally more trustworthy than the Western, which is generally tending to turn the blind eye to harmful effects of EMF technology of any kind.

Doubt that Harvard Health is part of that Western food industry. They might have a bit of bias towards Western medical practices but I doubt that extends to the food industry.

I've watched a fair bit of news on RT (Russian TV) for an alternate view on world events but not too confident about their veracity or lack of bias on everything they have to say. And not sure I would take their say-so on "Russian research" over that of Harvard Health.

I just performed a fact check on Russian bans / claims about microwave safety and found that Snopes had determined that these claims are False / unfounded.

Did the Soviet Union Ban Microwaves Due to Health Concerns?

This claim has its roots in an unsourced article from a man who likely does not exist, and whose only stated expertise came from working at an alternative bookstore and natural food shop in the 1970s.

www.snopes.com

 

[Born_to_slice]

Doubt that Harvard Health is part of that Western food industry. They might have a bit of bias towards Western medical practices but I doubt that extends to the food industry.

I've watched a fair bit of news on RT (Russian TV) for an alternate view on world events but not too confident about their veracity or lack of bias on everything they have to say. And not sure I would take their say-so on "Russian research" over that of Harvard Health.

I just performed a fact check on Russian bans / claims about microwave safety and found that Snopes had determined that these claims are False / unfounded.

Did the Soviet Union Ban Microwaves Due to Health Concerns?

This claim has its roots in an unsourced article from a man who likely does not exist, and whose only stated expertise came from working at an alternative bookstore and natural food shop in the 1970s.

www.snopes.com

Who do you think funds Snopes? Btw, it's literally nothing more than some guy and some ex porn actress and people they hire googling stuff.

While autism and cancer epidemic spread like wildfire through the world, Harvard and similar institutions stay silent. But to each his own.

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

Who do you think funds Snopes? Btw, it's literally nothing more than some guy and some ex porn actress and people they hire googling stuff.

While autism and cancer epidemic spread like wildfire through the world, Harvard and similar institutions stay silent. But to each his own.

Who do YOU think funds Snopes? Highly unlikely that it's the food (or microwave oven) industry given that 99+ % of its investigations has nothing to do with either. It appears to be funded primarily by advertising and by premium memberships (for those who do not want to see those ads).

They have been in business for more than a quarter decade (since the mid 1990s) debunking urban legends and performing fact-checking. They appear to have a centric political bias altho some on the far right have attempted to accuse them of having a very liberal bias. Those detractors have not been successful in that endeavor.

They have been scrutinized by Factcheck.org, About.com and others. They appear to be highly-regarded and provide even-handed investigations according to these other resources.

Snopes is more than just two or three people. They are comprised of a team of writers, editors, developers, investigators, etc. They have been in this business long before googling was a thing. That one of the founders of Snopes married an ex porn actress is completely irrelevant (even tho the glorified tabloid, Daily Mail, would have us believe otherwise).

 

[Born_to_slice]

Who do YOU think funds Snopes? Highly unlikely that it's the food (or microwave oven) industry given that 99+ % of its investigations has nothing to do with either. It appears to be funded primarily by advertising and by premium memberships (for those who do not want to see those ads).

They have been in business for more than a quarter decade (since the mid 1990s) debunking urban legends and performing fact-checking. They appear to have a centric political bias altho some on the far right have attempted to accuse them of having a very liberal bias. Those detractors have not been successful in that endeavor.

They have been scrutinized by Factcheck.org, About.com and others. They appear to be highly-regarded and provide even-handed investigations according to these other resources.

Snopes is more than just two or three people. They are comprised of a team of writers, editors, developers, investigators, etc. They have been in this business long before googling was a thing. That one of the founders of Snopes married an ex porn actress is completely irrelevant (even tho the glorified tabloid, Daily Mail, would have us believe otherwise).

Do You Trust Snopes? You Won't After Reading This.

The big players in the GMO and agrochemical industry – Monsanto, Bayer, Dow, Syngenta, DuPont – are engaging in an extensive public relations, advertising, lobbying and political campaigning to make sure that genetically engineered crops (GMOs), and the chemical pesticides they require, continue...

foodbabe.com

Are Microwaves Compromising Our Health? By Kashish Gupta - Rethinking Cancer

Microwaving has become second nature to a population struggling to keep up with our modern speed dialed world. But is this a good thing?

rethinkingcancer.org

 

[ollinger]

^^ the link just above, "Are Microwaves Compromising.......," contains no references to any actual published studies, as it quotes Dr. Hans Hertel who never published this microwave work in any journal or offered for any scrutiny his so-called findings. It is thus garbage non-science of the kind that became fashionable the last 4 years

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

^^^ In case you missed it ^^^

Do You Trust Snopes? You Won't After Reading This.

The big players in the GMO and agrochemical industry – Monsanto, Bayer, Dow, Syngenta, DuPont – are engaging in an extensive public relations, advertising, lobbying and political campaigning to make sure that genetically engineered crops (GMOs), and the chemical pesticides they require, continue...

foodbabe.com

Are Microwaves Compromising Our Health? By Kashish Gupta - Rethinking Cancer

Microwaving has become second nature to a population struggling to keep up with our modern speed dialed world. But is this a good thing?

rethinkingcancer.org

Food Babe, huh? More pseudoscience

Here's why scientists are hating on Vani Hari, the 'food babe'

"Ms. Hari’s mission and tactics aggressively promote pseudoscience."

www.businessinsider.com

Still going with Snopes over Hertel, Hari and some suspect Russian research

 

[Born_to_slice]

^^^ In case you missed it ^^^

Food Babe, huh? More pseudoscience

Here's why scientists are hating on Vani Hari, the 'food babe'

"Ms. Hari’s mission and tactics aggressively promote pseudoscience."

www.businessinsider.com

Still going with Snopes over Hertel, Hari and some suspect Russian research

They are shilling for Monsanto and whole lie system is up in arms over some small blogger exposing it.

I mean, you use microwaves to heat up food at molecular level and at the same expect no change at molecular level? Slow clap.

 

[yossarian]

They are shilling for Monsanto and whole lie system is up in arms over some small blogger exposing it.

I mean, you use microwaves to heat up food at molecular level and at the same expect no change at molecular level? Slow clap.

Doesn’t cooking food in general cause a change at the molecular level

 

[cmic94]

2k calories or less would not seem to be an adequate intake for me (or for any others) even tho I am not particularly large. My FitBit indicates that I am expending 2700-3300 calories on most days even though I'm considerably less active than I was a decade ago.

My resting / BMR appears to be greater than 2k calories, possibly as high as 2200 or more. Best to take in a bit fewer calories than expended is a good way to lose weight. Creating too large deficit, on a regular basis, might results in the loss of muscle mass and the tendency of the body to retain body fat.

The body may regard an extended period of low calori intake as "famine" and may compensate by holding on to fat storage. Probably best to create only a minor deficit and use exercise as a means to increase metabolism / BMR.

I'd be careful basing your calories on a fitbit, smart watches are pretty notoriously innaccurate at giving calorie readings and unfortunately it's usually vastly overstating the calories burned rather than understating. Sure I read somewhere it can be anywhere up to 30% too high.

 

[ollinger]

I mean, you use microwaves to heat up food at molecular level and at the same expect no change at molecular level?

You would expect negligible change, certainly not at the cellular level, as microwaves are long wavelength low energy waves that are not ionizing and thus do not alter DNA or RNA. ALL forms of cooking produce some change at the molecular level BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT COOKING IS -- REARRANGING CHEMICAL BONDS BETWEEN MOLECULES BY THE APPLICATION OF HEAT OR ACID. People have been doing it for many millenia and on average live the better part of a century. Prefer all your food raw?? Enjoy!

 

[ollinger]

(do you use a cell phone? Sends microwaves, dude)

 

[Born_to_slice]

Doesn’t cooking food in general cause a change at the molecular level

There is a huge difference. Would you like someone to make you warm from the inside by using microwaves or would you prefer a classic heating source?

You would expect negligible change, certainly not at the cellular level, as microwaves are long wavelength low energy waves that are not ionizing and thus do not alter DNA or RNA. ALL forms of cooking produce some change at the molecular level BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT COOKING IS -- REARRANGING CHEMICAL BONDS BETWEEN MOLECULES BY THE APPLICATION OF HEAT OR ACID. People have been doing it for many millenia and on average live the better part of a century. Prefer all your food raw?? Enjoy!

Actually, there's undeniable proof of low energy non-ionizing radiation causing cancer in small animals (done by the mobile phone industry itself). So it does make alterations on DNA level.

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

They are shilling for Monsanto and whole lie system is up in arms over some small blogger exposing it.

I mean, you use microwaves to heat up food at molecular level and at the same expect no change at molecular level? Slow clap.

Again, according to Food Babe???

I've seen articles on Snopes about various Monsanto products and practices. Their evaluations have brought out some unfavorable findings in addition to some findings that have gone the other way.

Except, perhaps, for warming something up, pretty much most, if not all, cooking results in some changes at a molecular level. Both physical changes (often irreversible) as well as significant chemical changes. You can't unfry an egg or unbake a cake. Cooking will often cause rapid oxidation and the release of gases. It can change the structure of proteins and other macronutrients. It can transform liquids into solids -- a transformation that is often not reversible. Fundamental changes at a molecular level. Faster clapping.

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

I'd be careful basing your calories on a fitbit, smart watches are pretty notoriously innaccurate at giving calorie readings and unfortunately it's usually vastly overstating the calories burned rather than understating. Sure I read somewhere it can be anywhere up to 30% too high.

Realize the the Fitbit reading could be a ballpark calculation. But there is a Yuuuge difference from a reading of 3000+ and a recommendation to limit caloric intake to under 2000.

 

[cmic94]

Realize the the Fitbit reading could be a ballpark calculation. But there is a Yuuuge difference from a reading of 3000+ and a recommendation to limit caloric intake to under 2000.

Agreed you definitely don't want to go too extreme, was more just a note to take these readings with a large pinch of salt just in case you weren't aware of the potential inaccuracies. 500 cal deficit is generally the recommended amount to lose ~1 pound fat per week. Would never go higher than that deficit unless you were severely overweight and had a lot of weight to lose in which case you could afford to increase it more (within reason obviously).

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

@Born_to_slice

From Scientific American:
There is no evidence that eating microwaved foods is detrimental to humans or animals. Microwaves are low-energy waves...the photons in microwaves have so little energy that they are unable to cause chemical changes in the molecules they encounter--including those in food. They are non-ionizing waves and do not leave a residue.

Is there any evidence that microwaving food alters its composition or has any detrimental effects on humans or animals?

www.scientificamerican.com

Microwaves tend to spread their energy more evenly throughout the food, so it cooks before the outside becomes brown, but the basic chemistry is much the same. There are no chemical reactions unique to food cooked in a microwave.

Can microwaves change the molecular structure of food?

www.sciencefocus.com

Microwave Confusion

The scientists working at the Raytheon Company during World War II were undoubtedly highly stressed. Britain was being attacked by **** warplanes and their task was to develop an electronic system capable of tracking the invading aircraft. Rising to the challenge, the researchers came up with...

www.mcgill.ca

 

[Born_to_slice]

@Born_to_slice

From Scientific America:
... the photons in microwaves have so little energy that they are unable to cause chemical changes in the molecules they encounter--including those in food. They are non-ionizing waves and do not leave a residue.

Is there any evidence that microwaving food alters its composition or has any detrimental effects on humans or animals?

www.scientificamerican.com

Microwaves tend to spread their energy more evenly throughout the food, so it cooks before the outside becomes brown, but the basic chemistry is much the same. There are no chemical reactions unique to food cooked in a microwave.

Can microwaves change the molecular structure of food?

www.sciencefocus.com

Microwave Confusion

The scientists working at the Raytheon Company during World War II were undoubtedly highly stressed. Britain was being attacked by **** warplanes and their task was to develop an electronic system capable of tracking the invading aircraft. Rising to the challenge, the researchers came up with...

www.mcgill.ca

All those shills claim the same. But the cancer epidemic remains a mystery.

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

All those shills claim the same. But the cancer epidemic remains a mystery.

Now Scientific American is a shill. Ok, I guess you're just going to believe whatever the heck you wanna believe.

Cancer has been around for quite some time. One reason we have seen much more in the 20th and 21st centuries is because people are living much longer, in general. (Possible food, environmental and other causes as well).

The "cancer epidemic" has been around at least since World War II. Decades before microwave ovens became common appliance in kitchens. So says NY Times (another shill???)

Opinion | We can stop the cancer epidemic (Published 2008)

www.nytimes.com

 

[Born_to_slice]

Now Scientific American is a shill. Ok, I guess you're just going to believe whatever the heck you wanna believe.

Cancer has been around for quite some time. We have seen much more in the 20th and 21st centuries because people are living much longer, in general. The "cancer epidemic" has been around at least since World War II. Decades before microwave ovens became common appliance in kitchens. So says NY Times (another shill???)

Opinion | We can stop the cancer epidemic (Published 2008)

www.nytimes.com

I wasn't claiming that microwave oven is the sole cause of cancer. Microwave oven is a product that came out of military research. When it was made, no one had any idea is it safe for humans but it's a classic case of something being so convenient that it simply didn't matter. In such cases, you just have to dig in alternative sources and use your head. You can trust "science" and do stupid crap like letting your kids be sprayed with DDT when the "science" tells you it's fine. Or not blink twice when industry tells you it's fine to install a 5G tower on a light pole next to your house. Or you can think decades before truth comes to light.

Anyway, I'm bored with this discussion now, peace.

 

[ollinger]

All those shills claim the same. But the cancer epidemic remains a mystery

Shills indeed. Scientific American is just FILLED with ads for microwave ovens. Yeah yeah, anyone you disagree with must be shilling for someone.