The carbs-obesity hypothesis(givewell.org)
givewell.org
The carbs-obesity hypothesis
https://www.givewell.org/carbs-obesity-hypothesis
114 コメント
To be fair almost all of the research around this is still outstanding as basically anybody researching this hypothesis before about 2012 was committing academic suicide and open for vitriolic attack from the AHA and others. I highly recommend good calorie bad calorie to get a sense for how incredibly anti-science nutrition was at the time. No one defends the Keynes studies anymore, and most agree that simple carbohydrates are ground zero for diabetes and other “diseases of the modern world”. The only debate left is if it’s the only cause. In my case after looking at the material and doing a n=1 experiment with a ketogenic diet - the first one I actually ever lost weight with, I am sold that for my personal Metabolism that this is a effective tool.
I am fatigued from reading about nutrition, everyone claims to be "not an expert, but spent a year reading studies" and then proceeds to cite studies that support their claims.
* It's all about calories! carbs/fats/protein ratio doesn't matter [1]
* It's all about carbs! [2]
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19246357
[2] http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/reprint/23/7/948
[3] https://tim.blog/2008/02/25/the-science-of-fat-loss-why-a-calorie-isnt-always-a-calorie/
[4] http://physiqonomics.com/fat-loss/> Why don't PhDs themselves write an easy to read book about this?
FWIW, the only reason I submitted this link is that it was reviewed by PhD Stephan Guyenet and incorporated his feedback. What I gather from having read Guyenet's blog over the years is: it's complicated. I don't think there's a single answer that applies to everyone. Within my own household, what works for me doesn't seem to work for my spouse.
FWIW, the only reason I submitted this link is that it was reviewed by PhD Stephan Guyenet and incorporated his feedback. What I gather from having read Guyenet's blog over the years is: it's complicated. I don't think there's a single answer that applies to everyone. Within my own household, what works for me doesn't seem to work for my spouse.
[deleted]
I concur! There's really no debate whether it's carbs or not, rather, what kind of carbs. We're starting to see that fructose containing carbs, e.g. Sucrose, HFCS, etc. Are those that in the long run sets one up for metabolic syndrome and and the inevitable accompanying diabetes.
It also explains why cultures consuming relative large amounts of carbs in the form starch/glucose haven't had the issues that we're currently experiencing.
It also explains why cultures consuming relative large amounts of carbs in the form starch/glucose haven't had the issues that we're currently experiencing.
Is there a chance that we are over thinking this in the hope for a complex golden bullet when in reality the problem is simply eating more calories that we burn.
I lead a very active lifestyle, I lift weights 4-5 times a week with a focus on progressive overload, I cycle commute and I mountain bike many weekends a year. When I want to gain weight (as is desirable when lifting) I eat more calories (aim for about 3,750 a day) and when I want to loose weight (like in the spring ready for the summer) I eat a lot less, around 2,500 a day. Doing this fluctuates my weight from my heaviest of 190 lbs to my lightest of 170 lbs.
My wife does the same, our other friends who lift also do the same and when we eat more we get heavier and when we eat less we get lighter.
What am I missing here? Because outside the body building world it seems everyone is hunting for a complex answer that from our perspective seems sort of solved.... unless you want to get silly lean, then it’s a different ball game.
I’m not being flippant, I am genuinely curious. Eat less calories, mainly plants, do more exercise and reduce alcohol consumption (it’s got lots of calories in it).
I lead a very active lifestyle, I lift weights 4-5 times a week with a focus on progressive overload, I cycle commute and I mountain bike many weekends a year. When I want to gain weight (as is desirable when lifting) I eat more calories (aim for about 3,750 a day) and when I want to loose weight (like in the spring ready for the summer) I eat a lot less, around 2,500 a day. Doing this fluctuates my weight from my heaviest of 190 lbs to my lightest of 170 lbs.
My wife does the same, our other friends who lift also do the same and when we eat more we get heavier and when we eat less we get lighter.
What am I missing here? Because outside the body building world it seems everyone is hunting for a complex answer that from our perspective seems sort of solved.... unless you want to get silly lean, then it’s a different ball game.
I’m not being flippant, I am genuinely curious. Eat less calories, mainly plants, do more exercise and reduce alcohol consumption (it’s got lots of calories in it).
I'm an amateur olympic-style weightlifter with a similar schedule to yours, and after trying every trick diet in the book I've come to the same conclusion. The only real advantage I can see from diets like paleo, keto, etc. is that they can make the average person feel satisfied with less calories. Also, processed high carb foods tend to be surprisingly high calorie bombs. But, it all comes down to cals in vs cals expended.
The discussion around _quality_ of calories, the mix of macronutrients for performance, etc is an entire separate can of worms.
The discussion around _quality_ of calories, the mix of macronutrients for performance, etc is an entire separate can of worms.
This rings incredibly true to me and I'm glad the idea is spreading. My diet philosophy pitch to people is this:
(Cribbed from my post above:)
THE BEST DIET to lose weight is about psychology 80% and nutrition 20%. Most of the value you're going to get by keeping your weekly calories low. You can try variations of macronutrients, meal timing and frequency, voodoo, etc. but the best one is the one you stick with, and can stick with long enough to reach your goals.
Maybe you'll need to think about essential minerals and nutrients if you're trying something really really extreme. But with even minimal variety you should be good.
(Cribbed from my post above:)
THE BEST DIET to lose weight is about psychology 80% and nutrition 20%. Most of the value you're going to get by keeping your weekly calories low. You can try variations of macronutrients, meal timing and frequency, voodoo, etc. but the best one is the one you stick with, and can stick with long enough to reach your goals.
Maybe you'll need to think about essential minerals and nutrients if you're trying something really really extreme. But with even minimal variety you should be good.
Interesting to get your perspective - when people ask me for advice on a specific diet I view them all as a way to help them eat less calories overall while not requiring quite so much shear will.
On your latter point my wife opened that can of worms in the run up to her first competiton and it got complicated!
On your latter point my wife opened that can of worms in the run up to her first competiton and it got complicated!
There's distinctions to make here:
1) People who don't manage their nutrition and maintain a healthy weight
2) People who manage their nutrition and maintain a healthy weight
3) People who don't manage their nutrition and have uncontrollable weight gain
Yes, if everyone who is (3) started going to the gym and counting calories as (2) do, then they would have an easier time maintaining a healthy weight. But most people can't do that. I can't do that for more than like a week at a time, but it doesn't matter because I'm a (1).
Why are (1) and (3) different? This has nothing to do with self-control or willpower. There's something off in (3)'s biological systems that calibrate their intake of food. The slightest caloric surplus leads to substantial weight gain over time. This question could occupy an army of scientists for decades, but the stigma against fat people has done serious damage to this very important medical research.
1) People who don't manage their nutrition and maintain a healthy weight
2) People who manage their nutrition and maintain a healthy weight
3) People who don't manage their nutrition and have uncontrollable weight gain
Yes, if everyone who is (3) started going to the gym and counting calories as (2) do, then they would have an easier time maintaining a healthy weight. But most people can't do that. I can't do that for more than like a week at a time, but it doesn't matter because I'm a (1).
Why are (1) and (3) different? This has nothing to do with self-control or willpower. There's something off in (3)'s biological systems that calibrate their intake of food. The slightest caloric surplus leads to substantial weight gain over time. This question could occupy an army of scientists for decades, but the stigma against fat people has done serious damage to this very important medical research.
Perhaps then we are researching the wrong thing? Why is it that some people are able to subconsciously regulate their food intake just enough to stay healthy while others regularly eat (or drink) 100-200 calories a day more - which, over a number of weeks and months is enough to gain a decent amount of weight.
Exactly. That's the million-dollar question.
I think to draw this conclusion you need a (4) People who manage their nutrition and have uncontrollable weight gain.
Then, we can say there is a difference between (3) and (4) and attribute it to biology instead of diet.
Then, we can say there is a difference between (3) and (4) and attribute it to biology instead of diet.
This might sound unintuitive but your brain is a biological system and it's attached to your gut in very interesting ways.
A friend explained this to me with an analogy.
"If you make more money than you spend, you will have a lot of money!"
That statement is tautological, and obvious. But it doesn't address how to become rich.
Now let's compare.
"If you eat more calories than you expend, you will gain weight"
Again, this is likely true, but just very very incomplete. It doesn't attempt to truly get at the why. There are a few hypotheses for why CICO often does such a poor job at explaining the obesity epidemic. The two pieces I find most convincing are (1) there is some metabolic advantage based on the types of foods you eat, and (2) some of the calories out are excreted via waste and not processed by the body, and therefore, the simple CICO equation isn't complex enough.
"If you make more money than you spend, you will have a lot of money!"
That statement is tautological, and obvious. But it doesn't address how to become rich.
Now let's compare.
"If you eat more calories than you expend, you will gain weight"
Again, this is likely true, but just very very incomplete. It doesn't attempt to truly get at the why. There are a few hypotheses for why CICO often does such a poor job at explaining the obesity epidemic. The two pieces I find most convincing are (1) there is some metabolic advantage based on the types of foods you eat, and (2) some of the calories out are excreted via waste and not processed by the body, and therefore, the simple CICO equation isn't complex enough.
CICO perfectly explains human obesity and has not been scientifically disproved yet - the body is surprisingly efficient at breaking down various types of macronutrients and storing them as fat, regardless of them being "bad" or "good" calories.
What CICO does not explain is why people are so different regarding their appetites, nor how can we teach ourselves impulse control. This is where various low-X diets become relevant, and it's how we get these diet holly wars with people swearing by the one diet that helped them get CI under control, without turning them into zombies incapable of CO.
(BTW, my weapon of choice is old school: low on fat except essential fats, balanced on slow release carbs, high on protein)
What CICO does not explain is why people are so different regarding their appetites, nor how can we teach ourselves impulse control. This is where various low-X diets become relevant, and it's how we get these diet holly wars with people swearing by the one diet that helped them get CI under control, without turning them into zombies incapable of CO.
(BTW, my weapon of choice is old school: low on fat except essential fats, balanced on slow release carbs, high on protein)
Interesting point, I could imagine that in a truly terrible diet with little overall nitrtional value some of the primary drivers could break down enough to skew the CICO relationship, however even in those cases if you took 25% off the calorie intake and went for a long walk energy other day they would probably loose weight. It wouldn’t solve the other health issues caused by a terrible diet though.
CICO doesn't explain the obesity epidemic? I thought it was pretty well-established that society's caloric surplus has risen pretty much in line with increasing obesity.
CICO doesn't explain why people are consuming so much more than they expend, but it does seem that CICO explain the obesity epidemic.
CICO doesn't explain why people are consuming so much more than they expend, but it does seem that CICO explain the obesity epidemic.
I've been ambivalent about this for some time, but given my personal experience and observations of others I am tending toward thinking that, yes, we are indeed overthinking this.
Eat less calories than you consume on a consistent basis and you will lose weight. And no, I don't think that's actually as hard to do as most people make it out to be.
What is hard to do is to resist the alluring promise of quick results.
Where most people seem to mess up is in getting lost in the noise and losing the signal. This causes them to pursue esoteric approaches to diet that are unlikely to work in the long-run. Part of this comes from our desire for quick results. Unfortunately, I don't think quick results work for weight loss.
I think sustainable weight loss takes so long to achieve that you're going to be unlikely to notice much difference, nor will anyone else. Maybe people who haven't seen you in the last year or two will notice, but not many others.
Eat less calories than you consume on a consistent basis and you will lose weight. And no, I don't think that's actually as hard to do as most people make it out to be.
What is hard to do is to resist the alluring promise of quick results.
Where most people seem to mess up is in getting lost in the noise and losing the signal. This causes them to pursue esoteric approaches to diet that are unlikely to work in the long-run. Part of this comes from our desire for quick results. Unfortunately, I don't think quick results work for weight loss.
I think sustainable weight loss takes so long to achieve that you're going to be unlikely to notice much difference, nor will anyone else. Maybe people who haven't seen you in the last year or two will notice, but not many others.
No, I don't think we are overthinking it.
I have a genetic disorder. The standard medical advice is to eat a high fat, high calorie, high salt diet to accommodate my disorder. They routinely recommend "junk food" to fit those parameters.
I went the opposite direction. I got really fanatical about what kind of fats I eat, the quality of the salt I consume and other details.
Over time, I shed a lot of weight without intending to and without counting calories. So I think, yes, for some portion of the population, it's absolutely more complicated than "calories in, calories out." And for those folks who have struggled with their weight and just can't seem to lose, they are very much in need of some new hypothesis that might solve their seemingly unsolvable conundrum.
I have a genetic disorder. The standard medical advice is to eat a high fat, high calorie, high salt diet to accommodate my disorder. They routinely recommend "junk food" to fit those parameters.
I went the opposite direction. I got really fanatical about what kind of fats I eat, the quality of the salt I consume and other details.
Over time, I shed a lot of weight without intending to and without counting calories. So I think, yes, for some portion of the population, it's absolutely more complicated than "calories in, calories out." And for those folks who have struggled with their weight and just can't seem to lose, they are very much in need of some new hypothesis that might solve their seemingly unsolvable conundrum.
I'm not an expert by any means, but one thing that's worth acknowledging here is that diseases like diabetes are a question of when, not if, with 100% of the population.
That is, if nothing else kills you first, you will get diabetes. At least, is the impression I've been led to believe from research and multiple physicians. If that's the case, then one must ask, "What's the most effective way of avoiding this?", and avoiding carbohydrates as much as possible sums that up well. It seems to completely drop the growth of diabetic symptoms to near-nonexistence, which seems to suggest that it might be superior for that range of diseases at least.
That is, if nothing else kills you first, you will get diabetes. At least, is the impression I've been led to believe from research and multiple physicians. If that's the case, then one must ask, "What's the most effective way of avoiding this?", and avoiding carbohydrates as much as possible sums that up well. It seems to completely drop the growth of diabetic symptoms to near-nonexistence, which seems to suggest that it might be superior for that range of diseases at least.
People are absolutely not guaranteed to get type 2 diabetes. Diabetes was basically unheard of > 150 years ago and has steadily increased in prevalence since then.
You're misunderstanding what I'm saying. 150 years ago people weren't taking in nearly as many carbs as we are now, nor were they living as long.
Diabetes, as a disease, is the breakdown of the process of your body using insulin. This happens naturally, in everyone, but happens at an increased rate when people have foods high in carbohydrates.
So the comment that people are guaranteed is to say, "If we all lived 300 years, you'd eventually have diabetes", not that everyone gets it, period.
Diabetes, as a disease, is the breakdown of the process of your body using insulin. This happens naturally, in everyone, but happens at an increased rate when people have foods high in carbohydrates.
So the comment that people are guaranteed is to say, "If we all lived 300 years, you'd eventually have diabetes", not that everyone gets it, period.
I didn’t misunderstand you. My statement still stands.
People don’t live longer now, there are just more people who live to their full life span. Back when diabetes was unheard of, there were plenty of people who lived until 80. None of them died of complications related to diabetes.
People don’t live longer now, there are just more people who live to their full life span. Back when diabetes was unheard of, there were plenty of people who lived until 80. None of them died of complications related to diabetes.
I’m not sure what you’re saying. Couldn’t you say that about anything? “If nothing else kills you first, you WILL die in an auto accident.”
If the time horizon is over 100 years for some people then it’s not really meaningful.
If the time horizon is over 100 years for some people then it’s not really meaningful.
Is there a chance that we are over thinking this in the hope for a complex golden bullet when in reality the problem is simply eating more calories that we burn
For this to be true, it would have to be true that the millions of people struggling with weight, and the tens of thousands of researchers in the field, are all simply idiots who are not as smart as you.
The people who say "Calories In < Calories Out, it's simple" are about as helpful as the client or exec who says "It's just code, change the code and don't write as many bugs. It's simple"
For this to be true, it would have to be true that the millions of people struggling with weight, and the tens of thousands of researchers in the field, are all simply idiots who are not as smart as you.
The people who say "Calories In < Calories Out, it's simple" are about as helpful as the client or exec who says "It's just code, change the code and don't write as many bugs. It's simple"
> For this to be true, it would have to be true that the millions of people struggling with weight, and the tens of thousands of researchers in the field, are all simply idiots who are not as smart as you.
There's no need to leap to 'idiocy', it could mean the people struggling with weight have either poor willpower, or honestly don't know how to eat well. You can see this by watching shows like 'Secret Eaters' and seeing how incredibly common it is that people are over-eating and just don't realise it.
And researchers will research wherever there's funding/academic opportunity.
There's no need to leap to 'idiocy', it could mean the people struggling with weight have either poor willpower, or honestly don't know how to eat well. You can see this by watching shows like 'Secret Eaters' and seeing how incredibly common it is that people are over-eating and just don't realise it.
And researchers will research wherever there's funding/academic opportunity.
So the big difference between 100 years ago and now is people have less knowledge and less willpower?
Well I didn't say anything about 'between 100 years ago and now', so no.
Clearly a lot of factors have changed in 100 years, like our now abundant, convenient sources of calorie-dense food, and sedentary lifestyles, which mean our knowledge and willpower are now more significant than they were then.
Clearly a lot of factors have changed in 100 years, like our now abundant, convenient sources of calorie-dense food, and sedentary lifestyles, which mean our knowledge and willpower are now more significant than they were then.
>it would have to be true that (they) ... are all simply idiots who are not as smart as you.
Peer pressure and advertising allow for many other possible explanations.
Peer pressure and advertising allow for many other possible explanations.
Completely agree. Calories in/out is a gross oversimplification. It's not wrong, it's just not particularly relevant.
One thing I thought Taubes did a good job of was illustrating the relationship between calories in and calories out: your body will burn more calories when it has them, and less when it doesn't. You will be hungrier when you burn more calories, and less hungry when you don't. Calories in isn't just a knob you can adjust without consequence, your body is complicated.
One thing I thought Taubes did a good job of was illustrating the relationship between calories in and calories out: your body will burn more calories when it has them, and less when it doesn't. You will be hungrier when you burn more calories, and less hungry when you don't. Calories in isn't just a knob you can adjust without consequence, your body is complicated.
You are extremely active over 3500 calories a day is the region for professional athletes you exercise daily with a lengthy mix of both endurance and strength training so what exactly do you expect to be other than extremely fit?
2500 kcal for most people would be at or even above their daily limit for you it’s starvation so here you got a pat on the back for being awesome but you are not the norm.
I’m not looking for a “pat on the back” and I apologise if I come across as supercilious but it should be possible to normalise for calorie requirement based on a persons activity level, an elite cyclist will burn 6000 calories a day, a middle of the road gym goer burns 3000 and a sedentary office worker who walks the last half mile to work burns just under 2000. If any of them consume more than what they burn they will gain weight, only it is easier to eat 2500 when you are the office worker and gain weight without realising why than it is to eat 3500 while going to the gym a lot and not realise why.
My concern is that while the obesity problem is getting worse we are looking for more and more complex reasons when in reality most people consume more calories than they require.
My concern is that while the obesity problem is getting worse we are looking for more and more complex reasons when in reality most people consume more calories than they require.
I think you are missing the point.
If you are active you don’t need to worry that much about it.
However if you are not then nutrition plays a key role and not all calories are equal on a macro level, and more importantly more and more it seems that there are better and worse combinations of calories.
People that cut out carbs experience a lowered appetite, more stable blood sugar levels and are less likely to accumulate fat as their main energy cycle will be either ketogenesis or glucogensis depending on the fat to protein ratio they consume on a low carb diet, with Keto seem to be the most effective at maintaining lean body mass.
Now are there long term negative effects of such diets? maybe, are there better diets? also maybe.. I was also very skeptical about this until I tried both a ketogenic and carnivore style diets and despite consuming 2800 kcal a day (I’m only 181cm) I’ve seen very impressive results. And don’t get me wrong I was and am still active mainly running and with the exclusion of a 2 week set back when I tried Keto in both cases my running performance was better at the end than on a balanced diet with pre-run carb loading.
However if you are not then nutrition plays a key role and not all calories are equal on a macro level, and more importantly more and more it seems that there are better and worse combinations of calories.
People that cut out carbs experience a lowered appetite, more stable blood sugar levels and are less likely to accumulate fat as their main energy cycle will be either ketogenesis or glucogensis depending on the fat to protein ratio they consume on a low carb diet, with Keto seem to be the most effective at maintaining lean body mass.
Now are there long term negative effects of such diets? maybe, are there better diets? also maybe.. I was also very skeptical about this until I tried both a ketogenic and carnivore style diets and despite consuming 2800 kcal a day (I’m only 181cm) I’ve seen very impressive results. And don’t get me wrong I was and am still active mainly running and with the exclusion of a 2 week set back when I tried Keto in both cases my running performance was better at the end than on a balanced diet with pre-run carb loading.
1000 times yes. We don't need to make this complicated.
It's just extremely hard to properly track what you're eating if you're unwilling to pay attention to it, which I don't blame people for.
There's so many calorie dense foods because we wind up adding sugar and oil to so many things when we process them and you don't even realize how many calories you're bringing in.
It ain't easy out there!
It's just extremely hard to properly track what you're eating if you're unwilling to pay attention to it, which I don't blame people for.
There's so many calorie dense foods because we wind up adding sugar and oil to so many things when we process them and you don't even realize how many calories you're bringing in.
It ain't easy out there!
Oil is a killer for calorie control. Amazingly so many people just don’t factor it in, even when they are tracking calories they forget about the tablespoon of oil in the pan at the start or in the dressing on the salad.
I’m keen not to blame people for their weight, I’m keen to make sure we are researching the right problem. I think the “how to control weight” is solved, the harder problem, as I mentioned in a previous comment above, is how do me help people control the appetite and impulses to stand a fighting chance.
I’m keen not to blame people for their weight, I’m keen to make sure we are researching the right problem. I think the “how to control weight” is solved, the harder problem, as I mentioned in a previous comment above, is how do me help people control the appetite and impulses to stand a fighting chance.
His point still stands.
Yes, he can handle a 3500 Cal/day diet with his activity level. Maybe you only need 1500-2000 (like most people in the first world not working manual labor jobs). Okay, so if you're gaining weight, it's because of metabolic processes adding to your body mass. This is one of two things: building muscle, or storing fat (adding bone is pretty minimal, and likely going to be strongly correlated with activity that builds muscle, so we'll just ignore it)
If you're building muscle, it's because your body is taking in more materials (especially proteins) and using them to repair tears to your muscular system due to activity/damage than it is eliminating through use. If you're storing fat, it's because your body is taking in more materials (typically carbs/fats) and storing them in your body in case you need them later than it is eliminating through use.
It's always because you take in more than you use. And weight loss is the opposite.
It's that simple. Whether you eat all carbs or 0 carbs, weigh 100LB or 400 LB, lay in bed 24 hours a day or move constantly, it's a very simple mechanism for what causes obesity. Calorie surplus = storage. Calorie defect = weight loss.
Yes, he can handle a 3500 Cal/day diet with his activity level. Maybe you only need 1500-2000 (like most people in the first world not working manual labor jobs). Okay, so if you're gaining weight, it's because of metabolic processes adding to your body mass. This is one of two things: building muscle, or storing fat (adding bone is pretty minimal, and likely going to be strongly correlated with activity that builds muscle, so we'll just ignore it)
If you're building muscle, it's because your body is taking in more materials (especially proteins) and using them to repair tears to your muscular system due to activity/damage than it is eliminating through use. If you're storing fat, it's because your body is taking in more materials (typically carbs/fats) and storing them in your body in case you need them later than it is eliminating through use.
It's always because you take in more than you use. And weight loss is the opposite.
It's that simple. Whether you eat all carbs or 0 carbs, weigh 100LB or 400 LB, lay in bed 24 hours a day or move constantly, it's a very simple mechanism for what causes obesity. Calorie surplus = storage. Calorie defect = weight loss.
The point is that effective nutrition is still the best way to lose weight and as I’ve seen more than a few people going going on ketogenic diets while consuming a normal caloric intake and losing weight at a rate greater than any deficiency there is something to this.
We also need to understand if there are reasons for far occumulation other than simply excess calories. Fat is an organ it is connected to the nervous system and it stores a lot of crap in it, now does your body accumulate fat to protect it self from junk you eat I’m not sure it’s that simple but obesity is a real problem and we need to find a solution for it which is more nuanced than eat less and excercise because at least to me it seems like a far more complicated issue.
We also need to understand if there are reasons for far occumulation other than simply excess calories. Fat is an organ it is connected to the nervous system and it stores a lot of crap in it, now does your body accumulate fat to protect it self from junk you eat I’m not sure it’s that simple but obesity is a real problem and we need to find a solution for it which is more nuanced than eat less and excercise because at least to me it seems like a far more complicated issue.
I studied nutrition in college. If the question is "why am I gaining weight" then the answer is ONLY "you're eating more calories than you need".
"Health" and "wellness" and "obesity" are all 3 completely different things. You can lose weight in healthy and unhealthy ways. You can gain weight in healthy and unhealthy ways.
Without getting into fad diets' actual biological effects(keto, atkins, whatever the flavor of the week "high fat/protien low carb" diet is) people who are on diets are paying more attention to how they eat than people who aren't on a diet. There's so many confounding factors, plus just people saying "I feel like i'm healthier!" just because they're on a diet. It's a mix of "doing better things than you were doing", your body adapting to a new mix of macros, and placebo affect more often than not.
"Health" and "wellness" and "obesity" are all 3 completely different things. You can lose weight in healthy and unhealthy ways. You can gain weight in healthy and unhealthy ways.
Without getting into fad diets' actual biological effects(keto, atkins, whatever the flavor of the week "high fat/protien low carb" diet is) people who are on diets are paying more attention to how they eat than people who aren't on a diet. There's so many confounding factors, plus just people saying "I feel like i'm healthier!" just because they're on a diet. It's a mix of "doing better things than you were doing", your body adapting to a new mix of macros, and placebo affect more often than not.
I am and was keeping a record of what I eat and I tried multiple diets while maintaining the same level of activity and I went into that just as sceptical as you.
I run about 80KM a week, I used to have a very well balanced diet with carb loading before long runs.
I first tried a carnivore diet as a joke to tease a friend that was going vegan because of his then new boyfriend and while I’ve seen good results I had blood sugar spikes because of the high protien intake and my lean body mass flactuated quite a bit.
I’ve then tried Keto and for me it worked, my performance and overall endurance improved my blood sugar is now constantly in the range of 4.3-4.7 mol with the lower being just after excercise which is honestly very good for me considering that while eating carbs it did jump to above 7 after a carb loading meal.
Lean body mass has also increased considerably I’ve dropped from 21% body fat to 13% over a period of 14 months while maintaining the same level of activity as I have had for the past decade.
Again n=1 but I’ve seen enough anecdotal evidence and more importantly actual research to think that there is something there.
And that is the whole point it isn’t that simple and there needs to be much more research into this hopefully without commercial interests butting in.
I run about 80KM a week, I used to have a very well balanced diet with carb loading before long runs.
I first tried a carnivore diet as a joke to tease a friend that was going vegan because of his then new boyfriend and while I’ve seen good results I had blood sugar spikes because of the high protien intake and my lean body mass flactuated quite a bit.
I’ve then tried Keto and for me it worked, my performance and overall endurance improved my blood sugar is now constantly in the range of 4.3-4.7 mol with the lower being just after excercise which is honestly very good for me considering that while eating carbs it did jump to above 7 after a carb loading meal.
Lean body mass has also increased considerably I’ve dropped from 21% body fat to 13% over a period of 14 months while maintaining the same level of activity as I have had for the past decade.
Again n=1 but I’ve seen enough anecdotal evidence and more importantly actual research to think that there is something there.
And that is the whole point it isn’t that simple and there needs to be much more research into this hopefully without commercial interests butting in.
Of course there's differences in how the body metabolizes different macros, and I'n not saying that certain diets aren't going to "work" for certain people.
Here's my specific points
1- In many parts of the developed world where food scarcity has been minimized/eliminated, we see increased rates of obesity across all demographics. This is a messy knot of factors that covers everything from social behaviors to availability of nutritious food to education and wealth. If you're going to tackle "why are people so much more likely to be obese than before?" you have a TON of factors to attempt to control for in the decision making. 2- If you're not trying to figure out why people are making their choices, and looking at it from a strictly "how does the body work and is that contributing" the simple answer is: your body more readily converts various carbs into body fat than any other macros (Protein, Lipids, Alcohol), people eat a lot of carbs, and finally most people tend to overeat if presented with more food than they actually need. This is the basic scientific consensus, and explains why your experience with a keto diet was positive. The issue is, as you said, that people are interested in selling meal packages and books and lifestyles and generally getting rich off other people's body image issues/health problems. Carbs play a part of in the obesity spike in recent years, but WHY people eat the way they do is what we need to figure out if we want to solve things.
Here's my specific points
1- In many parts of the developed world where food scarcity has been minimized/eliminated, we see increased rates of obesity across all demographics. This is a messy knot of factors that covers everything from social behaviors to availability of nutritious food to education and wealth. If you're going to tackle "why are people so much more likely to be obese than before?" you have a TON of factors to attempt to control for in the decision making. 2- If you're not trying to figure out why people are making their choices, and looking at it from a strictly "how does the body work and is that contributing" the simple answer is: your body more readily converts various carbs into body fat than any other macros (Protein, Lipids, Alcohol), people eat a lot of carbs, and finally most people tend to overeat if presented with more food than they actually need. This is the basic scientific consensus, and explains why your experience with a keto diet was positive. The issue is, as you said, that people are interested in selling meal packages and books and lifestyles and generally getting rich off other people's body image issues/health problems. Carbs play a part of in the obesity spike in recent years, but WHY people eat the way they do is what we need to figure out if we want to solve things.
If you are a tall male 3500 kcal is not professional athlete region. Hell, if you are a young male < 25 thats not a huge amount.
Outside of exteeme cases it is: https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/07/24/157317262/ho...
People also tend to overestimate how much calories they consume a day when you average it out over a period of time.
You can have days with 4500 kcal and days with 2500 kcal.
People also tend to overestimate how much calories they consume a day when you average it out over a period of time.
You can have days with 4500 kcal and days with 2500 kcal.
Yeah, a couple of my taller buddies gave up on the gym as they saw no results. In hindsight it was clear they just weren’t eating anywhere near enough, if you are tall and active 4K+ is not insane
Yup I am 170lbs and 3500 Calories a day is just enough for me to play an hour of basketball a few times a week and be able to gain a little bit of muscle.
I'm not claiming special knowledge here but I think the hypothesis is that there is a complex relationship between caloric intake/composition and metabolism.
So if you reduce your caloric intake but your body reacts with a reduction in basic metabolism or more aggressive storage of fat, then total weight may not go down. In addition this response mechanism is different for different people.
So if you reduce your caloric intake but your body reacts with a reduction in basic metabolism or more aggressive storage of fat, then total weight may not go down. In addition this response mechanism is different for different people.
Are your high- and low-calorie diets both just different quantities of roughly the same proportion of foods/nutrients? If so, then it seems like you aren’t really testing the calorie count independently. A better comparison might be a high-calorie diet of “healthy” foods versus a low-calorie diet of “unhealthy” foods.
I’ve tried two approaches. The first was just to reduce calories in all three macros proportionally and I lost weight, but I lost noticeable amounts of muscle. The second time I reduced just the carbs (still not “low carb” though) I lost the same amount of weight but retained more muscle.
I think calories in calories out affects weight, the macro breakdown affects the type of weight lost (as in muscle vs fat)
I think calories in calories out affects weight, the macro breakdown affects the type of weight lost (as in muscle vs fat)
What you're proposing is testing two different variables in the same experiment. To dial in nutrition research, it's more traditional to control kcal count and test different nutritional quality, or control quality and vary kcal content.
Not exactly, because the hypothesis is that calories is the only (or at least primary) thing that affects body weight.
You are answering different, irrelevant problem. "Why is an individual obese and how to fix it?" is different from "why is the population obese and how to fix it?".
No reasonable person has ever argued against eating less calories. It's just that "less calories" is not a meal you can eat.
The conversation is about translating "less calories" into a list of foods to eat and schedule to eat them. When you design such a schedule you must address things such as the person's health and well being, energy levels, feasibility and convenience, cost, and difficulty of commitment.
So when you say just eat "less calories" you've stated the obvious and left the actual question as an exercise to the reader. Nutrition is trying to answer that question.
The conversation is about translating "less calories" into a list of foods to eat and schedule to eat them. When you design such a schedule you must address things such as the person's health and well being, energy levels, feasibility and convenience, cost, and difficulty of commitment.
So when you say just eat "less calories" you've stated the obvious and left the actual question as an exercise to the reader. Nutrition is trying to answer that question.
No, not a reasonable person, but a person inclined to fall for diet fads, i.e 90% of the general population. Counting calories is hard, and it's OK to come up with methods to make the effect of calorie restriction easier obtain by the general public.
What's not OK is to then proclaim "Calorie counting does not work". The nutrition gurus might understand that figuratively, "calorie counting is an impractical weight loss method for most people that lack the self discipline it requires long term".
But when the general public is exposed to these ideas, the takeaway is magical thinking, "bad" calories you cannot touch versus "good" calories that you can gorge on. It's something very satisfying to believe, it's a shortcut. It's not my fault and my choices, it's industry X that is making all of us fat. It's an "epidemic".
What's not OK is to then proclaim "Calorie counting does not work". The nutrition gurus might understand that figuratively, "calorie counting is an impractical weight loss method for most people that lack the self discipline it requires long term".
But when the general public is exposed to these ideas, the takeaway is magical thinking, "bad" calories you cannot touch versus "good" calories that you can gorge on. It's something very satisfying to believe, it's a shortcut. It's not my fault and my choices, it's industry X that is making all of us fat. It's an "epidemic".
You have created a strawman and attacked a nonexistent demographic. You might be underestimating the vast majority of people.
When someone is overweight and they say calorie counting doesn't work that mean it really doesn't work. They're not saying they do it perfectly with no results. They're saying that they can't stick with it. Then they try a "fad diet" and suddenly they are eating less calories but they no longer get overwhelming cravings or feel drained.
I think we need more fad diets to get people to try different things because so far we haven't made any progress on the perfect weight loss "just eat less" plan. The more diets we have the more likely someone is to try something and find something that works for them.
When someone is overweight and they say calorie counting doesn't work that mean it really doesn't work. They're not saying they do it perfectly with no results. They're saying that they can't stick with it. Then they try a "fad diet" and suddenly they are eating less calories but they no longer get overwhelming cravings or feel drained.
I think we need more fad diets to get people to try different things because so far we haven't made any progress on the perfect weight loss "just eat less" plan. The more diets we have the more likely someone is to try something and find something that works for them.
> What's not ok is to then proclaim "Calorie counting does not work".
It's literally true in the way intervention effectiveness is usually measured, as imperfect execution is included as a source of failure.
It's literally true in the way intervention effectiveness is usually measured, as imperfect execution is included as a source of failure.
Everyone’s metabolism - the efficiency and particular chemical make up of their body and microbes is different. I run 5k twice a week and 10k once a week. I also have bradycardia (my resting heart rate is In the 40s). I’m also overweight. For me, it’s like magic. If I am on a ketogenoc diet I lose weight. If I am not, I do not.
Ultimately it’s a question of my body. I am hyper sensitive to sugar. If I eat sugar I build fat with it. Good for not starving during European winters, bad for American summers for a geek in front of a computer all day.
Ultimately it’s a question of my body. I am hyper sensitive to sugar. If I eat sugar I build fat with it. Good for not starving during European winters, bad for American summers for a geek in front of a computer all day.
You should consider the possibility that people who lift weights, carefully monitor their caloric intake, and can successfully resist tempting food are not at all typical of the population at large. And I don't just mean that you possess additional knowledge that most people don't possess, but that there is something fundamental about your personality that makes you different.
>for example, I did not try to evaluate arguments about “good carbs” vs. “bad carbs.”
That turned me off real fast.
>Perhaps particular types of carbs, fats, or proteins — e.g. refined carbohydrates, or sugars, or something else — are reliably linked to obesity. But I haven’t investigated any of those hypotheses yet.
That's much better, but implies the rest of the article doesn't address it. "Carbs" can mean broccoli or pure sugar. The difference between broccoli and sugar is "Complex Carbs" vs "Simple Carbs". Simple carbs come from things like sugar, they break down really fast and the foods that contain them tend to be very "Calorically Dense", or have a shitload of calories by volume.
EG a small blizzard from diary queen has 660 calories(1). That's the same as 4.3lbs of broccoli (2)
You can polish off a small blizzard after a meal. You cannot eat four pounds of broccoli in one sitting. 660 Calories is also a respectable size for a meal, given the generic daily recommendation of 2000 calories. Though again the blizzard's calories are being added onto a meal.
Carbs are not bad. Any kind of diet with a "silver bullet" to eat or avoid is overly simplistic and probably just preying on the hopeful.
Understanding what macronutrients are and where they come from and what they do, and eating a fairly restrictive diet is a solid and sustained way to lose weight.
For what it's worth, I don't think carbohydrates cause obesity. I think widely available overly sugary garbage food does. I don't know where you live but you'd be hard pressed to find a plate of steamed vegetables and grilled chicken downtown. You can get fast food though.
(1) https://www.dairyqueen.com/us-en/Company/Nutrition/Treats/
(2) https://www.myfitnesspal.com/food/calories/broccoli-raw-4255...
That turned me off real fast.
>Perhaps particular types of carbs, fats, or proteins — e.g. refined carbohydrates, or sugars, or something else — are reliably linked to obesity. But I haven’t investigated any of those hypotheses yet.
That's much better, but implies the rest of the article doesn't address it. "Carbs" can mean broccoli or pure sugar. The difference between broccoli and sugar is "Complex Carbs" vs "Simple Carbs". Simple carbs come from things like sugar, they break down really fast and the foods that contain them tend to be very "Calorically Dense", or have a shitload of calories by volume.
EG a small blizzard from diary queen has 660 calories(1). That's the same as 4.3lbs of broccoli (2)
You can polish off a small blizzard after a meal. You cannot eat four pounds of broccoli in one sitting. 660 Calories is also a respectable size for a meal, given the generic daily recommendation of 2000 calories. Though again the blizzard's calories are being added onto a meal.
Carbs are not bad. Any kind of diet with a "silver bullet" to eat or avoid is overly simplistic and probably just preying on the hopeful.
Understanding what macronutrients are and where they come from and what they do, and eating a fairly restrictive diet is a solid and sustained way to lose weight.
For what it's worth, I don't think carbohydrates cause obesity. I think widely available overly sugary garbage food does. I don't know where you live but you'd be hard pressed to find a plate of steamed vegetables and grilled chicken downtown. You can get fast food though.
(1) https://www.dairyqueen.com/us-en/Company/Nutrition/Treats/
(2) https://www.myfitnesspal.com/food/calories/broccoli-raw-4255...
> I think widely available overly sugary garbage food does.
This "overly sugary garbage food" is what most people are referring to when they say "carbohydrates cause obesity". Even worse, it's not just "garbage food" but even well prepared food can often contain a surprising amount of added sugar. Perhaps "cause" is an imprecise term and a better phrasing might be: The significant increase of sugar and starches in a typical diet seem to account for the significant increase in obesity in practice.
Also, the Complex/Simple Carbs are somewhat antiquated in diet terminology and instead use digestible vs undigestible (fiber). Anyone who's done Keto (a "0" carb diet) counts carbs using "Total Carbs" minus "Fiber".
This means you're avoiding sugars and starches but advocating for more fiber. Sugars are simple, starches are complex, but fiber is also complex.
As a fatty who has lost lot's of weight, stress ate my way back years later, and dropping them again: I found cutting carbs to be helpful, BUT(!) my diet philosophy is this:
THE BEST DIET is about psychology 80% and nutrition 20%. Most of the value you're going to get by keeping your weekly calories low. You can try variations of macronutrients, meal timing and frequency, voodoo, etc. but the best one is the one you stick with, and can stick with long enough to reach your goals.
Maybe you'll need to think about essential minerals and nutrients if you're trying something really really extreme. But with even minimal variety you should be good.
This "overly sugary garbage food" is what most people are referring to when they say "carbohydrates cause obesity". Even worse, it's not just "garbage food" but even well prepared food can often contain a surprising amount of added sugar. Perhaps "cause" is an imprecise term and a better phrasing might be: The significant increase of sugar and starches in a typical diet seem to account for the significant increase in obesity in practice.
Also, the Complex/Simple Carbs are somewhat antiquated in diet terminology and instead use digestible vs undigestible (fiber). Anyone who's done Keto (a "0" carb diet) counts carbs using "Total Carbs" minus "Fiber".
This means you're avoiding sugars and starches but advocating for more fiber. Sugars are simple, starches are complex, but fiber is also complex.
As a fatty who has lost lot's of weight, stress ate my way back years later, and dropping them again: I found cutting carbs to be helpful, BUT(!) my diet philosophy is this:
THE BEST DIET is about psychology 80% and nutrition 20%. Most of the value you're going to get by keeping your weekly calories low. You can try variations of macronutrients, meal timing and frequency, voodoo, etc. but the best one is the one you stick with, and can stick with long enough to reach your goals.
Maybe you'll need to think about essential minerals and nutrients if you're trying something really really extreme. But with even minimal variety you should be good.
Another perspective is seeing food as batteries - do you want this 400-calorie pile to provide power across 4 hours, or do you want it to burn out in under 20 minutes?
"'Carbs' can mean broccoli or pure sugar."
And since this analysis is using published scientific papers, you can be reasonably sure that the investigators did not make these kinds of completely novice errors in methodology. Certainly not across the board. I have never seen a study of the issue that confuses simple sugars with cellulose. Nearly all studies are based on the glycemic index, and use high- or low-glycemic-index foods as their discriminator.
Most scientists are actually pretty good at their jobs. Obvious factors are controlled wherever possible. If you want to make this kind of a critique to a meta-analysis, you're actually making an extraordinary claim, and you must provide extraordinary evidence of improbable, correlated errors in the underlying studies.
And since this analysis is using published scientific papers, you can be reasonably sure that the investigators did not make these kinds of completely novice errors in methodology. Certainly not across the board. I have never seen a study of the issue that confuses simple sugars with cellulose. Nearly all studies are based on the glycemic index, and use high- or low-glycemic-index foods as their discriminator.
Most scientists are actually pretty good at their jobs. Obvious factors are controlled wherever possible. If you want to make this kind of a critique to a meta-analysis, you're actually making an extraordinary claim, and you must provide extraordinary evidence of improbable, correlated errors in the underlying studies.
I think that exercise has a strong effect on mood, appetite, digestion, and metabolism. Grazing continuously probably interferes with the migrating motor complex, so we will tend to do better if we refrain from eating outside of mealtimes. Refined carbohydrates tend to be addictive due to the quick increase in blood sugar levels, and tend to make consuming unrefined carbohydrates seem less appealing. Eating some fat promotes satiety, which may help reduce over-eating. So, there are a lot of factors in play.
> So, there are a lot of factors in play.
I forget where I read this, or even the exact figure, but bowel movements for some subset of indigenous tribes was something like 4 pounds. I remember thinking they must be getting ridiculous amounts of fiber. I’m not one to advocate for “paleo” or any other diet based on “what’s natural,” but it does seem it’s at least possible that our metabolisms and blood chemistry may have “grown up” with a lot more fiber than we moderns typically get.
Other factors, indeed.
I forget where I read this, or even the exact figure, but bowel movements for some subset of indigenous tribes was something like 4 pounds. I remember thinking they must be getting ridiculous amounts of fiber. I’m not one to advocate for “paleo” or any other diet based on “what’s natural,” but it does seem it’s at least possible that our metabolisms and blood chemistry may have “grown up” with a lot more fiber than we moderns typically get.
Other factors, indeed.
I think we need to be careful assuming that having a 4 lbs poop is a good thing just because we used to do it. The Inuit's diet was nearly entirely from animal protein and fats, totally bereft of fiber. People can adapt to a lot of misery, and I wonder if the need to eat that much fiber was due to other concerns (for instance, not having access to higher energy concentrated food stuffs). Either way we can't say that just because someone once did it it's healthy, or a well adapted behaviour.
I’m not sure how much more circumspect I could have been.
My grandparents and their great grandparents were from small villages in Greece. They used "frequent solid bowel movements a day" as sort of a at-a-glance measure of good health. I have heard of other friends who are from eastern european countries share similar stories. So there seems to be some sort of tradition there.
Anyways, Single easiest way for me to get fiber back in my diet was to simply eat the fruit instead of drinking the juice. It had a bonus effect of cutting down the sugars as well.
Anyways, Single easiest way for me to get fiber back in my diet was to simply eat the fruit instead of drinking the juice. It had a bonus effect of cutting down the sugars as well.
People underestimate the amounts they are eating. Then again some amateur athletes would do well to eat more carbs.
Steel Cut Oats, rice and vegetables are good source for carbs
Steel Cut Oats, rice and vegetables are good source for carbs
A lot of people tend to focus on the macronutrient factors of weight gain/loss (carbs, protein, fat). To some degree, I think those have an effect. As do the total number of calories consumed/burned. But it seems evident, at least anecdotally, that there are many other environmental factors that signal to our bodies how much fat to store vs burn, and much food to crave. I spend a lot of time with long term travelers and an interesting thing I've noticed is that many men lose weight when they travel long term, while many women gain weight when they travel. I don't really think that can be explained by how many carbs they eat. At least, if that's part of it, it's a very small part.
I noticed that I definitely lose weight when I am traveling and on vacation and I almost certainly eat and drink more. I'm pretty convinced it's because the regular office working lifestyle is really so sedentary in comparison. We're just used to it so we don't notice the stark difference.
Most people I know hate traveling for work because the food options presented are less healthy and opportunities for exercise are more limited so they tend to gain weight.
I prefer more active vacations opposed to sitting on a beach, but I also love food when traveling so much so that I find more places to eat than reasonable meals. So even when being more active I tend to plateau or gain weight. The worst is traveling to a place where the food isn't good. The one cruise I took eating felt like a chore. There were too many options to eat, but none of the food was very impressive.
I prefer more active vacations opposed to sitting on a beach, but I also love food when traveling so much so that I find more places to eat than reasonable meals. So even when being more active I tend to plateau or gain weight. The worst is traveling to a place where the food isn't good. The one cruise I took eating felt like a chore. There were too many options to eat, but none of the food was very impressive.
This could be exaggerated underlying sex differences that move away from the mean during periods of increased eating and physical activity: both men and women consume absolutely more calories while travelling, but men have relatively more muscle.
I don't know if this applies, but every time I travel in the US I'm amazed by the size of the portions when eating out compared to Europe/Asia. Could this be a factor?
It may be come down to behavioral changes while traveling. If your observation is true, maybe men tend to drink less alcohol while traveling, and women tend to eat more.
Could be that women rely much more on local networks for safety and so being outside that is fundamentally a bigger stress than men similarly outside their network.
>Perhaps particular types of carbs, fats, or proteins — e.g. refined carbohydrates, or sugars, or something else — are reliably linked to obesity. But I haven’t investigated any of those hypotheses yet.
It has always been my impression that Gary Taubes et al have always pointed to sugar and processed foods as the carbs we should avoid.
How could anyone get fat eating broccoli, lettuce and healthy vegetables?
It has always been my impression that Gary Taubes et al have always pointed to sugar and processed foods as the carbs we should avoid.
How could anyone get fat eating broccoli, lettuce and healthy vegetables?
People want to desperately believe there is some magic bullet food that makes them thinner, no one wants to change their behavior. The "commute by car" correlation with obesity, to name just one, is a lot better than the "food X" one.
This isn’t a magic bullet. When you eat carbs, your body produces the hormone insulin in order to convert blood glucose into usable energy. Excessive insulin production triggers the body to store energy as fat. If you drastically reduce your carb intake, your body will enter a state of ketosis where fat will be burned as energy. Barring some rare medical or genetic issue, this WILL cause you to lose weight. It’s a scientific fact. Just take a look at type 1 diabetics prior to diagnosis. They’re skinny and frail due to being unable to produce insulin.
> Excessive insulin production triggers the body to store energy as fat.
The 'insulin hypothesis'? Completely unproven.
> If you drastically reduce your carb intake, your body will enter a state of ketosis where fat will be burned as energy. Barring some rare medical or genetic issue, this WILL cause you to lose weight. It’s a scientific fact.
If you reduce your overall calories you'll lose weight, you can do that on any diet. That's the only thing that is a scientific fact.
The 'insulin hypothesis'? Completely unproven.
> If you drastically reduce your carb intake, your body will enter a state of ketosis where fat will be burned as energy. Barring some rare medical or genetic issue, this WILL cause you to lose weight. It’s a scientific fact.
If you reduce your overall calories you'll lose weight, you can do that on any diet. That's the only thing that is a scientific fact.
You might read this. It doesn't defend the insulin hypothesis, but it explains how freaking _weird_ nutrition is. http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/04/25/book-review-the-hungry-...
Specifically it shows that, for some people, they have to eat 4x of what they would normally eat in order to gain any weight. That's super weird. The body has a lot of ways to either preserve or burn energy if it thinks it's in a fasting/feasting mode, which will work again people who are using a simple "cals-in cals-out" model.
Specifically it shows that, for some people, they have to eat 4x of what they would normally eat in order to gain any weight. That's super weird. The body has a lot of ways to either preserve or burn energy if it thinks it's in a fasting/feasting mode, which will work again people who are using a simple "cals-in cals-out" model.
I'm basically not interested in reading things like this unless they can put solid facts up-front that are actually relevant to what most people care about (weight-loss/gain) and they actually normalize for calorie intake.
Fact is for the vast majority of people that don't have some rare disease, CICO works.
Fact is for the vast majority of people that don't have some rare disease, CICO works.
> If you reduce your overall calories you'll lose weight, you can do that on any diet. That's the only thing that is a scientific fact.
Hate to break it to you, but this is not a scientific fact. The energy equation is calories consumed minus calories expended. Your brain can down regulate your energy level in response to consuming less calories as a way to keep your body in homeostasis.
Hate to break it to you, but this is not a scientific fact. The energy equation is calories consumed minus calories expended. Your brain can down regulate your energy level in response to consuming less calories as a way to keep your body in homeostasis.
> Hate to break it to you, but this is not a scientific fact. The energy equation is calories consumed minus calories expended.
No kidding, you're not breaking anything to me here, that was implied. But sure I could've been more accurate. Compare to the pseudo-science-as-fact I'm responding to.
No kidding, you're not breaking anything to me here, that was implied. But sure I could've been more accurate. Compare to the pseudo-science-as-fact I'm responding to.
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/253713.php
"The research indicates that people can maintain a healthy weight by constantly bringing the levels of insulin back to a healthy minimum. This can be done by increasing the time between meals and eliminating snacks, without making amends at mealtime."
I believe this is the actual study: https://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/fulltext/S1550-4131(12)...
"The research indicates that people can maintain a healthy weight by constantly bringing the levels of insulin back to a healthy minimum. This can be done by increasing the time between meals and eliminating snacks, without making amends at mealtime."
I believe this is the actual study: https://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/fulltext/S1550-4131(12)...
Well your quote certainly does not suggest a proof of the insulin hypothesis.
Does the study control for calorie intake and show that preventing insulin spikes with the same calorie intakes reduced overall weight gain? Surely if that was the case they'd just say that?
Does the study control for calorie intake and show that preventing insulin spikes with the same calorie intakes reduced overall weight gain? Surely if that was the case they'd just say that?
> If you reduce your overall calories you'll lose weight, you can do that on any diet. That's the only thing that is a scientific fact.
Ketosis is valid and supported by scientific evidence. Likewise, people in ketosis can perform endurance exercises for longer periods of time, because they are working off of pure fat reserves.
Of course all athletes, short of sprinters, burn a mix of glucose and fat, but people who maintain a ketogenic diet for an extended period of time become better at burning fat, and therefor more accomplished at endurance based activities.
None of that is controversial. There is a reason professional athletes, in the right fields, are looking towards ketogenic diets for their performance benefits.
There is also the fact that, for many people, ketogenic diets make it easier to consume less calories.
To put it another way, an 8oz steak and a loaded baked potato have roughly the same number of calories (around 600).
Now imagine an 8oz steak and a side of broccoli, and a loaded potato and a side of broccoli. Which one makes for a more satisfying meal? For most people, the answer is the steak.
For what it is worth, I will eat 2-3 stuffed potatoes and not be satiated. (I'll then go and eat a steak to actually have a meal!)
Same thing with potato chips. I know very few people who get full eating a bag of chips, even though a bag of chips can have more than half the number of recommended daily calories in it!
Ditto for movie theater popcorn.
Now I do know people who can get full eating a carb heavy diet, people who have a bowl of ice cream and are like "well that is enough".
But given the state of America's waistline, and given how much junk food is sold in stores every day, it is apparent that the majority of people are not satiated by carbs after an appropriate number of calories have been consumed.
Ketosis is valid and supported by scientific evidence. Likewise, people in ketosis can perform endurance exercises for longer periods of time, because they are working off of pure fat reserves.
Of course all athletes, short of sprinters, burn a mix of glucose and fat, but people who maintain a ketogenic diet for an extended period of time become better at burning fat, and therefor more accomplished at endurance based activities.
None of that is controversial. There is a reason professional athletes, in the right fields, are looking towards ketogenic diets for their performance benefits.
There is also the fact that, for many people, ketogenic diets make it easier to consume less calories.
To put it another way, an 8oz steak and a loaded baked potato have roughly the same number of calories (around 600).
Now imagine an 8oz steak and a side of broccoli, and a loaded potato and a side of broccoli. Which one makes for a more satisfying meal? For most people, the answer is the steak.
For what it is worth, I will eat 2-3 stuffed potatoes and not be satiated. (I'll then go and eat a steak to actually have a meal!)
Same thing with potato chips. I know very few people who get full eating a bag of chips, even though a bag of chips can have more than half the number of recommended daily calories in it!
Ditto for movie theater popcorn.
Now I do know people who can get full eating a carb heavy diet, people who have a bowl of ice cream and are like "well that is enough".
But given the state of America's waistline, and given how much junk food is sold in stores every day, it is apparent that the majority of people are not satiated by carbs after an appropriate number of calories have been consumed.
> If you drastically reduce your carb intake, your body will enter a state of ketosis where fat will be burned as energy.
Ketosis is a lot harder to achieve than you think, and very easy to break out of. The reason low-carb diets work so well is the reason that any effective diet works: you intake fewer calories. You do this because in order to make up the caloric deficit of your missing carbs, you intake more protein and fat. But protein is the most satiating macro, which means you eat less protein than you would have carbs calorie-for-calorie.
The reason so many people rave about keto is because it's simple. The same could be said for intermittent fasting, and many other diets.
All of them work, some just work better than others for certain people. You have to find something that works with your schedule, your tastes and one you can stick to. That's it.
Ketosis is a lot harder to achieve than you think, and very easy to break out of. The reason low-carb diets work so well is the reason that any effective diet works: you intake fewer calories. You do this because in order to make up the caloric deficit of your missing carbs, you intake more protein and fat. But protein is the most satiating macro, which means you eat less protein than you would have carbs calorie-for-calorie.
The reason so many people rave about keto is because it's simple. The same could be said for intermittent fasting, and many other diets.
All of them work, some just work better than others for certain people. You have to find something that works with your schedule, your tastes and one you can stick to. That's it.
[deleted]
Your body is always burning fat, it's not a state machine, it's a super parallel bunch of cells. The proportion varies robustly with energy demand, oxygen supply is the limiting factor to meeting the demand and getting fat into energy is less oxygen efficient than doing the same with glycogen.
But this is an entirely academic point designed to mislead people. Given glycogen stores top out at ~8 MJ while there is many many magnitudes more in fat, it's like delving into the details of L2 cache or main memory. It's down in the noise given weight gain or loss is a months long process.
Hey, if you feel like you can better maintain by trying to be permanently glycogen depleted, you do you. But why that works or doesn't really has nothing to do with any of the things you mentioned.
But this is an entirely academic point designed to mislead people. Given glycogen stores top out at ~8 MJ while there is many many magnitudes more in fat, it's like delving into the details of L2 cache or main memory. It's down in the noise given weight gain or loss is a months long process.
Hey, if you feel like you can better maintain by trying to be permanently glycogen depleted, you do you. But why that works or doesn't really has nothing to do with any of the things you mentioned.
Normally I find it harmless when people on HN try to reduce non-tech problems into programming terms, but seriously, what value does this comment add?
The magic bullet is to find a diet that works for you in perpetuity where you can eat at or below caloric maintenance for your level of activity. That diet can’t be an on again or off again type of thing, it needs to be something you can stick with.
By definition any diet "below your caloric maintenance" isn't going to be something you can "stick with" with no interruptions... unless the deficit is so slight that you die from other causes first :p
Well a more kind interpretation is that aiming for 'below your caloric maintenance' allows for the odd wobble/treat :)
If you want to lose weight, you have to go below before you can stay at maintenance. :) Otherwise you won't stick with it.
I've tried medicines that increase ones appetite, and have a new respect for those that overeat. If one had the appetite, it's soo much harder to resist, and I often could not and increased weight by tens of kg.
Tldr: it's hard to resist with too high apetite
Tldr: it's hard to resist with too high apetite
Speculating wildly here, would it be possible after a meal to drink a liquid, which contains chemicals which bound to the carbs and makes them un-absorbable? Some sort of carb neutralizer?
Basically vomiting your meal out like the romans did, but in a more elegant way.
Basically vomiting your meal out like the romans did, but in a more elegant way.
You'd probably want to drink it beforehand, but maybe! You'd have to make the chemicals also resistant to being dissolved and absorbed by stomach acids & the gut.
Years ago, there were ads for diet pills that supposedly did this, but with fat molecules instead of carbs. Maybe in a few years, we'll see a similar drug for carbs.
Any "hypothesis" that tries to reduce something as complex as nutrition to a single factor is going to be easy to shoot holes in. This article sets up carbs as a straw-man.
Simple carbs are calorie-dense and tend to increase hunger. There are many more factors at play, but that doesn't invalidate the fact that reducing your simple-carbs intake will probably help and not hurt your efforts to lose weight.
Simple carbs are calorie-dense and tend to increase hunger. There are many more factors at play, but that doesn't invalidate the fact that reducing your simple-carbs intake will probably help and not hurt your efforts to lose weight.
As a keto practitioner, the obvious recommendation I'd add for further research is to distinguish between "low-carb" and "<20 grams of carb per day". For achieving ketosis, "low carb" is a completely orthogonal diet.
I'm a little sad that he didn't discover this distinction early on in his findings, since the rest of this is very interesting and well-researched (just irrelevant to the keto question in particular).
I'd also add that exercise is another important high-level distinction to make that confounds the rest of the discussion, particularly the analysis of paleo / ancestral diets, which presumably had very high levels of exercise compared to modern sedentarians.
I'm a little sad that he didn't discover this distinction early on in his findings, since the rest of this is very interesting and well-researched (just irrelevant to the keto question in particular).
I'd also add that exercise is another important high-level distinction to make that confounds the rest of the discussion, particularly the analysis of paleo / ancestral diets, which presumably had very high levels of exercise compared to modern sedentarians.
After 12 weeks on keto, I have learned something important about diets.
Lonely? Need a friend? Would you like advice? If so, then post on social media about dieting. Everybody has an opinion and everybody is quite passionate about them.
Having said that, my gut feeling is that we're going to see a sea change in nutrition over the next 5-10 years as the older generation dies out and new ideas take root. I'm seeing some exciting things in the keto community, including what looks to me like a lot of science and math that has a tremendous positive impact on folks. And it's not calories in, calories out. I'm able to do heavy cardio for 90 minutes without soreness. That's never been true for me.
Exciting times.
ADD: I clicked on the links, but I was unable to determine exactly what hypothesis the author was studying. Looked like just a meta review of a bunch of macro information, but maybe I missed it.
Lonely? Need a friend? Would you like advice? If so, then post on social media about dieting. Everybody has an opinion and everybody is quite passionate about them.
Having said that, my gut feeling is that we're going to see a sea change in nutrition over the next 5-10 years as the older generation dies out and new ideas take root. I'm seeing some exciting things in the keto community, including what looks to me like a lot of science and math that has a tremendous positive impact on folks. And it's not calories in, calories out. I'm able to do heavy cardio for 90 minutes without soreness. That's never been true for me.
Exciting times.
ADD: I clicked on the links, but I was unable to determine exactly what hypothesis the author was studying. Looked like just a meta review of a bunch of macro information, but maybe I missed it.
> And it's not calories in, calories out.
Based upon your last statement, I assume you're on keto for weight loss, if so how has weight loss been, how many calories are you eating now vs before, and how stringent was your measurement?
Based upon your last statement, I assume you're on keto for weight loss, if so how has weight loss been, how many calories are you eating now vs before, and how stringent was your measurement?
I'm in it for fitness, but I'm out-of-shape because I'm overweight. I have made it a point not to weigh and instead judge my progress on changing clothes sizes and aerobic capacity.
I'm down an incredible amount, maybe 6 inches or more on my waist. Inflammation and joint pain are gone as well. In addition, I don't get tired as much.
Basically my entire system has changed.
What I'm religious about is logging everything I eat. So I log calories. And of course, I eat less of them. (I think this is one of the confounding variables when people look across studies simply at macros). So in a way, there is some thermodynamics at work, but the thing is: that's not the controlling factor. Limiting carbs changes my relationship to food. Once that's done, it doesn't matter so much how much I eat. I could go a day or two eating nothing. I still have hunger, but it's not an overwhelming feelig that drives eating too much like it used to be. Nowhere close.
I'll probably weigh in another 12 weeks. I need to weigh sometime.
I'm usually between 1200-1400 calories. I burn about 1300 daily on cardio. I have been pigging out the last few days, however, with my intake up around 1550 calories or so.
In all honesty, I just don't feel like eating in the same way I used to. My relationship with food has changed in a profound way that is difficult to relate to people who haven't been here.
I'm down an incredible amount, maybe 6 inches or more on my waist. Inflammation and joint pain are gone as well. In addition, I don't get tired as much.
Basically my entire system has changed.
What I'm religious about is logging everything I eat. So I log calories. And of course, I eat less of them. (I think this is one of the confounding variables when people look across studies simply at macros). So in a way, there is some thermodynamics at work, but the thing is: that's not the controlling factor. Limiting carbs changes my relationship to food. Once that's done, it doesn't matter so much how much I eat. I could go a day or two eating nothing. I still have hunger, but it's not an overwhelming feelig that drives eating too much like it used to be. Nowhere close.
I'll probably weigh in another 12 weeks. I need to weigh sometime.
I'm usually between 1200-1400 calories. I burn about 1300 daily on cardio. I have been pigging out the last few days, however, with my intake up around 1550 calories or so.
In all honesty, I just don't feel like eating in the same way I used to. My relationship with food has changed in a profound way that is difficult to relate to people who haven't been here.
Too steep a caloric deficit can be dangerous. For instance, you lose muscle as well, and part of the muscle loss happens in your heart. Not good to say the least.
High protein intake can offset this somewhat, but not entirely, so aim for a 500 calorie deficit at most. In fact, you should cycle calorie deficits week to week, ie. one week in deficit, one week at maintenance. This actually accelerates fat loss because it prevents metabolic adaptations to lower caloric intake. See the MATADOR diet:
https://www.nature.com/articles/ijo2017206
High protein intake can offset this somewhat, but not entirely, so aim for a 500 calorie deficit at most. In fact, you should cycle calorie deficits week to week, ie. one week in deficit, one week at maintenance. This actually accelerates fat loss because it prevents metabolic adaptations to lower caloric intake. See the MATADOR diet:
https://www.nature.com/articles/ijo2017206
Thank you.
The protein/muscle-mass rule is one of many things the community continues to argue about, sadly.
I'm eating between 1-1.5g per ideal kg of body weight daily. I also regularly measure my muscle and fat mass, keeping an eye on things. (Although not with a high-end machine). It's something I am quite concerned about.
I am also on-guard for hair loss and some of the other signs of my system switching over to starvation mode. So far none of that has happened.
The protein/muscle-mass rule is one of many things the community continues to argue about, sadly.
I'm eating between 1-1.5g per ideal kg of body weight daily. I also regularly measure my muscle and fat mass, keeping an eye on things. (Although not with a high-end machine). It's something I am quite concerned about.
I am also on-guard for hair loss and some of the other signs of my system switching over to starvation mode. So far none of that has happened.
So you combine keto with intermittent fasting? Is that deliberate, or do you sometimes forget to eat for days?
I'm deliberately doing 18-6, 18 hours of fasting and a 6-hour window for eating.
Because I log everything, I make myself eat. In fact, I've considered upping my intake based on my daily cardio. It's just I've tried multi-day fasting and it was fine. I've also skipped lunch and just had one meal a day. It was also fine. No muss, no fuss. My liver continues to generate as much glucose as I need to go about whatever I'm doing.
I would not have believed this possible four months ago.
Because I log everything, I make myself eat. In fact, I've considered upping my intake based on my daily cardio. It's just I've tried multi-day fasting and it was fine. I've also skipped lunch and just had one meal a day. It was also fine. No muss, no fuss. My liver continues to generate as much glucose as I need to go about whatever I'm doing.
I would not have believed this possible four months ago.
tl;dr - cut out added sugar, and lower complex carb intake from your diet and be amazed.
Last May (2017) I weighed about 215 lbs/~98 kg (my peak was 235 around 2012). I really wanted to lose weight and started at the most obvious place: what am I eating? Well after some basic research and thinking I decided that sugar was my target so I started reducing added sugar intake. Eliminated juices, soda, coffee with sugar, sweet and savory foods like bbq sauces, and all the sweet treats I loved to eat. At this point Ill admit that I had a sweet tooth and ate a lot of sugary foods and drinks. You'd always catch me with some chocolates or a box of cookies in the cupboard. No more.
It wasn't exactly easy and it took some time to adjust my eating and whittle down my added sugar intake to almost nothing. The only sugar came from the occasional piece of fruit and yes, the rare cheat desert, maybe once every two weeks. It worked. By November I started to see results and people were commenting on my weight loss. I continued and this past January I started to realize my carb cravings were mostly gone. I can eat a breakfast of two eggs and some oatmeal and not be hungry until well after lunch. Your hunger goes down because all the carbs arent messing with your brain. BUT! I have to be careful, my hunger dropped to the point where I realized I was under eating and losing weight too fast. By march I was starting to look real skinny and a few people commented that I looked like a: crackhead, heroin addict, cancer patient, or anorexic. One guy took me aside at a party and asked if I was undergoing chemo.
Now I weigh 158 lbs or ~73 kg. All that time I did not exercise. Just heavily adjusted my diet. I also bumped into a personal trainer last month who runs a free weekly crossfit bootcamp in a local park so I started that. I also used his advice for performing simple home exercises (screw gyms) and I'm already seeing results as in muscle definition. I am looking to put some muscle mass on to push myself back up to 165-170. Don't wanna get swole, just good hearty core strength. Maybe get back into boxing and judo/jujitsu.
Far as carbs go, they really mess you up. The past three days I ate like shit, the worst in the past year. Pizza lunch at work, leftover pasta from a coworker with garlic knots, empanadas, I had a redbull, and some more pizza. I feel this heavy bloated feeling in my stomach. Ugh. So yea, carbs are bad, mkay.
My diet? Nothing special but I avoid exceedingly fatty foods like cheese (I know, I know, the horror) and red meat as well as anything with added sugar, and excess bread. So mainly chicken, some fish, turkey for protein and I love green vegetables so lots of broccoli, spinach, brussel sprouts, kale, swiss chard, asparagus, and bok choy. I usually saute the vegetables in a pan with a little olive oil and lots of garlic (cant get enough of it) and cook the meat in the oven. Just keep a cabinet full of spices and you'll never get bored of eating. And one last thing, remember how said I had a sweet tooth? Well that went away somewhat and very sweet things that I used to like are now too sweet and somewhat repulsive and soda gives me a stomach ache. Amazing what a sugar "cleanse" will do to the body.
Last May (2017) I weighed about 215 lbs/~98 kg (my peak was 235 around 2012). I really wanted to lose weight and started at the most obvious place: what am I eating? Well after some basic research and thinking I decided that sugar was my target so I started reducing added sugar intake. Eliminated juices, soda, coffee with sugar, sweet and savory foods like bbq sauces, and all the sweet treats I loved to eat. At this point Ill admit that I had a sweet tooth and ate a lot of sugary foods and drinks. You'd always catch me with some chocolates or a box of cookies in the cupboard. No more.
It wasn't exactly easy and it took some time to adjust my eating and whittle down my added sugar intake to almost nothing. The only sugar came from the occasional piece of fruit and yes, the rare cheat desert, maybe once every two weeks. It worked. By November I started to see results and people were commenting on my weight loss. I continued and this past January I started to realize my carb cravings were mostly gone. I can eat a breakfast of two eggs and some oatmeal and not be hungry until well after lunch. Your hunger goes down because all the carbs arent messing with your brain. BUT! I have to be careful, my hunger dropped to the point where I realized I was under eating and losing weight too fast. By march I was starting to look real skinny and a few people commented that I looked like a: crackhead, heroin addict, cancer patient, or anorexic. One guy took me aside at a party and asked if I was undergoing chemo.
Now I weigh 158 lbs or ~73 kg. All that time I did not exercise. Just heavily adjusted my diet. I also bumped into a personal trainer last month who runs a free weekly crossfit bootcamp in a local park so I started that. I also used his advice for performing simple home exercises (screw gyms) and I'm already seeing results as in muscle definition. I am looking to put some muscle mass on to push myself back up to 165-170. Don't wanna get swole, just good hearty core strength. Maybe get back into boxing and judo/jujitsu.
Far as carbs go, they really mess you up. The past three days I ate like shit, the worst in the past year. Pizza lunch at work, leftover pasta from a coworker with garlic knots, empanadas, I had a redbull, and some more pizza. I feel this heavy bloated feeling in my stomach. Ugh. So yea, carbs are bad, mkay.
My diet? Nothing special but I avoid exceedingly fatty foods like cheese (I know, I know, the horror) and red meat as well as anything with added sugar, and excess bread. So mainly chicken, some fish, turkey for protein and I love green vegetables so lots of broccoli, spinach, brussel sprouts, kale, swiss chard, asparagus, and bok choy. I usually saute the vegetables in a pan with a little olive oil and lots of garlic (cant get enough of it) and cook the meat in the oven. Just keep a cabinet full of spices and you'll never get bored of eating. And one last thing, remember how said I had a sweet tooth? Well that went away somewhat and very sweet things that I used to like are now too sweet and somewhat repulsive and soda gives me a stomach ache. Amazing what a sugar "cleanse" will do to the body.
You ate pizza, pasta, garlic knots, empanadas, redbull and more pizza and blame carbs for your bloating?
Starch and fat, starch and fat, starch and fat, sugar and carbonation, starch and fat... Jesus. Cut out a lot of the fat, add some lean protein and a lot of soluble and insoluble fiber and he might feel better. I’m not shocked though, when I’ve spoken to friends who jumped on the “bad gluten” train I hear similar stories.
My conclusion though, is whatever gets people to eat a bit less and a bit more varied diet is worth it. If they have to believe in spurious causality and it gets them to binge less on garbage, that’s still a win.
My conclusion though, is whatever gets people to eat a bit less and a bit more varied diet is worth it. If they have to believe in spurious causality and it gets them to binge less on garbage, that’s still a win.
Yep, exactly. The best diet is the one you will stick to. Everything else is secondary. If it's low carb or vegan or paleo or mediterranean great. If it's the Twinkie diet, not as great but whatever. Penn lost a ton of weight on the potato diet starter phase of his diet.
Personally, I lost 50 lbs through a combination of exercise plus homemade vegetable/fruit juice replacement of two meals --which would be high carb. Some people would not be able to deal with that so it wouldn't work for them.
Personally, I lost 50 lbs through a combination of exercise plus homemade vegetable/fruit juice replacement of two meals --which would be high carb. Some people would not be able to deal with that so it wouldn't work for them.
[deleted]
For most people: If Calories In > Calories Out, you're going to gain weight if you're consistently eating that way for long periods of time. It doesn't matter where your surplus of calories is coming from necessarily. However, a surplus of calories coming from carbohydrates is more likely than fat and/or protein for most people. Having said that, high fat intake + high carb intake is also common for many people, especially if you eat out.
http://www.bodyforwife.com/keto-and-low-carb-diets-kill-perf...
http://www.bodyforwife.com/keto-and-low-carb-diets-kill-perf...
Weight is only one factor though. Congestive heart disease and diabetes and cancer are the real risk, and there is a ton of evidence that simple sugars a drive the growth of these diseases.