Meta-study says too much carbohydrate, not fat, leads to obesity(thatpaleoguy.com)
thatpaleoguy.com
Meta-study says too much carbohydrate, not fat, leads to obesity
http://thatpaleoguy.com/2013/11/20/bmj-swedish-health-advisory-body-says-too-much-carbohydrate-not-fat-leads-to-obesity/
87 comments
Doing some personal research a while back revealed to me that diet studies in general have ridiculously low standards. The vast, vast majority of them are volunteer, self-journaled data based that would be laughed out of any other scientific context.
Controlled group studies are almost entirely non-existent and are typically limited to very specific conditions and goals, such as diets for epileptics.
I hope at some point we'll sit down and do a proper broad study on different diets where all meals are controlled for x amount of time and get a range of data that you could further divide and conquer and figure such a crucial part of our existence out.
Controlled group studies are almost entirely non-existent and are typically limited to very specific conditions and goals, such as diets for epileptics.
I hope at some point we'll sit down and do a proper broad study on different diets where all meals are controlled for x amount of time and get a range of data that you could further divide and conquer and figure such a crucial part of our existence out.
"Controlled environment" would require that these people would not see their friends/family (because almost every social gathering these days features calorie intake in some way), not be able to go into a convenience store to get the paper, and other things. It's much harder than you'd think.
A friend of mine is an MD who does weight management research. Apparently, people misreport their intakes by significant factors - either because they don't consciously remember, or because they try to make themselves feel better - but generally, you can't trust what people do when you are not watching, or describe what they did.
A friend of mine is an MD who does weight management research. Apparently, people misreport their intakes by significant factors - either because they don't consciously remember, or because they try to make themselves feel better - but generally, you can't trust what people do when you are not watching, or describe what they did.
There are ethical considerations that would mean it could never happen.
People don't self report accurately.
> I'm sure there are lots of institutional opportunities where we have large populations of people who would be happy to volunteer for this type of study.
Foxcon?
People don't self report accurately.
> I'm sure there are lots of institutional opportunities where we have large populations of people who would be happy to volunteer for this type of study.
Foxcon?
I think the work from http://nusi.org/ could be promising.
When people ask me about this, I like to start off by telling them that of the three macronutrients, carbs, protein and fat, only carbs are non-essential. We literally can't live without fat and protein, but we would do just fine with out carbs.
Most people don't know that carbs are not required to live. We've been sold a bill of goods on carbs and it's been hurting us for 2 decades.
And further, there are certain people who should be no where near carbs.
* Diabetics and pre-diabetics
* cancer patients
* the obese
* people who don't workout
Carbs aren't evil, they should just be used strategically. Namely, to gain weight. Bodybuilders and powerlifters have known this forever. To gain weight, eat everything but mostly carbs. To lose weight, keep protein high, fill the rest of your calories with fat and limit the carbs.
Most people don't know that carbs are not required to live. We've been sold a bill of goods on carbs and it's been hurting us for 2 decades.
And further, there are certain people who should be no where near carbs.
* Diabetics and pre-diabetics
* cancer patients
* the obese
* people who don't workout
Carbs aren't evil, they should just be used strategically. Namely, to gain weight. Bodybuilders and powerlifters have known this forever. To gain weight, eat everything but mostly carbs. To lose weight, keep protein high, fill the rest of your calories with fat and limit the carbs.
This applies to type II diabetics, but not to type I. As a type I diabetic, I would be dead pretty quick without carbs. Proteins and fats can raise blood sugar, but they do it very slowly, so I would have no way to correct low blood sugars before they got out of control.
Minor nitpick, I know, but the two types get conflated often, leading to misinformation. I cannot count how many times people have been surprised that I am diabetic, since I am thin (which is normal, since it is not weight related, and actually leads to weight loss when untreated).
Minor nitpick, I know, but the two types get conflated often, leading to misinformation. I cannot count how many times people have been surprised that I am diabetic, since I am thin (which is normal, since it is not weight related, and actually leads to weight loss when untreated).
You are correct, diabetes type I should NEVER go on the LCHF diet - it's impossible.
I went on the LCHF diet in March, and have gotten rid of my type II completely - i also lost 10KG of overweight in about a months time.
I went on the LCHF diet in March, and have gotten rid of my type II completely - i also lost 10KG of overweight in about a months time.
Type II here, my endo-doc has me eat a certain amount of carbs at every meal. She prefers that I eat carbs that take longer to process, like fruits and vegetables. I just finished half a baked apple.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diabetic_diet#Carbohydrates
http://www.diabetes.org/food-and-fitness/food/planning-meals...
That is not a "nowhere near carbs" diet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diabetic_diet#Carbohydrates
http://www.diabetes.org/food-and-fitness/food/planning-meals...
That is not a "nowhere near carbs" diet.
If you truly don't eat any carbs at all (something that is extremely hard to do) I am pretty sure you end up in ketosis. That's not exactly a healthy state of affairs despite the fact that you can live that way. Practically speaking, there are too many things your body needs that also require you to eat things with carbs: vitamin c, folate, etc...
Are you thinking of Ketoacidosis? Ketosis is fine for people to live in and intentionally induced via the keto diet in quite a few people. It does remain slightly controversial if we need ketosis for weight management via keto, but I've seen nothing saying ketosis is harmful.
> I've seen nothing saying ketosis is harmful.
Really?
During ketosis, the body forms substances known as ketones, which can cause organs to fail and result in gout, kidney stones, or kidney failure. Ketones can also dull a person's appetite, cause nausea and bad breath. Ketosis can be prevented by eating at least 100 grams of carbohydrates a day. [1]
Ketosis occurs when you don't have enough sugar (glucose) for energy, so your body breaks down stored fat, causing ketones to build up in your body. Side effects from ketosis can include nausea, headache, mental fatigue and bad breath. [2]
[1] http://www.webmd.com/diet/high-protein-low-carbohydrate-diet...
[2] http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/low-carb-diet/NU00279/NSECT...
Really?
During ketosis, the body forms substances known as ketones, which can cause organs to fail and result in gout, kidney stones, or kidney failure. Ketones can also dull a person's appetite, cause nausea and bad breath. Ketosis can be prevented by eating at least 100 grams of carbohydrates a day. [1]
Ketosis occurs when you don't have enough sugar (glucose) for energy, so your body breaks down stored fat, causing ketones to build up in your body. Side effects from ketosis can include nausea, headache, mental fatigue and bad breath. [2]
[1] http://www.webmd.com/diet/high-protein-low-carbohydrate-diet...
[2] http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/low-carb-diet/NU00279/NSECT...
According to the study made by SBU, it is very hard to get into a ketosis stage that is dangerous. You would really have to skip every nutrition and only eat fat - doing that is dangerous and not even recommended by LCHF diet. The amount of carbs you get from sallads are about 5% of a diet, this is the recommended amount that would keep you from going into a high-ketosis stage.
I understand that links to webmd or mayoclinic are considered proof, but really, I don't trust them as anything other than a point to start googling (and googling shows everyone refers to them, and never to any primary source).
I haven't eaten meat or taken B12 supplement in over 20 years. According to those sources (unless they've updated in the last two years), I should be dead. (Well, maybe I am, but that's beside the point :) )
They state with the same level of authority things that have been proved without shadow of a doubt, and things which have been accepted hypothesis in the medical community but were never proved.
Yes, ketosis (by definition) means your body forms ketones. Yes, initially it changes body and breath odor, usually for the worse, and sometimes (rarely) also causes nausea (but so does kimchy or chutney if you start eating it as a main food). I haven't found any serious studies, but anecdata suggests that all of these symptoms pass within a couple of weeks.
I haven't eaten meat or taken B12 supplement in over 20 years. According to those sources (unless they've updated in the last two years), I should be dead. (Well, maybe I am, but that's beside the point :) )
They state with the same level of authority things that have been proved without shadow of a doubt, and things which have been accepted hypothesis in the medical community but were never proved.
Yes, ketosis (by definition) means your body forms ketones. Yes, initially it changes body and breath odor, usually for the worse, and sometimes (rarely) also causes nausea (but so does kimchy or chutney if you start eating it as a main food). I haven't found any serious studies, but anecdata suggests that all of these symptoms pass within a couple of weeks.
I'm not posting this as a disagreement to anything you've said, but if everyone on that list decided to drop carbs for protein/fat, there wouldn't be enough food for everyone.
That's to say, before we can really cut out carbs from our diets we'll need to re-examine where our current food production is heading. The past half-century of advances seems to mostly have gone towards producing the most carbs per acre, albeit those carbs are typically then inefficiently converted into fat/protein (livestock). Soy is pretty good for mass protein production. Not sure if it would really be up to the task of what corn puts out in caloric density.
That's to say, before we can really cut out carbs from our diets we'll need to re-examine where our current food production is heading. The past half-century of advances seems to mostly have gone towards producing the most carbs per acre, albeit those carbs are typically then inefficiently converted into fat/protein (livestock). Soy is pretty good for mass protein production. Not sure if it would really be up to the task of what corn puts out in caloric density.
When I was growing up it was advised to skip the bread, pasta and potatoes if your goal was to lose weight. Skip being interpreted to limit, not eliminate.
This all changed in the 80's when fat became the culprit behind heart disease. Thus began the high-fat, low-carb diet trend we're on now.
Now we have the Swedes telling us fat is good for us, actually reducing the risk of heart disease. Seems like my grandma was right all along: watch out for that bread and pasta.
This all changed in the 80's when fat became the culprit behind heart disease. Thus began the high-fat, low-carb diet trend we're on now.
Now we have the Swedes telling us fat is good for us, actually reducing the risk of heart disease. Seems like my grandma was right all along: watch out for that bread and pasta.
"we would do just fine with out carbs" - Intuition leads me to want to disagree with this. How would the body handle not having ANY fiber? I'm curious. Fiber helps digestion, feeds the happy parts of your internal biome, makes your colon happy, etc. I can't imagine that eliminating all carbs is good for your body.
Normally if you follow a low-carb diet, you get your fiber from greens. I believe the statement was targeted more towards carbs like bread, pasta, rice, etc.
Indeed.
Ok, but that's not what you said? You say something bold and provocative and then start carving out exceptions buried downthread.
As I said elsewhere in this discussion: "I feel like all the simple answers in nutrition are BS and the only short answer is 'it's complex.'"
As I said elsewhere in this discussion: "I feel like all the simple answers in nutrition are BS and the only short answer is 'it's complex.'"
Ok, here it is. Technically, we don't need carbs. Whatever that means, it is what it is. Carbs are a non-essiential macronutrient.
We need some vitamins, minerals and what not as well as protein and fat. We don't need carbs. Some of those vitamins and minerals come from plants, which have, as we say in the biz, trace carbs and fiber.
When I'm cutting down for a photoshoot I go keto. I might not have a veggie for weeks. My bloods and panels all look fine. I mostly eat veggies b/c I feel bad for not eating them.
I do take a multivit every day and I'm eating plenty of fat which helps the colon move things along.
When I'm gaining muscle, I do eat carbs. Lots of carbs. But we don't need carbs.
We need some vitamins, minerals and what not as well as protein and fat. We don't need carbs. Some of those vitamins and minerals come from plants, which have, as we say in the biz, trace carbs and fiber.
When I'm cutting down for a photoshoot I go keto. I might not have a veggie for weeks. My bloods and panels all look fine. I mostly eat veggies b/c I feel bad for not eating them.
I do take a multivit every day and I'm eating plenty of fat which helps the colon move things along.
When I'm gaining muscle, I do eat carbs. Lots of carbs. But we don't need carbs.
> But we don't need carbs.
Do you have any science to back up this bold claim?
And what are you claiming carbohydrates are? Simplex and complex carbohydrates - sugars and starches?
It seems like you're saying that we don't need carbs, but that eating a diet with no carbs means we lose out on all those foods that have other useful nutrients (ie green vegetables). So, we tend to eat diets that have carbs to get the other benefits. Is that right?
Do you have any science to back up this bold claim?
And what are you claiming carbohydrates are? Simplex and complex carbohydrates - sugars and starches?
It seems like you're saying that we don't need carbs, but that eating a diet with no carbs means we lose out on all those foods that have other useful nutrients (ie green vegetables). So, we tend to eat diets that have carbs to get the other benefits. Is that right?
Well this is an interesting result of marketing.
Fruits and vegetables offer fiber. For example, dark greens offer 6.4g of fiber per serving while whole grains offer 2.4g.
Fruits and vegetables offer fiber. For example, dark greens offer 6.4g of fiber per serving while whole grains offer 2.4g.
I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. Fruits and Vegetables are mostly carbs (except for the rare ones like avacados) just like whole grains. Presumably if you were to cut out all carbs they would be on the chopping block too.
Vegetables are mostly water. Lots of them provide more fiber than other carbs (and even more protein than digestible carbs). Pedantically you would have to cut them to eliminate carbs. On a practical basis, there isn't much reason to.
When you up the fat, things flow very well in the colon front. Particularly if that fat is MCT based (coconut, mct oil).
Seems to work okay for the Inuit
Life expectancy in aboriginal populations is hard to measure. Modern populations have many complex factors affecting life expectancy, including cheap alcohol.
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/080123/dq080123d-en...
http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/01/23/us-inuit-idUSN2362...
I dunno, that doesn't sound okay.
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/080123/dq080123d-en...
http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/01/23/us-inuit-idUSN2362...
I dunno, that doesn't sound okay.
I understand the reasoning for 1, 3 and 4 but why cancer patients?
As far as I know this is still some preliminary research, but there is some evidence that chronic high blood sugar can cause cancer to grow more rapidly than a steady and lower level of blood sugar. The working theory seems to be that because the cancer is growing more rapidly, it requires more energy. By feeding it (literally) a steady supply of higher blood sugar levels, you are allowing it to grow faster than it would otherwise. I believe this is still all only working theory at the moment, though, and I wouldn't be surprised to see the whole idea in general get walked back at some point (even if it does sound plausible). It's fairly new stuff, on the time scale of cancer studies.
I can't find my original study link atm :/ some quick googling brought up this one, but it wasn't the study I was thinking about: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/06/130605190158.ht...
basic theory goes like this: the body doesn't need carbs to live, but cancer cells do. You are starving the cancer by not ingesting carbs. It seems the cancer cells lack the ability to derive energy from ketones and fatty acids, which is where humans would get the energy on a low-carb diet.
basic theory goes like this: the body doesn't need carbs to live, but cancer cells do. You are starving the cancer by not ingesting carbs. It seems the cancer cells lack the ability to derive energy from ketones and fatty acids, which is where humans would get the energy on a low-carb diet.
> We literally can't live without fat
I don't think that's true of fat. Your body can synthesize the fat it needs from sugars. There is a bit of a debate about whether there are really "essential fatty acids" that people can't synthesize, but if they exist the quantities required are very small.
I don't think that's true of fat. Your body can synthesize the fat it needs from sugars. There is a bit of a debate about whether there are really "essential fatty acids" that people can't synthesize, but if they exist the quantities required are very small.
The human body cannot live without ingested fatty acids. These are called "essential fatty acids" and include linoleic and linolenic acids.
As I said, that's debated. People have experimentally gone long periods with zero fat intake without ill effect.
It's under debate in the same way that other well established scientific ideas are under debate.
That there are essential fatty acids for humans could certainly be disproven, but "going long periods with zero fat intake" is not sufficient evidence to disprove established biochemistry.
That there are essential fatty acids for humans could certainly be disproven, but "going long periods with zero fat intake" is not sufficient evidence to disprove established biochemistry.
The Carbohydrate Hypothesis of Obesity: a Critical Examination:
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/08/carbohydrate-h...
Basically debunks the carbohydrate hypothesis:
"I hope you can see by now that the carbohydrate hypothesis of obesity is not only incorrect on a number of levels, but it may even be backward. The reason why obesity and metabolism researchers don't typically subscribe to this idea is that it is contradicted by a large body of evidence from multiple fields. I understand that people like ideas that "challenge conventional wisdom", but the fact is that obesity is a complex state and it will not be shoehorned into simplistic hypotheses."
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/08/carbohydrate-h...
Basically debunks the carbohydrate hypothesis:
"I hope you can see by now that the carbohydrate hypothesis of obesity is not only incorrect on a number of levels, but it may even be backward. The reason why obesity and metabolism researchers don't typically subscribe to this idea is that it is contradicted by a large body of evidence from multiple fields. I understand that people like ideas that "challenge conventional wisdom", but the fact is that obesity is a complex state and it will not be shoehorned into simplistic hypotheses."
It's worth quoting the introduction to give context to that conclusion:
"I'd like to begin by emphasizing that carbohydrate restriction has helped many people lose body fat and improve their metabolic health. Although it doesn't work for everyone, there is no doubt that carbohydrate restriction causes fat loss in many, perhaps even most obese people. For a subset of people, the results can be very impressive. I consider that to be a fact at this point, but that's not what I'll be discussing here.
What I want to discuss is a hypothesis. It's the idea, championed by Gary Taubes, that carbohydrate (particularly refined carbohydrate) is the primary cause of common obesity due to its ability to elevate insulin, thereby causing increased fat storage in fat cells."
Aside: if I only had time to follow one blog on nutrition, it would be Whole Health Source.
"I'd like to begin by emphasizing that carbohydrate restriction has helped many people lose body fat and improve their metabolic health. Although it doesn't work for everyone, there is no doubt that carbohydrate restriction causes fat loss in many, perhaps even most obese people. For a subset of people, the results can be very impressive. I consider that to be a fact at this point, but that's not what I'll be discussing here.
What I want to discuss is a hypothesis. It's the idea, championed by Gary Taubes, that carbohydrate (particularly refined carbohydrate) is the primary cause of common obesity due to its ability to elevate insulin, thereby causing increased fat storage in fat cells."
Aside: if I only had time to follow one blog on nutrition, it would be Whole Health Source.
The proposition that carbohydrates cause obesity may be true even if it is not the case that insulin plays a primary role in that process as Taubes claims. Since it is only the latter proposition that Guyenet debunks, he makes an obvious logical error in claiming that the broader carbohydrate hypothesis has been refuted.
Wait, are you saying that carbs are or are not a prime cause of obesity?
This stuff gets a little conspiracy theorist. I think the most basic problem is that carbs are cheap and it's easy to eat a lot of them because they're not filling. Losing weight is about calories in versus calories out, but calories in is about hunger management.
Where I get breakfast, they sell these pretzels. 300 calories for something that'll leave you feeling hungry immediately. Meanwhile a small container of 2% Greek yogurt will fill you up till lunch for half the calories.
My favorite lunch is a salad at chipotle: lettuce, chicken guacamole, cheese. At 450 calories, it's ridiculously filling and has about as many calories as a small sandwich that'll leave you hungry by the afternoon. Or a twelve piece nuggets at chick fil a. 400 calories for a tasty lunch that is so filling it's even a bit hard to eat in a sitting.
But have a cup of coffee and a scone at Starbucks? Same number of calories as the twelve piece nuggets, except people don't feel like fat asses having that before going home for dinner.
If you have trouble losing weight because you can't stay on the wagon, at least try a low carb diet. Realize that a bagel at 200 calories = 5-7 strips of bacon and the latter will fill you up and the former won't. Also eat lots of vegetables to add volume with low calories. If you have a sweet tooth, put a teaspoon of sugar in some FAGE. It's only 15 extra calories.
Where I get breakfast, they sell these pretzels. 300 calories for something that'll leave you feeling hungry immediately. Meanwhile a small container of 2% Greek yogurt will fill you up till lunch for half the calories.
My favorite lunch is a salad at chipotle: lettuce, chicken guacamole, cheese. At 450 calories, it's ridiculously filling and has about as many calories as a small sandwich that'll leave you hungry by the afternoon. Or a twelve piece nuggets at chick fil a. 400 calories for a tasty lunch that is so filling it's even a bit hard to eat in a sitting.
But have a cup of coffee and a scone at Starbucks? Same number of calories as the twelve piece nuggets, except people don't feel like fat asses having that before going home for dinner.
If you have trouble losing weight because you can't stay on the wagon, at least try a low carb diet. Realize that a bagel at 200 calories = 5-7 strips of bacon and the latter will fill you up and the former won't. Also eat lots of vegetables to add volume with low calories. If you have a sweet tooth, put a teaspoon of sugar in some FAGE. It's only 15 extra calories.
> Losing weight is about calories in versus calories out
[citation needed]. I know that's the common wisdom, but I also know of countless anecdotes (see e.g. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/sam-feltham/weight-loss-advi... and his previous 6K-calorie diet, and some real data - a few of the references in http://media.sethroberts.net/about/whatmakesfoodfattening.pd... , don't remember which ones) where that simply does not work. And I've actually been looking for papers establishing the science behind "calorie counting", and came up mostly with contrary results -
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC506782/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22760558
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/86/6/1649.full
[citation needed]. I know that's the common wisdom, but I also know of countless anecdotes (see e.g. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/sam-feltham/weight-loss-advi... and his previous 6K-calorie diet, and some real data - a few of the references in http://media.sethroberts.net/about/whatmakesfoodfattening.pd... , don't remember which ones) where that simply does not work. And I've actually been looking for papers establishing the science behind "calorie counting", and came up mostly with contrary results -
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC506782/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22760558
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/86/6/1649.full
I would not advise anyone trying to lose weight to go on a 'low carb' diet. While its true that most people need to consume less carbs, a good balance of fats, proteins, and carbs are a part of most healthy diets.
Satiation has less to do with the absence of carbs as it does the glycemic index of the carbs. Foods like oatmeal have a low glycemic index and thus raise your blood sugar much slower than a candy bar which might cause a sudden spike. So its advisable to eat slow burning low glycemic index carbs in the morning to feel fuller during the day.
Also there are a lot of mixed views about dairy as well as the high sodium content of chipotle in the weightlifting and weight loss world.
Satiation has less to do with the absence of carbs as it does the glycemic index of the carbs. Foods like oatmeal have a low glycemic index and thus raise your blood sugar much slower than a candy bar which might cause a sudden spike. So its advisable to eat slow burning low glycemic index carbs in the morning to feel fuller during the day.
Also there are a lot of mixed views about dairy as well as the high sodium content of chipotle in the weightlifting and weight loss world.
Note I qualified my advice as being aimed at people who are having trouble losing weight because they can't easily control their eating (which encompasses many or even most people). For those people, I think trying to have a "good balance of fats, proteins, and carbs" (whatever that means--most nutrition advice is handwaving) is an additional constraint that makes it too hard to stick to a diet that limits calorie intake. I think its actually ultimately unhealthy to advise people to try and maintain a "balanced" diet (again, whatever that means), because clearly people don't have the willpower to to begin with (or else they wouldn't all be fat).
This is particularly true if you're a typical busy, stressed person who doesn't have the time to prepare and plan his or her own meals. Restaurants make it very difficult to eat limited calories while balancing fats, protein, and carbs, because their dishes come with an overabundance of cheap carbs. To use Applebee's as a reference for a typical American suburban restaurant, the 12 oz new york strip has 480 calories, while the seasonable vegetables adds another 40-60. Almost all of the pasta dishes have 1100+ calories. If you're trying to stay under 600 calories for dinner, you're going to have much more success ordering the steak than you will ordering the pasta and willing yourself to eat only half the portion.
Fun fact: the glycemic index of oatmeal isn't that low. See: http://www.amsa.org/healingthehealer/GlycemicIndex.pdf. Oatmeal has a glycemic index of 61. Table sugar is 65. Whole milk is 27. Peanuts are 14. Low fat yogurt is 33. Oatmeal is better than say white bread or a bagel, but what isn't?
This is particularly true if you're a typical busy, stressed person who doesn't have the time to prepare and plan his or her own meals. Restaurants make it very difficult to eat limited calories while balancing fats, protein, and carbs, because their dishes come with an overabundance of cheap carbs. To use Applebee's as a reference for a typical American suburban restaurant, the 12 oz new york strip has 480 calories, while the seasonable vegetables adds another 40-60. Almost all of the pasta dishes have 1100+ calories. If you're trying to stay under 600 calories for dinner, you're going to have much more success ordering the steak than you will ordering the pasta and willing yourself to eat only half the portion.
Fun fact: the glycemic index of oatmeal isn't that low. See: http://www.amsa.org/healingthehealer/GlycemicIndex.pdf. Oatmeal has a glycemic index of 61. Table sugar is 65. Whole milk is 27. Peanuts are 14. Low fat yogurt is 33. Oatmeal is better than say white bread or a bagel, but what isn't?
Satiation has a lot to do with responses that vary between individuals, too; there's no one-size-fits-all weight loss recipe (much less a one-size-fits-all ideal diet recipe.)
Not disagreeing with anything you say, but I generally eat a 100% carbs lunch and also feel full and not hungry later. Usually it's 2 apples or 1 apple and another serving of fruit, and a cup of tea with no refined sugar. (Usually a bit of honey).
I feel like all the simple answers in nutrition are BS and the only short answer is "it's complex."
But I definitely do agree with the calorie-is-a-calorie line of thought. Gaining weight is an I/O issue.
I feel like all the simple answers in nutrition are BS and the only short answer is "it's complex."
But I definitely do agree with the calorie-is-a-calorie line of thought. Gaining weight is an I/O issue.
Pin not talking about high fiber carbs like apples. They have very low calories because they're mostly fiber and water. I'm talking about the staples of American diet: bread, pasta, etc.
Also, two apples have 200 calories. That's basically a slice and a half of bread. Very few people would find either filling. But at 270 calories a lot of people would find an 8 piece nuggets at Chick Fil a pretty filling.
Also, two apples have 200 calories. That's basically a slice and a half of bread. Very few people would find either filling. But at 270 calories a lot of people would find an 8 piece nuggets at Chick Fil a pretty filling.
While that was evident and clear -- and I upvoted you for your cogent analysis -- it also goes with what I'm saying, that the only short answer is "it's complex."
There's a major difference between how your body reacts to complex carbs (fruits, vegetables, etc.) versus simple, processed carbs (cookies, soda, etc.). The former is packed with fiber which moderates the intake of the carbs into your bloodstream. The latter is a direct injection...which causes a spike versus the slow release that you experience.
I agree. I saw this recent piece on Doritos and was amazed at how much attention goes into EVERY sensory experience you have with the chip to maximize your intake (ie, calories consumed):
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/10/01/dining/nacho-g...
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/10/01/dining/nacho-g...
So I could eat 10,000 calories of fat per day and lose weight if I cut out the carbs? I doubt it.
There seems to be a zero-sum mentality that will (maybe) never die off that if one food group is good others must be bad. As for me, I'll listen to Michael Pollan's advice:
Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.
There seems to be a zero-sum mentality that will (maybe) never die off that if one food group is good others must be bad. As for me, I'll listen to Michael Pollan's advice:
Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.
"So I could eat 10,000 calories of fat per day..."
Try it. No carbs, just fat & protein, 10,000 calories.
Seriously, try it. Just one day. Won't hurt you.
It is possible to consume 10,000 calories of carbs in a day. Short of physically stuffing it in, you will find it effectively impossible to eat 10,000 calories of fat and protein. You'll probably find it a challenge to go beyond 3,000. (Though if you switch to a high-fat, high-protein diet you might manage in the first couple of days before your body adjusts fully. And I'm assuming you're average; a large man might get 4K, but again, that'll be a challenge.)
Calories are not fungible. And once you accept that, it's frankly hard to look at the evidence, the biochemistry and how the hormones work, and not end up fingering carbs as the source of the obesity epidemic, not fat.
You may find it interesting to note that carbs all come from plants. (But not all plants, of course.)
Try it. No carbs, just fat & protein, 10,000 calories.
Seriously, try it. Just one day. Won't hurt you.
It is possible to consume 10,000 calories of carbs in a day. Short of physically stuffing it in, you will find it effectively impossible to eat 10,000 calories of fat and protein. You'll probably find it a challenge to go beyond 3,000. (Though if you switch to a high-fat, high-protein diet you might manage in the first couple of days before your body adjusts fully. And I'm assuming you're average; a large man might get 4K, but again, that'll be a challenge.)
Calories are not fungible. And once you accept that, it's frankly hard to look at the evidence, the biochemistry and how the hormones work, and not end up fingering carbs as the source of the obesity epidemic, not fat.
You may find it interesting to note that carbs all come from plants. (But not all plants, of course.)
The issue people take is that when people talk about this they frequently make it sound like carbs are what make cause obesity (eg the title of this post). However it's not that carbs cause obesity it's that carbs allow you to easily consume lots of calories and excess calories cause obesity.
It's funny because most of the "carbs are bad" and "carbs are fine" people agree that in reality it's calories that make you fat. For some reason when they talk to each other that point gets lost and it turns into two people talking past each other who agree in actuality.
It's funny because most of the "carbs are bad" and "carbs are fine" people agree that in reality it's calories that make you fat. For some reason when they talk to each other that point gets lost and it turns into two people talking past each other who agree in actuality.
That's because "calories make you fat" is effectively a tautology. "You are fat" and "you are over consuming calories" may be two different English sentences, but they say the same thing. People get confused because of the English and think they can use one sentence to explain the other, but it doesn't make any sense.
The correct question is, why do people over consume calories? And for that you get two very different answers. One is an external answer about how food has been made very available and appealing and is manufactured to be overconsumed (and often more than a faint whiff of Puritan moralism, indeed, often a great deal more than a faint whiff), and the other is about the biochemistry of consuming food and what happens to the satiety mechanisms and your blood sugar and where the blood sugar goes and why and how it comes back out again.
There's a real difference at that level.
The correct question is, why do people over consume calories? And for that you get two very different answers. One is an external answer about how food has been made very available and appealing and is manufactured to be overconsumed (and often more than a faint whiff of Puritan moralism, indeed, often a great deal more than a faint whiff), and the other is about the biochemistry of consuming food and what happens to the satiety mechanisms and your blood sugar and where the blood sugar goes and why and how it comes back out again.
There's a real difference at that level.
IMO, it would be better for the general public to think of them as "bad" rather than "good" as we do now. Most people shouldn't be consuming carbs, nearly at all. In general, the average person should be high fat, mod protein, low carb (very low) and they would be in much better overall health.
I think the problem is that carbs, much more than either of the other 2 macros, have more complex mechanisms at play.
For instance, carbs in the morning or at night? Most people know that you are burning fat when you wakeup from your overnight fast. But what most people don't know is that the first time you eat carbs, the fat burning stops.
6 meals or 2? Smaller insulin spikes over time lead (it appears) to insulin resistance moreso than one or two big spikes. The jury is a bit out on this, but the data is leaning this way (last I looked).
The meal frequency doesn't really matter with protein and fat, just carbs it seems.
Those are just some examples, but I think you get the idea. My mother (65) recently asked me what she should do for her diet in old age. Simple, I told her, eat lots of fish, meat, veggies, cream and some nuts. Avoid grains, bread, over doing it on fruit etc. She's worried about living a long time, heart health and cancer. No reason she should be anywhere near carbs.
I think the problem is that carbs, much more than either of the other 2 macros, have more complex mechanisms at play.
For instance, carbs in the morning or at night? Most people know that you are burning fat when you wakeup from your overnight fast. But what most people don't know is that the first time you eat carbs, the fat burning stops.
6 meals or 2? Smaller insulin spikes over time lead (it appears) to insulin resistance moreso than one or two big spikes. The jury is a bit out on this, but the data is leaning this way (last I looked).
The meal frequency doesn't really matter with protein and fat, just carbs it seems.
Those are just some examples, but I think you get the idea. My mother (65) recently asked me what she should do for her diet in old age. Simple, I told her, eat lots of fish, meat, veggies, cream and some nuts. Avoid grains, bread, over doing it on fruit etc. She's worried about living a long time, heart health and cancer. No reason she should be anywhere near carbs.
> average person should be high fat
You probably want to be getting a substantial fraction of your calories from sugars and starches, mixed with fat and protein. Ya know, like portions in cuisine all around the world has favored for ages.
I used to buy this high fat idea before reading more broadly. Firstly, non-saturated fats should be avoided to the extent possible, and that's hard to do on a high fat diet. Secondly, high fat meals are clearly inflammatory. More inflammatory than carbs. They cause endotoxin absorption and promote dysbiosis. The hormone profile of being a "fat burner" is not so great either. Cortisol goes up, because that drives fat metabolism. This is why people who go atkins or go on a fast say they feel great. It's elevated cortisol, just like a runner's high. That's fine in short doses, but sustained it leads to breakdown and damage.
Relax and have some sugary chocolate milk. It's perfectly healthy. Almost a balanced meal, in fact.
You probably want to be getting a substantial fraction of your calories from sugars and starches, mixed with fat and protein. Ya know, like portions in cuisine all around the world has favored for ages.
I used to buy this high fat idea before reading more broadly. Firstly, non-saturated fats should be avoided to the extent possible, and that's hard to do on a high fat diet. Secondly, high fat meals are clearly inflammatory. More inflammatory than carbs. They cause endotoxin absorption and promote dysbiosis. The hormone profile of being a "fat burner" is not so great either. Cortisol goes up, because that drives fat metabolism. This is why people who go atkins or go on a fast say they feel great. It's elevated cortisol, just like a runner's high. That's fine in short doses, but sustained it leads to breakdown and damage.
Relax and have some sugary chocolate milk. It's perfectly healthy. Almost a balanced meal, in fact.
Carbs also trigger an insulin response, which commands the body to store excess glucose not currently being burned as fat:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=carbohydrates+insulin+fa...
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=carbohydrates+insulin+fa...
The first couple days are rough. "Keto flu". After that, you shed pounds like crazy. I'm 31 (on Saturday), 5'6" and 173lbs (currently). I consume ~2000 calories a day, almost all protein and fat. I endeavour to keep my carbs under 20g/day. 4 protein shakes a day (170 calories/35g protein/1g sugars), plus sensible keto lunches and dinner.
With no exercise (I sit 8-10 hours/day at a desk) I lose about 1 pound every 2-3 days. Your body literally sheds fat on a low/no carb diet.
EDIT: After I'm down to my goal weight (150-155lbs), I plan on powerlifting. With large amounts of exercise, anaerobic or aerobic, you need to start consuming carbs to have the energy required. You're no longer at an energy surplus; based on your exercise level, you're shooting for coming out energy neutral.
With no exercise (I sit 8-10 hours/day at a desk) I lose about 1 pound every 2-3 days. Your body literally sheds fat on a low/no carb diet.
EDIT: After I'm down to my goal weight (150-155lbs), I plan on powerlifting. With large amounts of exercise, anaerobic or aerobic, you need to start consuming carbs to have the energy required. You're no longer at an energy surplus; based on your exercise level, you're shooting for coming out energy neutral.
Ok, then I'll rephrase my question: If I consume 3-4k calories of fat per day and exclude all carbs, will I lose weight? The answer is still "No, not if I'm using fewer than 3-4k calories in my daily activity."
I've been a lean 168, an obese 250, and am now a pretty healthy 175-180 pounds. As a matter of principle (I love food!!), I don't change what I eat over time. It's a healthy balance...but it's a lot of calories. If I'm active, I lose weight. If I'm sedentary, I gain weight. The fact is, if I have a consistent surplus of calories, I'm going to get fat. Period.
I've been a lean 168, an obese 250, and am now a pretty healthy 175-180 pounds. As a matter of principle (I love food!!), I don't change what I eat over time. It's a healthy balance...but it's a lot of calories. If I'm active, I lose weight. If I'm sedentary, I gain weight. The fact is, if I have a consistent surplus of calories, I'm going to get fat. Period.
"Ok, then I'll rephrase my question: If I consume 3-4k calories of fat per day and exclude all carbs, will I lose weight? The answer is still "No, not if I'm using fewer than 3-4k calories in my daily activity.""
Question is still based on a fundamentally flawed premise, which is that we can just talk about the human body as if it's a bag in which you stuff a certain amount of calories, and the bag passively accepts the stuffing with no reaction. Stuff it with 2000 calories or 10,000, it doesn't care.
This is so obviously wrong that as soon as you examine the assumption consciously it's obviously flawed, but people don't, usually. The point is, if you eat nothing but protein and fat, you will find yourself unable to overconsume. (Barring a real medical disorder, like thyroid problems.) Whether you would hypothetically gain weight if you forced the food in isn't very relevant, except in a very abstract scientific sense.
The truth is that humans aren't special, and just like the entire rest of the animal kingdom, our bodies have no particular inclination to become morbidly fat. Even in abundance, your body will self-regulate. It is not as if abundance is that unusual thing in the real world, not even sustained abundance, but you do not see morbidly obese deer waddling around or fat squirrels getting splattered in the road. What's wrong is what we eat, not our bodies. The idea that our bodies could be this... stupid is frankly just absurd.
If you eat protein, fat, and natural high-complexity carb in moderation (not Russet potatoes or the modern biological candies that some fruits have been turned into), you body will regulate itself. Any discussion of weight gain or loss without discussion of regulation mechanisms is so flawed it can just be ignored; the body is full of them. I don't count calories; I watch what I eat. The calorie counting is done by ancient and well-honed parts of my brain I have no conscious access to, but I don't need that and don't want it. All "me" could do is mess it up.
(I find my body is tending to self regulate to the "just barely overweight" part of the BMI spectrum. There is significant recent evidence that this is actually quite normal and healthier than fighting your way down to the "officially" correct BMI.)
Question is still based on a fundamentally flawed premise, which is that we can just talk about the human body as if it's a bag in which you stuff a certain amount of calories, and the bag passively accepts the stuffing with no reaction. Stuff it with 2000 calories or 10,000, it doesn't care.
This is so obviously wrong that as soon as you examine the assumption consciously it's obviously flawed, but people don't, usually. The point is, if you eat nothing but protein and fat, you will find yourself unable to overconsume. (Barring a real medical disorder, like thyroid problems.) Whether you would hypothetically gain weight if you forced the food in isn't very relevant, except in a very abstract scientific sense.
The truth is that humans aren't special, and just like the entire rest of the animal kingdom, our bodies have no particular inclination to become morbidly fat. Even in abundance, your body will self-regulate. It is not as if abundance is that unusual thing in the real world, not even sustained abundance, but you do not see morbidly obese deer waddling around or fat squirrels getting splattered in the road. What's wrong is what we eat, not our bodies. The idea that our bodies could be this... stupid is frankly just absurd.
If you eat protein, fat, and natural high-complexity carb in moderation (not Russet potatoes or the modern biological candies that some fruits have been turned into), you body will regulate itself. Any discussion of weight gain or loss without discussion of regulation mechanisms is so flawed it can just be ignored; the body is full of them. I don't count calories; I watch what I eat. The calorie counting is done by ancient and well-honed parts of my brain I have no conscious access to, but I don't need that and don't want it. All "me" could do is mess it up.
(I find my body is tending to self regulate to the "just barely overweight" part of the BMI spectrum. There is significant recent evidence that this is actually quite normal and healthier than fighting your way down to the "officially" correct BMI.)
Good for you. For some people, level of activity matters little, and intake composition (with amounts less relevant) making all the difference. I've been a very active fat-but-not-obese 220, and a lean-but-not-active 170, and my "calorie intake" was larger on the latter.
I can easily go lean by going down to a 500-calorie-a-day diet for 2 months; And then, for 6-8 months, my intake doesn't seem to matter - I stay lean - until all of a sudden, with no change of intake, and within a couple of weeks, I balloon 20-30 lbs, that stay there until the next "low-calorie" period. Yes, this is baffling. No, I haven't figured it out yet, though gut bacteria and similar explanations seem much more relevant than anything else at this point.
Read this guy about consuming 6k/day: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/sam-feltham/why-i-didnt-get-... - I've known other examples. calorie counting is NOT science, physics or thermodynamics, and produces miserable results for some people.
I can easily go lean by going down to a 500-calorie-a-day diet for 2 months; And then, for 6-8 months, my intake doesn't seem to matter - I stay lean - until all of a sudden, with no change of intake, and within a couple of weeks, I balloon 20-30 lbs, that stay there until the next "low-calorie" period. Yes, this is baffling. No, I haven't figured it out yet, though gut bacteria and similar explanations seem much more relevant than anything else at this point.
Read this guy about consuming 6k/day: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/sam-feltham/why-i-didnt-get-... - I've known other examples. calorie counting is NOT science, physics or thermodynamics, and produces miserable results for some people.
> going down to a 500-calorie-a-day diet for 2 months
Re-feeding programmes for people with anorexia are carefully worked out to avoid problems. How were you re-feeding after this extreme modification to your diet?
> http://www.huffingtonpost
This ruins your credibility.
> calorie counting is NOT science, physics or thermodynamics,
It is. Really, truly, it is.
> and produces miserable results for some people.
This may well be true. Reading this thread is clear evidence that people have horrible understanding of diet and nutrition, and that people get information from weird sources. I can easily imagine someone reducing calories to 1,800 per day but having a miserable time because they're also following some stupid advice they got from a quack.
Re-feeding programmes for people with anorexia are carefully worked out to avoid problems. How were you re-feeding after this extreme modification to your diet?
> http://www.huffingtonpost
This ruins your credibility.
> calorie counting is NOT science, physics or thermodynamics,
It is. Really, truly, it is.
> and produces miserable results for some people.
This may well be true. Reading this thread is clear evidence that people have horrible understanding of diet and nutrition, and that people get information from weird sources. I can easily imagine someone reducing calories to 1,800 per day but having a miserable time because they're also following some stupid advice they got from a quack.
> Re-feeding programmes for people with anorexia are carefully worked out to avoid problems. How were you re-feeding after this extreme modification to your diet?
Just gradually ramping back over a week. And you may want to read the definition of Anorexia, because from this post, it's probably NOT what you think it is.
> It is. Really, truly, it is.
[citation needed] "calorie counting" for the purpose of weight loss, as commonly practiced, is not. I've posted a few links https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6779151, some from pubmed, in case you are interested.
Calorie counting is only useful for weight management in the tautological sense (that eventually invokes E=MC^2) meaning not at all.
If it's science, you would be able to provide reference to an experiment that demonstrates it, I guess? Not bomb calorimeter measurements, mind you (these imply you can eat paper - it's carbohydrate!, or drink gasoline). Real results that indicate, in no uncertain terms, that all energy is done through aerobic or anaerobic glycolysis (for which bomb calorimeter measurements have some relation), and never through fermentation (which is about 1/8th as energy efficient http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warburg_hypothesis ), and that all edible carbohydrates (what's the scientific definition), all fat, all protein, and all alcohol (but not fiber, hydrocarbons, etc) are used for energy.
It's not science. It really, really isn't. Not anymore than e.g. the lipid hypothesis, which was never proved though is accepted as gospel by "scientists".
Just gradually ramping back over a week. And you may want to read the definition of Anorexia, because from this post, it's probably NOT what you think it is.
> It is. Really, truly, it is.
[citation needed] "calorie counting" for the purpose of weight loss, as commonly practiced, is not. I've posted a few links https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6779151, some from pubmed, in case you are interested.
Calorie counting is only useful for weight management in the tautological sense (that eventually invokes E=MC^2) meaning not at all.
If it's science, you would be able to provide reference to an experiment that demonstrates it, I guess? Not bomb calorimeter measurements, mind you (these imply you can eat paper - it's carbohydrate!, or drink gasoline). Real results that indicate, in no uncertain terms, that all energy is done through aerobic or anaerobic glycolysis (for which bomb calorimeter measurements have some relation), and never through fermentation (which is about 1/8th as energy efficient http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warburg_hypothesis ), and that all edible carbohydrates (what's the scientific definition), all fat, all protein, and all alcohol (but not fiber, hydrocarbons, etc) are used for energy.
It's not science. It really, really isn't. Not anymore than e.g. the lipid hypothesis, which was never proved though is accepted as gospel by "scientists".
Your statement betrays a complete ignorance of the complexity of metabolic pathways and exactly how, on a biochemical level, the process of lipogenesis is initiated. Even if you don't plan on doing the high fat, low carb thing, I highly recommend reading The Art and Science of Low Carbohydrate Living by Drs Phinney and Volek - you'll learn about how carbohydrates in any form are a major metabolic challenge for most people and how fatty acid metabolism works. If you want science, read that book.
This is silly, you are using an extreme exaggeration and saying that the article is wrong. Those who cut carbs and and continue to eat a moderate amount of carbs while keeping their calories in check will lose weight.
They will lose weight faster than those who continue to eat carbs. I don't think it's even an argument anymore that cutting carbs helps to lose weight. By saying "eat food, not too much, mostly plants" you are agreeing with less carbs..?
They will lose weight faster than those who continue to eat carbs. I don't think it's even an argument anymore that cutting carbs helps to lose weight. By saying "eat food, not too much, mostly plants" you are agreeing with less carbs..?
> Those who cut carbs and and continue to eat a moderate amount of carbs while keeping their calories in check will lose weight.
Those who do anything while keeping their caloric intake in check relative to their caloric expenditure will lose weight.
Controlling carbs may be particularly effective for some people in acheiving this, particularly because some people are relatively resistant to the satiating effect of carbohydrates, and thus have a higher tendency to overeat when eating carbs.
Those who do anything while keeping their caloric intake in check relative to their caloric expenditure will lose weight.
Controlling carbs may be particularly effective for some people in acheiving this, particularly because some people are relatively resistant to the satiating effect of carbohydrates, and thus have a higher tendency to overeat when eating carbs.
Zero fat diets work just as well. People lose weight if you force them to get most of their calories from sugar syrup, or potatoes, or bananas. The mechanism is the same: food reward, as explained in the whole health source link. People stop overeating because monotonous food is less rewarding.
There's no magical obesogenic property of "carbs."
There's no magical obesogenic property of "carbs."
To be fair, the article never says you can eat 10,000 calories and lose weight.
I know a lot of people think low-fat = healthy, and that fat makes you fat, which isn't really the case.
This article just seems to be confirming that "simple carbs" should be moderated, which is commonly suggested in health and fitness books.
I know a lot of people think low-fat = healthy, and that fat makes you fat, which isn't really the case.
This article just seems to be confirming that "simple carbs" should be moderated, which is commonly suggested in health and fitness books.
Here are a couple of things the article says:
An influential Swedish health organisation has recommended a diet that is low in carbohydrates but not low in fat for people who are overweight or obese or have diabetes.
...
“...When all recent scientific studies are lined up, the result is indisputable: our deep seated fear of fat is completely unfounded. You don’t get fat from fatty foods,” Nyström said.
Those are both pretty solid endorsements for eating A LOT of fat/fatty foods. If they meant "A diet consisting of a calorie count appropriate for your body size should have a higher proportion of fats to carbs to make your target weight loss more efficient." But they didn't. They simply said/implied 'don't eat carbs but don't worry about how much fat you take in'.
An influential Swedish health organisation has recommended a diet that is low in carbohydrates but not low in fat for people who are overweight or obese or have diabetes.
...
“...When all recent scientific studies are lined up, the result is indisputable: our deep seated fear of fat is completely unfounded. You don’t get fat from fatty foods,” Nyström said.
Those are both pretty solid endorsements for eating A LOT of fat/fatty foods. If they meant "A diet consisting of a calorie count appropriate for your body size should have a higher proportion of fats to carbs to make your target weight loss more efficient." But they didn't. They simply said/implied 'don't eat carbs but don't worry about how much fat you take in'.
Pollens advice is good and common sense.
However seems people are really bad understanding what's healthy and following common sense when it comes to eating. Many people have grown up with that butter is unhealthy and vegetable oils or cereal are healthy.
Also if you eat lots of carbohydrates you're more likely to feel hunger and loss of blood sugar every two hours, and you eat more. When you eat mostly plants, meat and fat, you feel satisfied longer and don't eat extra snacks, calories or other things, which makes eating sane amounts of food and calories easier.
I don't think the obesity or health problems are completely going away by changing the macronutrient ratio but probably anything is better than high-carb & low-fat advice. In the end people need to learn moderate and balance their diet.
However seems people are really bad understanding what's healthy and following common sense when it comes to eating. Many people have grown up with that butter is unhealthy and vegetable oils or cereal are healthy.
Also if you eat lots of carbohydrates you're more likely to feel hunger and loss of blood sugar every two hours, and you eat more. When you eat mostly plants, meat and fat, you feel satisfied longer and don't eat extra snacks, calories or other things, which makes eating sane amounts of food and calories easier.
I don't think the obesity or health problems are completely going away by changing the macronutrient ratio but probably anything is better than high-carb & low-fat advice. In the end people need to learn moderate and balance their diet.
> if you eat lots of carbohydrates you're more likely to feel hunger and loss of blood sugar every two hours
You are describing symptoms of metabolic syndrome, typically caused by being fat, not an affect of carbohydrate. I am thin, and therefore not insulin resistant. I can and do add sugar to OJ sometimes for a quick meal. I don't get hungry again for hours.
You are describing symptoms of metabolic syndrome, typically caused by being fat, not an affect of carbohydrate. I am thin, and therefore not insulin resistant. I can and do add sugar to OJ sometimes for a quick meal. I don't get hungry again for hours.
10,000 calories of fat would be extremely filling.
3 pounds of butter.
A liter of olive oil.
A liter of olive oil.
> Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.
Ah yes, the Tautology Diet.
Ah yes, the Tautology Diet.
Turns out it's food that leads to obesity: http://examine.com/faq/what-should-i-eat-for-weight-loss.htm...
That is why this topic keeps attracting the terrible pseudo-science and cults, the overbearing media reporting.. we already know the simple principle by which you can lose weight. Turns out people are terrible at making changes in their routine.
Instead of discussing some paleo nonsense or how carbs are evil, we should tell people to find a sport they enjoy and join a local club..
Instead of discussing some paleo nonsense or how carbs are evil, we should tell people to find a sport they enjoy and join a local club..
> we already know the simple principle by which you can lose weight.
We know of one simple principle (eat less, to the point of losing weight), that's extremely hard to practice. Turns out that no other principle works consistently for all the population (usually around 80%), and this one simple principle (doctors hate it!) leads some people (I heard estimates range from 5-20%) to significantly worse quality of line (including depression, sleep problems, anxiety, concentration problems).
It is easy to change your routine in many ways - e.g., a lot of people have no problem adding a couple of jelly donuts per day. Or to stop going to the gym even if you've done it for years. It is possible that such a change of routine is possible for overweight, but it hasn't yet become popular (or discovered).
From all the anecdata I've been able to collect, Soylent seems to leave people satisfied for long, compared to foods with similar caloric content (Not comparing to other meal replacements here - to your random everyday food). So does fat in general, if consumed sufficiently far away from carbs (Bullet proof coffee) or flavour (shangri-la "diet"). None of these seem to work for everyone, but e.g. 80% of people on shangri-la self-report an immediate, considerable, appetite suppression affect.
The accepted body of knowledge with respect to nutrition, appetite and hunger seems to be all wrong; nutrition "science" is not. There's actual science to be done here, but it is not done in academic institutes - mostly by individuals, so it's taking longer than you expect to get quality results (and even longer to take them seriously when they are found).
We know of one simple principle (eat less, to the point of losing weight), that's extremely hard to practice. Turns out that no other principle works consistently for all the population (usually around 80%), and this one simple principle (doctors hate it!) leads some people (I heard estimates range from 5-20%) to significantly worse quality of line (including depression, sleep problems, anxiety, concentration problems).
It is easy to change your routine in many ways - e.g., a lot of people have no problem adding a couple of jelly donuts per day. Or to stop going to the gym even if you've done it for years. It is possible that such a change of routine is possible for overweight, but it hasn't yet become popular (or discovered).
From all the anecdata I've been able to collect, Soylent seems to leave people satisfied for long, compared to foods with similar caloric content (Not comparing to other meal replacements here - to your random everyday food). So does fat in general, if consumed sufficiently far away from carbs (Bullet proof coffee) or flavour (shangri-la "diet"). None of these seem to work for everyone, but e.g. 80% of people on shangri-la self-report an immediate, considerable, appetite suppression affect.
The accepted body of knowledge with respect to nutrition, appetite and hunger seems to be all wrong; nutrition "science" is not. There's actual science to be done here, but it is not done in academic institutes - mostly by individuals, so it's taking longer than you expect to get quality results (and even longer to take them seriously when they are found).
But that is also nonsense. The amount of time you have to spend exercising to spend significant calories is enormous. Far beyond what most people can allocate to the activity.
I think you are being overly dramatic on "enormous", but either way: it is not a zero sum game. If someone adds some activity into their weekly plan while simply maintaining their current eating habits, that is still an overall win.
It is certainly a win for their health, because obviously eating "healthy stuff" does not actually make you perfectly healthy.
It is certainly a win for their health, because obviously eating "healthy stuff" does not actually make you perfectly healthy.
Physical exercise is largely irrelevant when it comes to losing weight. In the grand scheme of wellbeing it's a crucial element, but strictly for weight loss it's of little importance.
It pretty much all comes down to properly adjusted eating habits.
It pretty much all comes down to properly adjusted eating habits.
If you want to go into theory, of course it's an overall inefficient way compared to just cutting your energy intake dramatically.
But very few people can actually do that reliably, and even less can then transform that into properly adjusted eating habits. Exercise makes the process considerably easier.
But very few people can actually do that reliably, and even less can then transform that into properly adjusted eating habits. Exercise makes the process considerably easier.
It's no coincidence that the modern Western diet is based on carbohydrates and hydrogenated oils. While an individual can choose to eat a high fat, low carbohydrate diet, our entire society cannot. This is a problem of scale.
Our politicians made a deal with the agri-business devil to ensure (most) everyone is fed relatively cheaply. The toll for this deal is that some people end up fat and sick. I'm convinced this is known and understood; nothing will be done about it.
It's left to the individual to adjust their lifestyle to suit their biology.
Our politicians made a deal with the agri-business devil to ensure (most) everyone is fed relatively cheaply. The toll for this deal is that some people end up fat and sick. I'm convinced this is known and understood; nothing will be done about it.
It's left to the individual to adjust their lifestyle to suit their biology.
[deleted]
There seems to be a misconception about LCHF, it means LOW CARB not NO CARB. I've been on the diet since March and lost 10KG and is now stable on 67KG weight and i'm 174cm long. I eat about 5% carbs each day, most from nutritious sallads, vegetables and berries. And i have NEVER been healthier in my life, even my doctor confirms this.
I have long suspected this to be the case. I have observed the association of obesity with "impoverished" Americans. Think about the kinds of food poor people buy. Macaroni, Ramen noodles, bread, soda, McDonald's (fries, bread), candy, cereal, etc.
I also suspect that lower proportions of protein and nutrients play a role in carbs not being handled well by the body.
I also suspect that lower proportions of protein and nutrients play a role in carbs not being handled well by the body.
As someone who struggled to lose weight for about 1 year, but after that was able to defeat the extra 35+ pounds gained after marriage, I concur that the key thing I've almost completely removed from my diet was carbs & sugar. The weight disappeared. I purposely seek out whole milk, cream on top, and eat a bowl of Erewhon organic raisin bran[1] pretty much nightly. Simply avoid rice, bread, pastas & sugar(especially corn syrup). Now I don't wanna get into a big ol' argument about corn syrup vs. regular sugar, but I don't gain weight anywhere near as fast if I have an occasional japanese snack[2], versus a western candies such as the typical items at a 7-eleven[3]. Authentic Japanese snacks never seem to contain corn syrup, afaik.
1. http://www.wholeandnatural.com/catalog/Erewhon%20Organic%20R...
2. https://www.localresearch.com/site_media/media/uploads/img/2...
3. http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/images/stories/large/2011/02...
1. http://www.wholeandnatural.com/catalog/Erewhon%20Organic%20R...
2. https://www.localresearch.com/site_media/media/uploads/img/2...
3. http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/images/stories/large/2011/02...
no shit. where the fuck have you been?
SUGAR - THE BITTER TRUTH
RTFM
SUGAR - THE BITTER TRUTH
RTFM
Seriously - how difficult would it be to just get a large population in a controlled environment for period of time (12-18 months), separate them into groups, and feed them pre-determined diets, and observe the results.
I'm sure there are lots of institutional opportunities where we have large populations of people who would be happy to volunteer for this type of study.