Ok, I can't post a recipe in the recipe area w/out signing up for the other board, which I just don't want to do. I posted my first cheap recipe in the Nutrition section, here:
http://weight-loss.fitness.com/nutri...-eggrolls.html

It's slightly higher calorie and higher carb than most of what I make, but it's what I had for dinner tonight and I had all the nutritional information and the costs right at my fingertips. It's still a healthy item though, and would work for those who are eating 1600-1800 calories a day.

I'll post a few more soon.

I guess my real point was that if you avoid using high glycemic load filler foods, which I do, and which are very cheap, then your costs will rise. Of course, this depends on where you live.

Where I live, nationwide, whole, uncooked chickens are not sold in supermarkets but once in a blue moon. Neither are packets of whole chickens cut into pieces being offered. There are no corner butcher shops, or farms that sell to the public. All the chicken packs being offered in the supermarkets are composed of the same cut (pack of wings, pack of thigh-leg combos, pack of legs, pack of breasts) and 95% of them are already in some sort of marinade (honey, barbeque, you name it). It is very difficult to find packets of chicken which are "au naturel", that is without any marinade. The breast packs (au naturel) which are on offer, usually always boned and skinned, cost 13 EUR per kilo - that works out to approximately 8.59 USD per pound with today's conversion rates. BTW, chicken breast is far cheaper than beef, pork, or fish here... unless you're talking ground beef or frozen, breaded fish sticks.

On the other hand, the sausages that most people here love to eat with fried eggs and fried potatoes (for dinner) cost 3 EUR per kilo - that's 1.98 per pound. These "sausages" contain less than 50% meat, and the remainder is flour. When you're hungry and meat and vegetables are so expensive, it's very common to fill up with rice, potatoes, pasta, and bread.

BTW, capers are my source of sodium for me since I stopped shaking salt on my food. I use about 10 of them with every meal. They reduce farting and are also good for your liver. Think of them as very cheap little vitamins ;-)

A lot of foods contain sodium. I never shake salt on my food or in cooking - but have to be vigilent that I do not exceed 2400mg sodium a day. I retain water very easily.

If you havent already done so it may be worth checking your sodium levels using FitDay - Free Weight Loss and Diet Journal. Foods that contain sodium do not need to taste salty.

Insulin makes us fat?

Ditto that. We could make a healthy recipe sticky. I'm not sure if we have one of them or not.

In a word, yes. Insulin evolved to protect the body against famine, in a time when famine was frequent and feasts weren't.

Insulin's function is to store excess carbohydrate calories as fat and at the same time to block fat cells from being accessed for energy. NOTE that this does not mean excess daily calories - you can be in daily calorie deficit and still consume excess carbohydrate calories, in which case you won't lose weight and you will be starving.

Partially correct.

You're right. *One of* insulin's roles is to store glucose.

Where most go wrong in terms of their understanding of insulin/glucose metabolism is here:

What happens if, say, you eat one huge meal and spike the hell out of insulin, store fat, shut off lipolysis - and then don't eat again for the rest of the day?

If that one meal was only 1000 calories and you need 2000 a day to cover your energy costs, why exactly is the body just going to hang on to those calories when it needs them to survive?

The conservation of energy does apply to humans. Stated differently, excess carbs will not lead to a net increase in mass without a corresponding surplus of calories.

In the acute term, fat can be stored in a calorie deficit. However, the short term matters little. Just as fast as it's stored it can and will be pulled out given inadequate calories. The net outcome is a loss of tissue.

That fat is stored in overfeeding of carbohydrates in the short term is irrelevant given a 24-hour negative calorie balance.

If you're going to suggest insulin is responsible for a net gain in mass/energy in a living organism without regards to net mass/energy intake... you're going to have to do a real good job at explaining just how the action creates mass from thin air.

If you do that, you'll have riches beyond your wildest dreams bestowed upon you b/c you'll be the majority of the way to solving the world's energy crisis.

Because eating once per day will slow the metabolism, thus reducing the energy costs. Besides, if you eat 1000 kcal of tuna and vegetables covered with olive oil at a sitting, your insulin won't spike much at all and you won't feel too tired an hour later. On the other hand, if you eat 1000 kcal of pasta at a sitting, insulin will spike like hell, you will feel very tired an hour later, and 3 hours later you will be shaking and craving more carbs. There is a very big difference in how the body reacts to the macronutrient input... it's not about the kcal; it's about the insulin.





OK, here is an example: a person eats nothing other than 3 packets of ramen noodles per day (morning, noon, and night) for a month.. At 1206 kcal, this is a calorie deficit for nearly anyone, but it is enough to get by on as the metabolism will slow way down. However, because the (simple) carb percentage is 61% of the total mass of food, it will significantly raise insulin after each meal. Weight will not drop because insulin puts a one-way valve onto fat cells: it allows deposits, but no withdrawals are possible.


Blue Dragon Chicken and Chili 3 Minute Noodles
85g packet
----------------
402 kcal
8g protein
52g carbohydrates (0.4g from sugar)
17.8g fat (8.9g saturated)
0.5g fibre
1.1g sodium


Anybody want to try this diet for a month, or even 1-2 weeks, and prove me wrong? It's really cheap. You can eat for less than 2 bucks a day.

In case you are wondering, yes, I have tried this diet for a month at a time when I was in the army, out in the field. Why? Because it tasted a helluva lot better than the army food in plastic bags that I had already eaten for way too long. I was then about 185lbs and 21% body fat, and after 1 month of this diet I hadn't lost a single pound. I didn't have any other food or drinks, either, only ramen noodles and water.

On the other hand, I completely eliminated grains from my diet a few months ago, taking in about 1200kcal per day from fish, chicken, vegetables, yogurt, almonds, and olive oil - fairly high protein and high fat diet, low carbs (and only complex carbs). I have lost 2lbs per week, every week. I am full of energy, because insulin is not blocking access to my fat cells - they are being accessed for energy. I'm lifting weights, getting stronger by the day, and my arm and chest muscles are visibly growing.

I realize that I can not stay on a 1200kcal diet forever - as my bodyfat percentage drops, there will be less fat available to burn to make up the daily kcal difference. As this happens, I will need to eat more. But for now, there is still plenty of fat on me to burn, and I keep my insulin low so that it can be burned. And it is being burned.

Source please? Reliable, reputable source? Because every reliable, reputable study I've seen says this isn't true. The number of times a day you eat has little to no effect on your metabolism.

No, that's not how things work. Thankfully.

You realize there's an insulin response to protein, right?

That's not the argument. Let's not shift goalposts. You said that we can gain mass regardless of whether there's an energy surplus or not. Put succinctly, you implied that we can increase tissue mass while being in a caloric deficit.

This is the point of contention.

One that's incorrect unless you're seriously implying you've found a way to bypass the law of conservation of energy. Which if this is the case, I genuinely have some people at a few universities that would love to get in contact with you.

That nutrients have different actions in the body (which I'm quite certain most anyone here understands) has no bearing on the above point.

Here's a test for you.

Calculate your calorie needs.

Cut that number by 75%.

Fill said intake with nothing but carbs for 3 weeks.

Come back and report what your weight did.

If you'd like, you could fill said intake with some protein too to preserve lean mass, keeping in mind protein also has an insulin response.

Also, and this is a serious suggestion, you might consider doing some research into acylation stimulation protein. Turns out you don't need insulin to store fat.

Sorry, I'm replying as I read along.

Sure. Put some money on the line and I'll do the same. We can even up via paypal. I'll record myself eating the noodles each day with a newspaper dated.

If I win I get the money.

If you win, you get my money and fame for finding the resolution to the energy crises.

Before we play this game, please enlighten me on what exactly is creating mass in a negative energy state.

No proof.

Not that I don't trust you. I simply don't know you.

My way would bear proof, so if you're serious... I'll play.

If you want to rely on anecdote... I do this for a living. Ya know... help people lose weight. Virtually all of my clients eat carbs. And lose weight.

***

In summary, I'd like for you to directly speak on these points:

1) How insulin establishes a violation of the conservation of energy.
2) How you factor in the insulin response to protein.
3) Your thoughts on acylation stimulation protein.

Steve, you are wasting your key strokes.

Sometimes responding to the idiots isn't about trying to change their minds (people who refuse to actually think aren't going to ever get it) - it's about making sure to provide accurate information for those who might otherwise read the thread and think that the idiots know what they're talking about.

I agree Kara. Too many people take something that they read (from any source whatsoever) as being gospel. If no-one contradicts - that proves it doesnt it...

Steve's of sterner stuff than me - I couldnt live on pure noodles for just a week - never mind a month. A day would be tough going...

Some people do not buy fruit and vegetables for everyday to eat, i find that that is one thing why they say it is expensive

Depends on what sort of money we're putting down.

And yea, my involvement in threads like this is typically about the integrity of information. People believe a lot of things with no proof. I used to be amazed by what some would believe even though it flies in the face of very basic science... like we see here.

Now it's all too common and it stems primarily from the inability to think critically coupled with heavy crap marketing of products and gimmicks that aren't back by real science.

Speaking to the point...

Don't get me wrong... you can eat huge deficits and not lose weight. For a while. And that last point is what's important. It has nothing to do with insulin though and everything to do with things like water balance and the like.

Just ask an anorexic.