Support NeoGAF

[Deleted member 17706]

So you're saying that the lack of exercise has NOTHING to do with fat people being fat? And that the AMOUNT they eat (in volume or in calories) has nothing to do with their weight either? And you're saying that small portions of fat-making food can make one fat?

All these claims strike me as prepostorous. Again, I see that protein-heavy/carb-light diets work for some people (personally not a fan). But a diet that sensibly includes protein, fat and carbs in a certain ratio can work as well.

I don't see why, in order to defend the Paleo diet (or whatever this craze is called), it is necessary to make such exaggerated claims.

Exaggerated claims they are not. You're the one setting up strawmen.

Yes, if you force-feed yourself past the point of satisfaction, you will most likely put on weight. And no, if you eat tiny amounts of Twinkies or spoonfuls of sugar to get by, you probably won't put on weight.

It really comes down to managing hunger and insulin. If you're constantly spiking your blood sugar and causing it to crash moments later with crap food, you're going to be hungry all of the time. These foods will put you into a vicious cycle of eat -> crash -> hunger -> eat not only causing you to overeat, but also making it so your insulin levels are constantly high forcing your body to store fat and preventing it from using that fat.

Can you break this cycle through sheer willpower? Some people can. That one guy went on a two-month Twinkie diet, apparently, but I bet he was miserable. The best way is to just eat the kinds of foods that will satiate you for long periods of time while not spiking your blood sugar and causing insulin levels to rise. This lets you use the fat you have and doesn't cause your body to store new fat. It also prevents you form having spikes and crashes in energy levels, not to mention a myriad of other health benefits.

Obviously, exercise is also beneficial in many, many ways. However, exercise levels have extremely little to do with the current obesity problem across much of the world. You can easily become thin while sitting on your ass provided you eat the right foods. I wouldn't recommend shunning exercise, though.

Just curious, but don't people on the Biggest Loser crash diet and aren't most of the old contestants gaining their weight back?

I've never seen the show, but if they end up going back to their old habits, then of course they'll fatten right up again. It seems like the show takes a "no pain, no gain." approach and puts all the blame of obesity on the individuals character deficiency. It would be a lot better if they just educated people about what kind of foods will make them fat, but as you can see from this thread, opinions are divided on this matter, and that probably wouldn't make for a very entertaining show, anyway.

 

[jred2k]

This thread really makes me wish I had been taught more about nutrition/paid better attention to it in school. I feel more confused leaving this thread than I was before I entered.

 

[hirokazu]

The whole "people who are fat aren't fat because they eat too much and don't exercise; it's because of what they eat" thing sounds dangerous to me. What sort of diet you're eating is important, of course, but to me, you gotta balance it with exercise and healthy portions.

It's not just one quick solution that will make you good. Diet and lifestyle is different for everyone. One thing could work for you if your already overweight, but I think you ought to balance all the factors to maintain health. It kinda sounds like here the other factors are being shunned in favour of one.

 

[Krowley]

So you're saying that the lack of exercise has NOTHING to do with fat people being fat? And that the AMOUNT they eat (in volume or in calories) has nothing to do with their weight either? And you're saying that small portions of fat-making food can make one fat?

What we're getting down to is the fundamental of "why?".

People who are fat generally eat too much and exercise too little. Obviously. Study after study proves it. And most importantly, they eat when they shouldn't be hungry. The real question is "why?" Answer that question, and you have the real cause for obesity.

A lot of the science since the 60s has been targeted at some kind of mental cause, claiming fat people are deficient in some way. "Fat people have no will power." "They were raised with bad habits." "They're lazy." "They just need a little discipline." "Have a little self control people!" "Eat in moderation." "Control your portions, don't be such a glutton!"

But none of those are actually the cause. The real reason people overeat is usually because they screwed up their body's ability to handle carbohydrates by eating too much sugar and bread over their lifetime. The end result is a state where people feel hungry (even starving) despite having eaten more than enough calories for normal satiety. It's called metabolic syndrome and it is caused by insulin resistance in the muscles.

Metabolic syndrome is the main reason people get fat, and the easiest solution to metabolic syndrome is a diet that restricts carbohydrates, especially refined carbohydrates found in grains and sugar. Some people can eat bread and sugar and never gain a pound, but other peoples' bodies are more sensitive. For people who are really, really sensitive, "eating in moderation" might have been enough to keep them from developing metabolic disorder in the first place, but it often isn't enough to correct the problem once the damage has already been done.

As for exercise--the "move too little" part of the equation--obviously it is very hard to exercise once you become unhealthy and fat. And the fatter you get the harder it is to exercise. It is no wonder that most fat people lay around all the time, and being inactive probably makes them much more unhealthy. But remember, there are plenty of skinny people who work desk jobs and never exercise at all.

 

[mantidor]

This thread really makes me wish I had been taught more about nutrition/paid better attention to it in school. I feel more confused leaving this thread than I was before I entered.

Pretty much.

Is baffling that there seems to be no consensus, I guess everyone wants to sell you their diets, I'm sure this is a business with a lot of money involved. That not even the medical community reaches a simple "this is what makes you fat" answer is absurd.

I say, eat normal amounts (not to little, not too much), eat everything, try to do some physical activity, and hope for the best.

 

[Piecake]

The whole "people who are fat aren't fat because they eat too much and don't exercise; it's because of what they eat" thing sounds dangerous to me. What sort of diet you're eating is important, of course, but to me, you gotta balance it with exercise and healthy portions.

It's not just one quick solution that will make you good. Diet and lifestyle is different for everyone. One thing could work for you if your already overweight, but I think you ought to balance all the factors to maintain health. It kinda sounds like here the other factors are being shunned in favour of one.

You'll eat healthy portions if you go on the primal diet. You simply will not be able to pig out on a fat-adapted diet. You would explode.

No one here is claiming that exercise isnt beneficial. lifting weights and walking are very beneficial to your overall health. That does not mean that they are significant factors in weight loss. Weight loss is all about your diet (80%)

For those who are confused, you should do three things that most people agree on: Cut sugar, stop drinking your calories, and gauge how much carbs you eat. If grain/carbs are 60% of your diet like most americans (just a guess), well, lower that shit to like 30-40% at least (i have it much lower)

 

[Dash27]

The title of this thread is just so dumb.

I mean, if you want to 'modify' (or add some nuance to) the mainstream understanding of nutrition and exercise, sure go ahead. But if you end up making even more ridiculous claims than the view you're criticizing, you're doing it wrong. People on The Biggest Loser lose weight; and they increase their exercise and change their diet.

The title is more of an attempt to make you rethink things. Taubes specifically used this phrase or similar but yes there is a lot of "nuance" to it.

Eat too much and dont exercise and you'll get fat. If someone get's fat though the prescriptions we give set people up to fail. Biggest loser is a good example. They run those people through what 5 or 6 hours a day of exercise and severely restrict the diet. I wonder what they eat actually.... but in any case they would be better served understanding what is actually making them fat, rather than working them 6 hours a day, making them even more hungry, yet feeding them less. And those people have been shown to add it all back more often than not.

The goal is to understand why people get fat. People say calories in - calories out = change in weight but then (perhaps) wrongly make that into just eat less and exercise more. Why not eat foods that wont trigger as much insulin and therefore fat storage?

 

[derder]

Doctors and nutritionists can all agree that 30 minutes of brisk walking a day and the elimination of sugars will make you thinner than if you did not exercise and did not pay attention to what you ate.

 

[JB1981]

Taubes actually exercises and encourages it in his work as a way to look and feel fit, but not as an effective means of long-term weight loss. He cited a Runner's World(?) survey of thousands of its subscribers, many of whom run double digit miles per week, that showed they were putting on weight with each passing year.

I personally think resistance-training is more effective for long-term weight loss because building muscle burns fat calories more effectively over the long term. It will make you very hungry, though, and that is the downside. You have to eat appropriately - dietary fat, protein, limit refined carbs and sugars. Drink water, milk, no sugary drinks etc.

I have to say that I am very fortunate when it comes to weight and body composition so I tend to stay out of these discussion. I sit on my ass all day in a cubicle, but still eat pretty well, and I don't really gain much weight at all. I haven't exercised in months. I do notice that when I restrict carbs I start to shed weight like mad but I also tend to get very moody.

 

[Merino]

Paleo diet is whatever you want it to be. It's not low carb or high fat or protein, it's getting all the crap out of your diet. I think you'll find most people get plenty of veggies on it.

There is examples of both extremes in hunter gatherer socities though. Compare the traditonal diets of the Inuit (meat, fish and more meat, limited vegetation) and Kitavan (pretty much all starchy root vegetables). The most important part is quite simple. No crap.

True, it's the crap (and often lack of fitness) that ruin people's health the most. And I won't deny either the benefit of a hunter/gatherer diet over a agricultural based diet.

Still, most tribes do not have near the access to fish/meat sources as the Inuit have and often survive mostly on starches (mostly tubers and root vegetables) and plant vegetables.

 

[Oppo]

I personally think resistance-training is more effective for long-term weight loss because building muscle burns fat calories more effectively over the long term. It will make you very hungry, though, and that is the downside. You have to eat appropriately - dietary fat, protein, limit refined carbs and sugars. Drink water, milk, no sugary drinks etc.

I have to say that I am very fortunate when it comes to weight and body composition so I tend to stay out of these discussion. I sit on my ass all day in a cubicle, but still eat pretty well, and I don't really gain much weight at all. I haven't exercised in months. I do notice that when I restrict carbs I start to shed weight like mad but I also tend to get very moody.

But again that probably has more to do with the lack of carbs/sugar than anything else.

It's very difficult to exercise yourself to thinness if you are actually obese. A little easier if you are simply overweight.

I like this example from 4 Hour Body:

Moving 100 kilograms (220 pounds) 100 meters (about 27 flights of stairs) requires 100 kilojoules of energy, or 23.9 calories (known to scientists as kilocalories [kcal]). A pound of fat contains 4,082 calories. How many calories might running a marathon burn? 2600 or so.

The caloric argument for exercise gets even more depressing. Remember those 107 calories you burned during that kick-ass long Stairmaster session? Don't forget to subtract your basal metabolic rate (BMR), i.e. what you would have burned sitting on the couch watching The Simpsons instead. For most people, that's about 100 calories/hour given off as heat (BTU).

That hour on the Stairmaster was worth 7 calories.

As luck would have it, three small stalks of celery are six calories, so you have one calorie left to spare. But wait: how many calories did that sports drink and big post-workout meal have? Don't forget that you have to burn more calories than you later ingest in large meals due to increased appetite.

It's not just an energy imbalance problem, a calorie is not a calorie as simple inputs/outputs. So no, trying to "resistance train" yourself to thinness is pretty inefficient on whole.

 

[Dash27]

So now I'm watching "Forks over Knives" for a bit of balance. Not as compelling but I think there are some points of agreement with it and Paleo or the Fat Head documentary. They all agree sugar is bad for example.

Paleo/Primal and Forks over Knives seem to agree with whole, unprocessed foods. No trans fats, HFCS etc.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

So now I'm watching "Forks over Knives" for a bit of balance. Not as compelling but I think there are some points of agreement with it and Paleo or the Fat Head documentary. They all agree sugar is bad for example.

Paleo/Primal and Forks over Knives seem to agree with whole, unprocessed foods. No trans fats, HFCS etc.

Forks over Knives has a hardcore vegan agenda right? I remember hearing that, so I've avoided viewing it so far.

 

[Dash27]

Yeah they promote vegan diet and say meat will kill you dead and cause global warming.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

Yeah they promote vegan diet and say meat will kill you dead and cause global warming.

If Big Corn and its factory farming continue to expand and eliminate traditional farming, they're probably right...

 

[Zaptruder]

But again that probably has more to do with the lack of carbs/sugar than anything else.

It's very difficult to exercise yourself to thinness if you are actually obese. A little easier if you are simply overweight.

I like this example from 4 Hour Body:



It's not just an energy imbalance problem, a calorie is not a calorie as simple inputs/outputs. So no, trying to "resistance train" yourself to thinness is pretty inefficient on whole.

Why would you subtract your BMR from the workout? That doesn't make an iota of sense.


Also, the more muscle your body has, the more fuel it uses. Pretty straightforward.

 

[McLovin]

For about a week I've avoided sugar, bread, rice, and starchy vegetables(potatoes, corn, etc.) Went to the gym 3 times, lost 4.5 lbs, and have been eating until I got full. This really works! It feels like I'm getting away with something with all the meat I've been eating.
The only strange thing I've noticed is that I'll get hungry even though my stomach is full. Kind of hard to describe the feeling, but it is what it is. I usually eat some nuts and it'll calm me down a little.
Edit- I need to add something with a lot of fiber and low carbs if possible. I went no. 2 maybe 3 times and I needed one of those herbal teas to do it.

 

[maxxpower]

For about a week I've avoided sugar, bread, rice, and starchy vegetables(potatoes, corn, etc.) Went to the gym 3 times, lost 4.5 lbs, and have been eating until I got full. This really works! It feels like I'm getting away with something with all the meat I've been eating.
The only strange thing I've noticed is that I'll get hungry even though my stomach is full. Kind of hard to describe the feeling, but it is what it is. I usually eat some nuts and it'll calm me down a little.
Edit- I need to add something with a lot of fiber and low carbs if possible. I went no. 2 maybe 3 times and I needed one of those herbal teas to do it.

Just eat lots of veggies like broccoli and cauliflower, raspberries, avocados, mushrooms.

 

[McLovin]

Just eat lots of veggies like broccoli and cauliflower, raspberries, avocados, mushrooms.

I do, but I can't seem to go on my own.

 

[Malvolio]

I do, but I can't seem to go on my own.

It should pass after a while. The first couple weeks can be fairly annoying, but I found that once my body adjusted I became much more regular. In fact, one of the best side benefits to a low carb approach was having regular morning movements rather than the few hours after eating schedule I was on before. Just remember to keep that fiber in your diet and drink as much water as you can.

 

[Krowley]

I do, but I can't seem to go on my own.

This can continue for a few weeks but eventually your body will adjust. Probably.

I still have trouble sometimes, TBH, but not very often anymore and I was always prone to constipation anyway.

High fiber veggies should help (eventually). Drink a lot of water.

 

[Piecake]

This can continue for a few weeks but eventually your body will adjust. Probably.

I still have trouble sometimes, TBH, but not very often anymore and I was always prone to constipation anyway.

High fiber veggies should help (eventually). Drink a lot of water.

Yea, constipation is defintiely the one downside of this diet. Not saying its a certainty, but its a lot easier if you dont eat your spinach

 

[IceCold]

To the guys that switched to a low-carb/high fat diet, did you notice that you had more energy during the day?

 

[Oppo]

Why would you subtract your BMR from the workout? That doesn't make an iota of sense.


Also, the more muscle your body has, the more fuel it uses. Pretty straightforward.

I think he was making the point that BMR happens whether you are exercising or not.

 

[Kuro Madoushi]

To the guys that switched to a low-carb/high fat diet, did you notice that you had more energy during the day?

I've; only started, but I don't notice a big difference thus far. About two weeks.

I find I am drinking a lot of freaking water to counter the sodium in all the meats.

Also noticing how hard it is to stay on this...almost everything has carbs.

 

[Piecake]

I've; only started, but I don't notice a big difference thus far. About two weeks.

I find I am drinking a lot of freaking water to counter the sodium in all the meats.

Also noticing how hard it is to stay on this...almost everything has carbs.

I wouldnt worry about eating carbs from veggies, fruit, and dairy. Those are fine, though you might have to limit the fruit or dairy if you can't handle it.

Course, if youre doing keto, then you'll probably have to cut out all fruit and dairy to reach your carb target

 

[Deleted member 17706]

To the guys that switched to a low-carb/high fat diet, did you notice that you had more energy during the day?

I've been doing it for about two years now and absolutely. My energy levels never fluctuate like they used to when I consumed a ton of grains. No more post-lunch crash and afternoon sleepiness.

 

[Dash27]

I find it's not easy avoiding the grains and sugar. Everything that's easy to grab has one or both. I have to plan ahead a lot more than I did previously. Make extra for dinner so I have left overs, make sure I pack food with me when I go to work. Always have some fruit, nuts and seeds available.

Once I get on a roll though it's fine and yes I feel like I have more energy. That "man I need a nap" feeling in the afternoons seems to be gone completely.

 

[teiresias]

I'm someone who finds nothing wrong with a low-carb diet and try to limit my carbs whenever possible, and do larger carb fasts if I feel I need to, so I have nothing against anyone advocating low-carb, but . . .

. . . Fat Head is one of the most annoying films I've ever had the displeasure of watching.

 

[teh_pwn]

Forks over Knives has a hardcore vegan agenda right? I remember hearing that, so I've avoided viewing it so far.

It's basically China Study in video form, and we all know that China Study is a compilation of various scientific fallacies, mostly cherry picking completely uncontrolled data from unreliable sources - dietary questionnaires.

Remember that Campbell claimed that animal protein causes cancer because in a lab he showed correlation of cancer and casein, a component of milk protein that doesn't exist alone in nature. He skips the part that whey is about equally anti-cancer and generalizes all animal protein as casein. He's a complete fanatic that disregards scientific conduct to promote his loony agenda.

 

[CLEEK]

The title is more of an attempt to make you rethink things. Taubes specifically used this phrase or similar but yes there is a lot of "nuance" to it.

I think the issue with the thread title is that it should read:

"We aren't obese because we eat too much and exercise too little"

There is a big difference between having a bit of fat around your belly, to being overweight, to being clinically obese. Most of the arguments of 'this is bullshit. If you eat in moderation, you don't get fat' are completely true, but only when applied to people who aren't already obese.

If you are of relatively normal weight, you can easily maintain it by eating in moderation and / or doing exercise. You don't have to pay much attention to fat/protien/carb ratios or macro-nutrition in your food. If you're obese, and your body's ability to deal with sugars has already been shot, then the point of the OP holds true.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

I think the issue with the thread title is that it should read:

"We aren't obese because we eat too much and exercise too little"

There is a big difference between having a bit of fat around your belly, to being overweight, to being clinically obese. Most of the arguments of 'this is bullshit. If you eat in moderation, you don't get fat' are completely true, but only when applied to people who aren't already obese.

If you are of relatively normal weight, you can easily maintain it by eating in moderation and / or doing exercise. You don't have to pay much attention to fat/protien/carb ratios or macro-nutrition in your food. If you're obese, and your body's ability to deal with sugars has already been shot, then the point of the OP holds true.

"Eat in moderation" is the most useless phrase ever. It means "eat so that you don't get fat."

Yeah, no shit. Most people wouldn't be having problems if they knew how to do that.

 

[Corky]

"Eat in moderation" is the most useless phrase ever. It means "eat so that you don't get fat."

Yeah, no shit. Most people wouldn't be having problems if they knew how to do that.

Maybe a better way of putting it would be "eat until you are almost satiated"

 

[teh_pwn]

Maybe a better way of putting it would be "eat until you are almost satiated"

That doesn't work if you don't control what foods you eat. There are studies on junk food versus normal chow for rats, and when given junk food the rats will ignore regular chow, traverse paths that inflict pain, and overeat the junk food. Junk food breaks the body's ability to regulate a healthy weight based on hunger.

 

[cryptic]

You want to hear something that will blow your mind?

Sugar is actually benign if not beneficial, in the absence of PUFAs.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

You want to hear something that will blow your mind?

Sugar is actually benign if not beneficial, in the absence of PUFAs.

We've got enough bullshit in here already.

 

[CLEEK]

"Eat in moderation" is the most useless phrase ever. It means "eat so that you don't get fat."

Yeah, but the point people are making against the need for low carb diets is that you can eat sweet food every day and maintain a normal weight. You don't need to ensure you eat under 100g of carbs a day. Eating in moderation is just another term for self moderation. e.g. You start chubbing up a little - cut down on the cakes.

I have been following a low(er) carb, high(er) protein and fat diet for a few years. Not excessively, and I still have sweet things, but have cut out carbs as a filler in meals. So no pasta, no rice, no garins etc, but swapped those for green vegetables, and eating a bit more meat and fat.

It has meant that I no longer need self moderation to juggle between food consumption and weight gain, as my weight (and body composition) is incredible stable. I've been in the 10-12% body fat range for a few years now, only going higher if I drink booze too often. I reckon I'll put on a couple of kilos over Christmas due to alcohol, but simply by going back to normal drinking patterns, the fat will fall off by the end of Jan.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

Yeah, but the point people are making against the need for low carb diets is that you can eat sweet food every day and maintain a normal weight. You don't need to ensure you eat under 100g of carbs a day. Eating in moderation is just another term for self moderation. e.g. You start chubbing up a little - cut down on the cakes.

I have been following a low(er) carb, high(er) protein and fat diet for a few years. Not excessively, and I still have sweet things, but have cut out carbs as a filler in meals. So no pasta, no rice, no garins etc, but swapped those for green vegetables, and eating a bit more meat and fat.

It has meant that I no longer need self moderation to juggle between food consumption and weight gain, as my weight (and body composition) is incredible stable. I've been in the 10-12% body fat range for a few years now, only going higher if I drink booze too often. I reckon I'll put on a couple of kilos over Christmas due to alcohol, but simply by going back to normal drinking patterns, the fat will fall off by the end of Jan.

Yes, exactly.

Like you, I vastly prefer not having to bounce back and forth between fattening up and slimming down periods. I do pretty much the same diet as you and effortlessly maintain a slim weight.

 

[CLEEK]

Yes, exactly.

Like you, I vastly prefer not having to bounce back and forth between fattening up and slimming down periods. I do pretty much the same diet as you and effortlessly maintain a slim weight.

It's such a straight forward diet. To the point I don't even think of it as a diet, just eating normally. Avoid processed food, eating home made whole foods. Cut out carb filler in meals and replace with vegetables. Eating fatty meats and foods is fine, and it keeps you feeling fuller for longer. So not only do I eat fewer calories, I normally only feel hungry at meal times and rarely feel the urge to snack during the day.

It shares a lot with paleo, but without the religious zeal that paleo proponents seem to have. Or the pointless worry over what foods are paleo and what aren't, and whether legumes should be eaten or avoided or blah blah blah.

 

[cryptic]

We've got enough bullshit in here already.

Lol, enjoy low carb, five years of that shit was like hell on earth, though hey, I got real skinny.

Read about ray peat, read about how diabetes was actually reversed on a diet of milk and fruit, various other shit that all make's sense with a base understanding of nutrition and some research.

Here's a good start, http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/glycemia.shtml, though by your quick response it's obvious you're in here to defend an ideology and most likely close minded.
For everyone else, take in what you're reading and read more, but don't subscribe to any one thing, nutrition, like any science, is constantly changing.

 

[McLovin]

Thanks for the replies I'll wait it out then.

 

[Dash27]

It's such a straight forward diet. To the point I don't even think of it as a diet, just eating normally. Avoid processed food, eating home made whole foods. Cut out carb filler in meals and replace with vegetables. Eating fatty meats and foods is fine, and it keeps you feeling fuller for longer. So not only do I eat fewer calories, I normally only feel hungry at meal times and rarely feel the urge to snack during the day.

It shares a lot with paleo, but without the religious zeal that paleo proponents seem to have. Or the pointless worry over what foods are paleo and what aren't, and whether legumes should be eaten or avoided or blah blah blah.

It does seems very straight forward and intuitive but when you take into account all the bad information out there you can see the value.

For the person thinking their whole grain pasta and whole wheat bread, Kashi cereal and tofu is doing them good, this is a good bit of information to have. Similarly my in laws think margarine is better for them than butter but that seems to not be true. A lot of the red meat demonization is unfounded. Same for the high cholesterol fears and use of statin drugs to control it.

A lot of things in the nutrition field that we could use conclusive study and answers on. Some form of consensus. As it stands the best I can figure is as you say, eat whole foods and avoid processed ones. Avoid sugars and starchy carbs. Do that and I think you're in good shape.

So much can be fixed or at least improved by eating well and getting some activity in my experience. Better to do that than take a pill.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

Lol, enjoy low carb, five years of that shit was like hell on earth, though hey, I got real skinny.

Read about ray peat, read about how diabetes was actually reversed on a diet of milk and fruit, various other shit that all make's sense with a base understanding of nutrition and some research.

Here's a good start, http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/glycemia.shtml, though by your quick response it's obvious you're in here to defend an ideology and most likely close minded.
For everyone else, take in what you're reading and read more, but don't subscribe to any one thing, nutrition, like any science, is constantly changing.

I... I don't think we're really at a disagreement at all here. It's just that your first statement was horribly simplified and could easily lead to misunderstanding.

I don't pretend to understand everything in that article, but it seems like he's making more or less the same argument as most paleo people, which is to avoid starchy foods, grains, soy products, vegetable and seed oils, etc.

So, yeah, eat more meat, veggies, fruit, and dairy. Sounds like a damn good plan to me.

 

[CLEEK]

A lot of things in the nutrition field that we could use conclusive study and answers on. Some form of consensus.

I think the health industry is so lucrative, this will never happen. Even with something like Paleo, which is a diet that is broadly the same as I follow and generally based on actual data, there is still a lot of pseudo-scientific nonsense within it. People happily take one study and cherry pick a finding from it make wild claims, or even base a new movement/product range/book deal/spot on Oprah on the back of it.

Actual across the board consensus, based on systematic reviews of peer reviewed studies will always a generation or so behind the health industry claims. As it is not a fast result to come to. By which point, new studies will show new ways to lose weight, or people will just be able to eat pills to keep thin and won't give a shit about nutrition any more.

 

[Raxel]

I'm working on a documentary on the subject of nutrition for martial artists right now. As a disclaimer I am working on a Youtube video series based on what I learned. I'm not a scientist but my findings on the subject of low-carb diets:

- Hunter gatherer is a lifestyle not a diet. It works if you're actually spending most of your day being active, hunting and gathering fresh, organic food. Contrast that with sitting at a desk/in front of TV and treating a diet as an excuse to have unlimited butter and factory farmed meat.

- Calories in/out is basic physics, given that a calorie is a unit of energy. Eating more carbs than necessary leads to fat, but then so does eating more fat.

- Evolution occurs very quickly. Lactose intolerance is at 20% in India (dairy is consumed daily), yet 98% in South East Asia. Dairying came after the introduction of grains, therefore the idea that we haven't had time to evolve is flawed.

- Looking at the longest lived, disease-free communities, the Mediterranean diet is 50% carb based and the Okinawan diet is 85% carb based. Meat is eaten in moderation or on special occasions.

- Blaming carbs for obesity is without merit. It's been consumed on for thousands of years, but somehow the root cause of obesity isn't the spread of the American standard diet in the last twenty years and declining physical activity. Carbs make a convenient scapegoat in an instant gratification society and it's easy to see why people have taken to a diet which promises high meat and fat intake.

- This is conjecture but look at your teeth. Compare to a carnivore and herbivores teeth. If our diet was supposed to be primarily animal based, we'd have a row of bladed incisors.

Conclusions: The uncomfortable truth is that anyone can support any position within nutrition. A vegan or vegetarian can point to hundreds of studies that support their ideals.

For weight loss, low carb is an effective measure and easier to follow than calorie restriction.

However, disease-free life expectancy and quality of life are the most reliable indicators of health - when compared to studies that rely on self-reporting. Modern Hunter Gatherer societies rank lower than even the American standard diet for life expectancy, even after adjusting to only include the individuals who made it past their 30s (where violence affects mortality rates). Therefore low-carb diets aren't a long term solution.

The other issue is the internet's fanatical fixation on finding an ideal macro-nutrient composition. A good diet is far more substantial than some magical ratio, it should account for micronutrients, antioxidants, phytonutrients, fibre and so on. That's what I'm working on next.

 

[CLEEK]

However, disease-free life expectancy and quality of life are the most reliable indicators of health - when compared to studies that rely on self-reporting. Modern Hunter Gatherer societies rank lower than even the American standard diet for life expectancy, even after adjusting to only include the individuals who made it past their 30s (where violence affects mortality rates). Therefore low-carb diets aren't a long term solution.

I think many of your claims are debatable and based on a lack of knowledge on the subject matter. But specifically, you can't make the claim in your last sentence from the statements that precedes it.

There is far more to life expectancy than diet. Modern Hunter Gatherer societies would be ones with poor health care and high child mortality, which would be far, far greater factors in life expectancy than diet.

Conclusive views on long term effects of low carb diets can only be done after controlled, longitudinal studies into it. Not from cherry picking findings and data from elsewhere.

 

[Vigilant Walrus]

Alfred: Why do we stuff our mouths with unhealthy biscuits?

Batman: ?

Alfred: So we can get up.. and go to the toilet and poo it out.




I like taking words and replacing them with other words for cheap laughs. or sad claps. whatever comes before the "you suck".

 

[CLEEK]

- Blaming carbs for obesity is without merit. It's been consumed on for thousands of years, but somehow the root cause of obesity isn't the spread of the American standard diet in the last twenty years and declining physical activity. Carbs make a convenient scapegoat in an instant gratification society and it's easy to see why people have taken to a diet which promises high meat and fat intake.

If you have read the OP and taken it to mean that eating any carbs will make you obese, you have not understood its claims.

The claim isn't that eating carbs is a new thing (obviously), but that eating excessive, refined carbs certainly is. Eating so many grams of refined carbs has a profound impact on your body chemistry, from insulin production to hunger.

You can't say that the Mediterranean diet being high in pasta means that carbs are just fine. As that ignores the basic biology of what is being discussed, or the difference between pasta and HFCS. Look back in history to any diet that was high in carbs, at there wasn't the epidemic of obesity of diabetes. Because the type of foods, and the quantities, just weren't comparable.

 

[Dash27]

Paleo for example has nothing much to say about carbs to my knowledge. They eat plenty of vegetables. If it is low carb that is a function of eliminating refined foods, sugars and the big one: grains. Grains are not excluded because they are carbs though, the argument is with gluten, lectins and phytates. And refined grains of course are considered the worst of both worlds.

Here is a good basic response on grains from Robb Wolf: http://life.dailyburn.com/diet-and-nutrition/paleo-sounds-great-but-why-no-grains/

I dont believe in demonizing any macro nutrient. I'm also not sold on the no grain thing but I'm willing to try and see how I react. Once I hit my goals I'll add back unprocessed or minimally processed whole grains like my oatmeal and see how it goes.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

- Calories in/out is basic physics, given that a calorie is a unit of energy. Eating more carbs than necessary leads to fat, but then so does eating more fat.

The human body is not a closed system.