Jump to content

Menu

I tried the Eat to Live plan for a few days


Mergath
 Share

Recommended Posts

I follow enough other plant-based doctors/athletes, etc, to know that you can definitely look strong and fit on a plant-based diet. And I'm certainly not going to let the looks of one person convince me otherwise. :)

 

 

There is a difference between being strong and healthy on a vegan diet, and trying to be strong and healthy on an extremely low-fat, nearly-guaranteed- to-be-low-protein for most people vegan diet. Most men who work out probably need at least 100 grams of protein per day. How many beans are they expected to eat to get it? With a limit of 1 cup of grains and 1 oz of nuts, they'd have to eat at least 5-6 cups of beans, every day, to get even close. Even people who love beans are unlikely to accomplish that day after day. Plus, that is too many carbs for people with blood sugar issues. Now if Furhman suggests protein powders to make up the difference, it would be much more feasible. (ETA: If he got rid of the nut limit, it would be much easier, too.)

 

Looks tell no where near the whole story on health.

 

 

I agree with that. Someone who looks healthy may not be. But someone who looks unhealthy almost certainly is. So if two people are next to each other and one looks healthy and the other looks almost sickly, then I would bet my money on the healthier looking person. The better looking person may turn out to have worse problems, but overall, there is a reason people can be described as having a "healthy glow" to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

That totals 27 g. Add in maybe another 10 grams total from fruits and veggies and even a small woman will be digesting her muscles in no time! 37g of protein is a far cry from the bare minimum of about 70 grams for a healthy woman (and if you have health troubles, you probably need a bunch extra.)

 

 

 

I think the WHO suggests 48g of protein as being necessary for a woman.

 

Laura

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We eat primal/paleo, in other words cut out grains, and yes that includes corn. I eat less because the foods are real and filling. It's a pain because you've got to actually make everything, there is no convienence foods. We make muffins (with pumpkin seed flour--ground pumpkin seeds, or coconut flour or almond flour) that have fruits and veggies shredded into them for breakfasts or quick snacks or to hold me over because sometimes I leave for work at 430pm and don't get home until 11pm and I can't eat during work so I have about 30 minutes to snack

 

ETA: for what it's worth though we decided primal/paleo because dd and i both have rheumatology issues (she's got Systemic JIA and I've got Fibromyalgia) and cutting the grains helps that, I have IBS as well in addition to the dye sensitivies in dd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the WHO suggests 48g of protein as being necessary for a woman.

Laura

 

 

If we assume the RDA calculation of 0.8 grams per kg of weight is accurate, and not too low for many people, a 250 lb man needs still 90 grams. That's a lot of beans to eat!

 

I've read about various studies that found that people restricting calories had to eat nearly double the RDA to prevent significant losses of lean mass as they lost weight. If the RDA is truly enough, then why do people's bodies dip into the muscles for extra protein when losing weight? If the RDA is enough, why do people who double their protein as they restrict calories maintain most of their lean mass (especially if they lift weights), while those who don't lose 25-40% of their weight as lean mass?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My dh comes from a +fabulous+ Crusty Bread w/ Awesome Cheeses culture. I don't currently walk in the US the way folks do in his country of birth (and neither does dh). So...what I do is alternate between low carb, no carb, and comfort carb. I don't loose a bunch of weight (although no carb is a great way to lose 10 lbs fast), but I haven't gained. Pretty much that's all I care about, as my numbers and blood sugar levels are great. (Thankfully!)

 

A little meat on my hips might prevent hip fractures later in life. Maintaining is my greatest goal.

 

I do have my eye on the Cool Lipo research. I'll leave the hips, but suck out some butt, and maybe some tummy. ;) I'm hoping the technology will be completely perfected when my time comes/I have the $. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone else tried the Eat to Live thing and been less than impressed?

 

My daughter likes to say, "Eat to live is no way to live!"

 

Here is my advice FWIW. I believe very strongly in ETL, but, my opinion is Fuhrman tskaes it way too far. I wouldn't surprised if he has an eating disorder-- I don't know if you've ever seen pictures of him-- he is ghostly thin. And in his book on fasting he insists hunger isn't real and doesn't exist, that it's just a trick of the mind.

 

But, his research and advice on nutrient dense foods is sound. I don't follow the plan exactly, but when I'm being "good" I tweak it something like this:

 

stick to the 1 lb greens a day, ideally half raw half cooked

 

eat 4 servings fruit a day, ideally raw and in original form (i.e. no juice) (I include raw carrots in the fruit category)

 

eat one cup beans or bean dish a day

 

try to limit starchy veggies and whole grains. "limit" can mean something different for each person. He says not more than 1 serving, or about 100 calories, a day. I tweak this and let myself eat as much whole grains as I like. for me this is 4-5 small servings (i.e. 1 slice bread or 1/2 cup dry oats) a day.

 

use olive oil in moderation-- I don't really limit it, but I try to be reasonable. I use just enough for food to still taste good.

 

I don't limit nuts or natural nut butters. again, he says just 1 serving a day, I often have as much as 3 or 4.

 

I occasionally eat poultry, eggs, and lean milk. This actually is not against the plan which allows up to 10% animal products. I keep to about this ratio b/c I don't really crave meat.

 

I do use butter in moderation, and some sugar, but in moderation, usually in sauces. I use sugar in a moderate amount in quick breads, but I try not to eat cookies, desserts, etc.

 

Avoid or eliminate refined grains and hydrogenated oils, and red meat.

 

anyway, that "my" version of ETL... HTH!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we assume the RDA calculation of 0.8 grams per kg of weight is accurate, and not too low for many people, a 250 lb man needs still 90 grams. That's a lot of beans to eat!

 

I've read about various studies that found that people restricting calories had to eat nearly double the RDA to prevent significant losses of lean mass as they lost weight. If the RDA is truly enough, then why do people's bodies dip into the muscles for extra protein when losing weight? If the RDA is enough, why do people who double their protein as they restrict calories maintain most of their lean mass (especially if they lift weights), while those who don't lose 25-40% of their weight as lean mass?

You know, it isn't a lot of beans to eat. And if you aren't the one eating the beans why do you care?

 

People who become vegan, vegetarian, embrace a plant-based lifestyle usually don't do it on a whim.

 

Great that is isn't for you. It isn't for WendyK. It isn't or Mergath and the majority of posters on the boards. But for the small group of us that do prefer a vegan, vegetarian, flexitarian or plant-based lifestyle these disparaging comments lately are really getting old.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, it isn't a lot of beans to eat. And if you aren't the one eating the beans why do you care?

 

People who become vegan, vegetarian, embrace a plant-based lifestyle usually don't do it on a whim.

 

Great that is isn't for you. It isn't for WendyK. It isn't or Mergath and the majority of posters on the boards. But for the small group of us that do prefer a vegan, vegetarian, flexitarian or plant-based lifestyle these disparaging comments lately are really getting old.

 

Fuhrman actually discusses, in his book, how the RDA protein requirements are too high.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to say that I do snack

 

I snack all the time. I never really understood his "no snack" rule because he clearly says, if you're hungry, you should eat, but you should eat an allowed food. He even says to down a carton of strawberries if you feel like it. So I think by "no snacking" he meant no chips, nachos, pretzels.... "no snack food."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My daughter likes to say, "Eat to live is no way to live!"

 

Here is my advice FWIW. I believe very strongly in ETL, but, my opinion is Fuhrman tskaes it way too far. I wouldn't surprised if he has an eating disorder-- I don't know if you've ever seen pictures of him-- he is ghostly thin. And in his book on fasting he insists hunger isn't real and doesn't exist, that it's just a trick of the mind.

 

But, his research and advice on nutrient dense foods is sound.

 

 

This is becoming my take on it, too. I think many of the underlying principles are good (which is why I tried it in the first place) but with some of the stuff, I felt like I was being led into some really unhealthy habits, like with the stuff where he tells you to ignore your hunger. If you feel light-headed and sick that just means you're doing it right! It's toxins leaving the body! Er, no. Training yourself to ignore your body is never a good thing. We were talking about the way he looks upthread, and he definitely looks more on the sickly side. I didn't know he had a whole book on fasting, either. The more I read about this guy, the ickier the whole thing makes me feel. He has some issues, I think.

 

Can anyone recommend some books on a similar eating style that aren't so extreme? There are SO MANY books out there, it's hard to find books on nutrition that aren't gimmicks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, it isn't a lot of beans to eat. And if you aren't the one eating the beans why do you care?

 

People who become vegan, vegetarian, embrace a plant-based lifestyle usually don't do it on a whim.

 

Great that is isn't for you. It isn't for WendyK. It isn't or Mergath and the majority of posters on the boards. But for the small group of us that do prefer a vegan, vegetarian, flexitarian or plant-based lifestyle these disparaging comments lately are really getting old.

 

 

I think a vegan/veg/etc. diet can be very healthy. My problem (and I think this is the case for many of the other people who have posted) is specifically with this one book and plan, because Dr. Fuhrman takes it way too far. I used to be a vegetarian (back before I got married and my dh told me he would die, just DIE, without meat every day *sigh*) and would like to be again. This specific plan, however, isn't going to be sustainable for a lot of people, myself included.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly-- if a person did nothing else but follow the 1 lb a day green plans, and kept eating however else they were eating, it would do them a world of good even if they changed nothing else.

 

I look pretty good if I do say so myself, at least considering I've been pregnant 9 times and had 7 kids-- my BMI is 20-- but I'm not strictly vegan or fat free. Though I'm easily 90% vegan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly-- if a person did nothing else but follow the 1 lb a day green plans, and kept eating however else they were eating, it would do them a world of good even if they changed nothing else.

 

I look pretty good if I do say so myself, at least considering I've been pregnant 9 times and had 7 kids-- my BMI is 20-- but I'm not strictly vegan or fat free. Though I'm easily 90% vegan.

 

I agree. I did the 6-week ETL a couple of years ago and maintain my weight by eating 85-90% vegan. I concentrate on getting my 1 lb. of veggies and fruit in each day. I graze all day on them. I hardly meet this goal, but I am satiated just by trying.

 

Processed foods just taste terrible to me now. The only "meats" I enjoy are salmon and an occasional egg. I roast my veggies in olive oil and kosher salt. It's really a very easy way to eat.

 

BTW, I was a kid that ate nothing but processed food and never touched a vegetable, so there is hope for everyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

But Furhman is a doctor not a body builder. He is promoting a weight loss program and is himself lean.

 

A healthy look is subjective anyway.

 

 

I agree 100 percent. I'd want to see inside their body, not what is on the outside. And Furhman is ot a body builder, as you said. I find "frail" a bit laughable, since ppl from Okinowa are known for their long lives but they do sport a rather "frail" look, that turns "sprightly" at about age 95 lol.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I looked at the photo of Joel Furhman (didn't read the article) and thought he looks skinny and like he'll end up very frail in old age. Compare his photo to Mark Sisson, who promotes a primal/paleo diet with plenty of protein. They are about the same age and it is obvious who looks much stronger and healthier.

 

 

Meh. Mark is more tan and definitely had a better photographer. Also, that is one of the most unflattering photos of Dr. Fuhrman I've ever seen. Not that he's a hottie or anything, but who shoots a pale white guy at such an angle--and with harsh lighting? :svengo: The shadows "trim" his biceps unflatteringly. But enough about photography...

 

As for the diet being low in protein, back when I was on it, I tracked my meals into Fitday and that was not the case for me (and I do recall being surprised at that). The couple of grams here and there add up faster than you might think.

 

That said, if I did it again, I would eat a bit of meat each day--just WAY more veggies, some nuts and beans. Many people can also get away with more grains.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I don't disagree. Your comments are as grating to me. I'm not seeing the difference really. You can sing the praises of your embraced diet and that's ok, but I can't? It isn't for me, but I didn't say it isn't for you. I thought we were just talking about it. My intention wasn't to bash anyone for choosing to eat however they wanted to eat. If someone wants to talk about the Pop Tart way of eating, I don't really care.

 

Edited to add that this came out more harshly than I intended. I just hate how talking about food has become almost political. Last month our HS group had a holiday party. There were so many restrictions, requirements, etc. for our cookie contest I became so stressed out that I ended up not bringing any cookies at all. I couldn't please everyone.

You can sing the praises of your embarrassed diet all you want. But please stop making rude comments about how others eat. There is a big difference between telling people how your lifestyle has brought you improved health and wellness and sniping at how others eat. If something isn't for you then it isn't for you. Where's the tolerance.

 

And when have I made disparaging comments about the paleo, primal, Atkins lifestyle?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is an article in Fitness Rx (women) this month on a study comparing LF, VLC and low-GI diets, and the hands-down loser was the low fat for weight stability and overall health.

 

VLC and low-GI were about equal, but the VLC (these were all studied in maintenance phase) had inflammation markers (elevated cortisol and CRP) that made the low-GI preferable.

 

Just a thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is an article in Fitness Rx (women) this month on a study comparing LF, VLC and low-GI diets, and the hands-down loser was the low fat for weight stability and overall health.

 

VLC and low-GI were about equal, but the VLC (these were all studied in maintenance phase) had inflammation markers (elevated cortisol and CRP) that made the low-GI preferable.

 

Just a thought.

Would you mind terribly deciphering all those letters?

 

I get LF to mean low fat.

What are the others?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is an article in Fitness Rx (women) this month on a study comparing LF, VLC and low-GI diets, and the hands-down loser was the low fat for weight stability and overall health.

 

VLC and low-GI were about equal, but the VLC (these were all studied in maintenance phase) had inflammation markers (elevated cortisol and CRP) that made the low-GI preferable.

 

Just a thought.

 

And I could show you a study from npr that states low glycemic index is the winner for keeping the weight off. It's all very confusing.

 

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/09/10/160757730/low-and-slow-may-be-the-way-to-go-when-it-comes-to-dieting

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

And I could show you a study from npr that states low glycemic index is the winner for keeping the weight off. It's all very confusing.

 

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/09/10/160757730/low-and-slow-may-be-the-way-to-go-when-it-comes-to-dieting

 

Yes, that's what I'm saying. VLC and low-GI were about the same for that, but VLC causes inflammation, making the low-GI the "winner" overall.

 

Chucki: low-fat, very low-carb, low glycemic index (more accurately low glycemic load, which is slightly different in that individual foods have a low GI, and serving sizes control the overall load, since eating your weight in low GI food will cause a greater load overall, just given the amount of intake).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks can be deceiving. Without knowing cholestorol levels, blood sugars, vitamin deficiencies,etc, how a person looks is not an indicator of how healthy one is.

My friend is 5'2" 120 pounds, exercises 4 days a week eats a modified version of Atkins/paleo/primal and has numerous auto-immune conditions including type 1.

Looks tell no where near the whole story on health.

 

But many people with autoimmune disorders switch to paleo/primal because of the autoimmune issues. Every one of our friends & family members has. Many from being veg. Including my daughter with profound Hashimoto's and dh with type 1 diabetes. So no, you can't tell, but they don't have autoimmune issues because of being primal/paleo.

 

I agree, food is too political. I feel be

Ad for just dropping Whole30 after 2 weeks, but I was out of money to feed my family. It's just too dang expensive. So we could've gone hungry for a few more days of Whole30 or add some grains and legumes back in (corn and beans) and not starve until tax return time. I did feel better, but it honestly made me feel too obsessive about food. I already have severe food anxiety over going hungry as a kid, so it didn't help. Moderation with everything. I wish my joints would believe that one about gluten or chocolate, though...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But many people with autoimmune disorders switch to paleo/primal because of the autoimmune issues. Every one of our friends & family members has. Many from being veg. Including my daughter with profound Hashimoto's and dh with type 1 diabetes. So no, you can't tell, but they don't have autoimmune issues because of being primal/paleo.

 

 

I don't believe I ever said they do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

these disparaging comments lately are really getting old.

 

I agree with this in regard to posts in this thread about how unhealthy and skeleton and sickly (did I miss any?) women look if they weigh a certain amount. I'm 5'1" and I weigh 96 lbs. Some days I weigh up to 98 (like PMS bloat) and some days I'm 95.

 

I am not a skeleton. Nor do I look sickly. Nor am I unhealthy....depending on what views as health as I do have celiac disease and as a result I developed Hashimoto's. Who knew that eating gluten was killing my thyroid and destroying my gut. I know now, and I am now healthy.

 

I have defined muscles in my arms and legs. My stomach is flat but not 6 pack. My butt has it fair share of jiggle despite all the darn lunges I do.

 

I have always weighed what I do now with the exception of the really horrible year before my celiac diagnosis. I was under 95 and I did look and feel sick.

 

However, I get sick and tired of posts here saying that a 5 foot woman who weighs 100 or under is not normal, not healthy, or insert negative adjective here. I also know that I am not the only woman on this board who is around 5 ft and weighs 100 or under.

 

I am trying to gain muscle, and I have but I still weigh the same.

 

Now, eat what you want in moderation as long as it is not contraindicated for your particular body. In my house there is no gluten, peanuts, or beans consumed due to allergies.

 

Now, someone please eat a glazed Krispy Kreme for me. I want to live vicariously through you. It's okay. You're doing it for a friend. It's a good cause.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The old saw was always 100 lbs for 5 ft tall, and then add another 5 lbs for each inch above that. So at 5'7" I should weigh 135, which I used to, before I started having children.

 

 

I was going to post this too. I'm 5'3" and look normal at 112-115. Not stick thin or sickly. And I WAS a dancer on the fringes of the professional world, but I was no where near thin enough to EVER have been a professional ballerina (too short too) or really even a modern dancer for more than small regional companies.

 

Since having my third, I settled out at 120 or so, and frankly on my frame, it looks a bit chubby.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The old saw was always 100 lbs for 5 ft tall, and then add another 5 lbs for each inch above that. So at 5'7" I should weigh 135, which I used to, before I started having children.

 

Except he is advocating smaller than that ie 5'4"- 110 lbs was posted up thread. Even so there are too many variations in body types, muscle mass, fat distribution etc for any simple formula to be accurate for everyone. I'm between small and med frame and 120-130 looks good on my 5'4", usually I keep to 120-125 which puts me at a size 3/4/small. I've gotten down to about 115ish after 2 of my pregnancies and it is too thin on my body. (Of course right now at just 2 months pp I'm still losing my pregnancy weight. )

 

I have a friend who is significantly heavier than me and shorter but she would look like skeletor if she weighed the same as me. Another friend is so pear shaped she has to get down to skeletal up top to be lower than a size 12 in pants. Even with a size 12 pants she had about a 25 in. waist.

 

Perhaps we could all agree that just as there is no perfect diet for everyone neither is the definition of a healthy body so narrowly defined.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, that's what I'm saying. VLC and low-GI were about the same for that, but VLC causes inflammation, making the low-GI the "winner" overall.

 

Chucki: low-fat, very low-carb, low glycemic index (more accurately low glycemic load, which is slightly different in that individual foods have a low GI, and serving sizes control the overall load, since eating your weight in low GI food will cause a greater load overall, just given the amount of intake).

Interesting, of course LC, LF, Veg etc diets can play out very differently for different people. LC could either be high in protein or high in fat, vice versa or moderate in both. It could be pork rinds, heavily processed lc food or grassfed meat, lots of low carb veggies and good fats. Veg diet could be heavily processed foods or real foods, low fat can be lots of naturally low fat food or food low in fat due to processing and filled with chemicals and sugar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except he is advocating smaller than that ie 5'4"- 110 lbs was posted up thread. Even so there are too many variations in body types, muscle mass, fat distribution etc for any simple formula to be accurate for everyone. I'm between small and med frame and 120-130 looks good on my 5'4", usually I keep to 120-125 which puts me at a size 3/4/small. I've gotten down to about 115ish after 2 of my pregnancies and it is too thin on my body. (Of course right now at just 2 months pp I'm still losing my pregnancy weight. )

 

I have a friend who is significantly heavier than me and shorter but she would look like skeletor if she weighed the same as me. Another friend is so pear shaped she has to get down to skeletal up top to be lower than a size 12 in pants. Even with a size 12 pants she had about a 25 in. waist.

 

Perhaps we could all agree that just as there is no perfect diet for everyone neither is the definition of a healthy body so narrowly defined.

 

I think this is the most important - and least spoken - truth about health and fitness. One size does NOT fit all.

 

Interestingly, I am 5'0" and would be a 0/2 at 125 lbs. The 97-105 I'm "supposed" to be apparently does not account for bone density or muscle. I'm 153 and a size 6. (In fact, my new d@mn work khakis are a very loose 6.) My body fat is 20.15% which is the top of the normal (healthy) range for female athletes, as opposed to the obese range the BMI chart has me in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps we could all agree that just as there is no perfect diet for everyone neither is the definition of a healthy body so narrowly defined.

 

Agreed. I'm 4'11" on a good day. When I was younger (and pre-hysterectomy), any time my weight got below 117 my periods would stop. One time I went three years and the very few periods I had were only because my gynecologist insisted I take hormones to trigger them. Finally he got it through my thick head that my body obviously knew a LOT more about what constituted a healthy weight for it than did any height/weight chart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting, of course LC, LF, Veg etc diets can play out very differently for different people. LC could either be high in protein or high in fat, vice versa or moderate in both. It could be pork rinds, heavily processed lc food or grassfed meat, lots of low carb veggies and good fats. Veg diet could be heavily processed foods or real foods, low fat can be lots of naturally low fat food or food low in fat due to processing and filled with chemicals and sugar.

 

Pork rinds. :svengo:

 

Yeah. Here's the thing: low-carb, for the purpose of the studies, was along the lines of the Atkins maintenance phase. Low-GI(GL) is, by it's nature, lower in carbohydrates than, say, the S.A.D., or even a "Mediterranean" diet, by virtue of processed, simple carbs being high-GI. But there are other properties to foods than macronutrients, and some of those change the overall effect a food will have on the body. My favorite example of this is illustrated in the relative inflammation chart from the "Inflammation-Free Diet Plan": wild salmon is extremely anti-inflammatory, whereas farm-raised salmon is moderately to extremely inflammatory, just because of the fishes' diet.

 

It's all very interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I think this is the most important - and least spoken - truth about health and fitness. One size does NOT fit all.

 

Interestingly, I am 5'0" and would be a 0/2 at 125 lbs. The 97-105 I'm "supposed" to be apparently does not account for bone density or muscle. I'm 153 and a size 6. (In fact, my new d@mn work khakis are a very loose 6.) My body fat is 20.15% which is the top of the normal (healthy) range for female athletes, as opposed to the obese range the BMI chart has me in.

 

 

What calculator are you using? I just plugged in my numbers on different sites and got these results:

 

14.2%

 

54%

 

24.5%

 

12.3%

 

-5.23%

 

:smilielol5: What a joke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is an article in Fitness Rx (women) this month on a study comparing LF, VLC and low-GI diets, and the hands-down loser was the low fat for weight stability and overall health.

 

VLC and low-GI were about equal, but the VLC (these were all studied in maintenance phase) had inflammation markers (elevated cortisol and CRP) that made the low-GI preferable.

 

Just a thought.

 

Most diet studies are useless and based on what people tell the researchers they ate. So there's that...

 

Also, I'm far less interested in what a diet is low in than what it's high in, but just for the heck of it, we should consider both keeping in mind, it's possible to drink several cans of soda a day on a "very low fat" diet and eat little to no vegetables.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, I get sick and tired of posts here saying that a 5 foot woman who weighs 100 or under is not normal, not healthy, or insert negative adjective here. I also know that I am not the only woman on this board who is around 5 ft and weighs 100 or under.

 

:iagree: Exactly this. I am not even remotely tempted to post my stats here, nor would I consider posting what weight i consider "too fat" on me. I have had enough too-thin hate talk directed at me IRL to put myself up for it on purpose in cyberspace. I think there is more vitriol displayed toward thin women (especially older thin women who've had 4 babies) than there is against the obese.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I knew when I read the book that we would never eat that way. I have tried a few of his recipes and found them so-so.

I can see how people who have been obese and have major health issues love his way of eating and can follow it happily since it gave them back their lives. But I think his approach is unbalanced and not practical or realistic for many people. I don't like his attitude and none of his "facts" about animal food is accurate with respect to pastured animals.

 

I think we are fairly serious about eating healthily within our financial limitations.

We do eat lots of veggies and I am always looking for recipes and ways to incorporate more fresh veggies into our diet. I find vegetarian cookbooks from the library are great sources lately. Love Moosewood for fun new things!

We buy the"dirty dozen" organic, have a great CSA and grow a small garden.

We eat very little processed food and I cook from scratch.

We eat organic dairy, pastured meats, eggs and poultry. No refined oils. I love EVOO!

We do not eat lots of sweets, though I do make homemade, real food treats.

 

We have no food allergies or major health issues and are not overweight. We exercise regularly.

I don't think we need to eat his way to be healthy and I'm not convinced that it would be healthy for most people.

 

We are happy omnivores. Moderation and balance.

We try to provide our family with high quality food, but realize that we will all eat poor quality food sometimes and it's okay.

We try to be good stewards of our bodies and our environment, but as Christians we trust in the LORD our God for the length of our lives and our health.

 

We think that supporting local, biodiverse family farms which practice excellent land and water management and treat their animals humanely is good stewardship. We think that teaching our kids to garden is fun and healthy and educational. We love eating new foods and cooking things in new ways. Food is a gift from God and we enjoy it - the bacon, butter, wine, chocolate and bread as well as the fruit and veggies!

 

If Eat To Live has helped some people be healthy, great. But it's not a way of life we can happily embrace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

:iagree: Exactly this. I am not even remotely tempted to post my stats here, nor would I consider posting what weight i consider "too fat" on me. I have had enough too-thin hate talk directed at me IRL to put myself up for it on purpose in cyberspace. I think there is more vitriol displayed toward thin women (especially older thin women who've had 4 babies) than there is against the obese.

True that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

Ă—
Ă—
  • Create New...