• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

We arent fat because we eat too much and exercise too little

Status
Not open for further replies.

SapientWolf

Trucker Sexologist
Good for you, but do realize that the average person isn't. I see you in every carb thread trying to demonize (as you say it) the posters who encourage avoiding carbs. That doesn't help make the world better.
My message is to construct a reasonable diet and a reasonable exercise plan that fits your life style and body type. And make it a lifetime commitment. Don't put all your faith and effort on some, "Don't eat any x" diet that the average person would follow for all of 3 months.
 

Dash27

Member
I'd disagree with this. In addition to the influx of refined sugars in the Western diet, there's an argument that it's coincided with an increase of daily consumption of overall calories and a far more sedentary lifestyle for the general population.

I don't have any studies offhand, but if anyone could find the number of hours in front of a monitor or television your average American spent in 1980, 1990, 2000, etc. I'd wager there was an upward trend. This gives them ample opportunity to consume more calories and more of those refined sugars that everyone is fussing about. It's a two-pronged assault on the waistline. You have additional time and opportunity to eat.

I can't argue with you there. This was my basic understanding as well. Cheaper, easier, less nutritional value, but more calories in the food too. That and more sedentary I'd also agree with.

I think what Taubes is doing though is challenging this notion and I find it very interesting.

Put it this way. I still go to the gym 4x a week. I still try not to over eat. I dont count calories anymore though, I do try to limit sugars and grains... and I'm not always successful. However in the past when I did get to my leanest, I think the lack of sugar and processed grains and foods had a lot more to do with it than the calorie counting. If I had to rate it I'd say what I ate was by far the biggest factor.

How much exercise (calories out) and how many calories I took in was a distant second. Not irrelevant, but certainly not the only cause of getting leaner.
 
I'd disagree with this. In addition to the influx of refined sugars in the Western diet, there's an argument that it's coincided with an increase of daily consumption of overall calories and a far more sedentary lifestyle for the general population.

I don't have any studies offhand, but if anyone could find the number of hours in front of a monitor or television your average American spent in 1980, 1990, 2000, etc. I'd wager there was an upward trend. This gives them ample opportunity to consume more calories and more of those refined sugars that everyone is fussing about. It's a two-pronged assault on the waistline. You have additional time and opportunity to eat.

We are fatter as a country because our country is feeding us a highly modified version of corn that has almost no protein left inside of it yet is packed with carbohydrates.

Sitting in front of a monitor does not make someone fat.
 

ciridesu

Member
Strong broscience in this thread.

'We aren't because we eat too much'

I acknowledge that for some individuals a low-carb diet does wonders, but let's not take it too far.
 

Dash27

Member
I do eat all that in moderate amounts and I'm quite lean but I also exercise a lot, however I might try getting rid of al grains to see how I feel physically, though the last time I tried doing it I felt quite weak because I didn't really replace the calories from the grains with anything so I was a bit depleted on calories.

Yeah the other thing with grains, and not to open this can of worms.. but... the Paleo/Primal/Hunter Gatherer people basically say gluten and other stuff in grains is the devil.

I mean, I really dont even get into the details but they give chapter and verse on this stuff and I know a lot of people who have done it so i personally would like to do as they suggest: try not eating any grains for 30 days or more and see how you feel.
 
That's reasonable. I just get uptight when people construct a message that demonizes a macro-nutrient without contextualizing it. Like the "all sugar is poison" guy. It's not that simple. There's no magic bullet or one size fits all solution to maintaining a healthy body.
I'm with you on this.

And ignoring "calories in / calories out" is just throwing the baby out with the bath water. That model can be tailored to fit an individual's goals as well. Fats and proteins aren't a get out of fail free card. You can easily gain weight on that. I've bulked up before by mostly eating natural peanut butter.
I don't have a strong opinion on this. From a logic perspective, calories in / calories out is really hard to ignore. Though, applying logic without knowing the science behind how the body handles what it takes in is dangerous, so I'm hesitant to be on board.
 
Here's a headscratcher for you:

I used to be able to gain weight just fine when i ate more, a couple years back though i turned fructose intolerant so now i can basically eat as many carbs (not whole wheat though), fat and protein as i can possibly take in and YET i am SUPER thin and am struggling to hold my weight no matter how much of those i eat!

So basically what changed is this:

- no more sugar
- no more fructose


Either of these 2(one contains the other in parts) are probably the cause for this so to jump to a conclusion i will say that removing Sugar ENTIRELY from your diet and/or fructose will probably make you lose weight hard.

Of course this is all highly speculative, not even mentioning the health risks that are associated with this etc. but it is an interesting theory nonetheless imo.
 

Parch

Member
Strong broscience in this thread.
'We aren't because we eat too much'
I acknowledge that for some individuals a low-carb diet does wonders, but let's not take it too far.
You just know that a lot of people will read that thread title and use it as an excuse to over eat and justify their sedentary lifestyle.

No matter how much science you want to tie to it, it's an extremely poor way to send a message.
 

Torraz

Member
My belief is that people don't understand that the cycle can be broken and then you basically get a clean slate. You can become healthy and fit enough through a combination of exercise and proper eating habits that your body becomes a calorie burning machine to the point you can eat carbs without suffering catastrophic effects.
Or maybe I'm just a calorie burning machine. I was moving towards sloth status for a few years and turned it around rather quickly with Body-for-life initially followed by an addiction to exercise.
I'm now to the point I eat whatever the hell I want and I look like a gd super hero at almost 40 years old.

Well, I eat pretty "healthily". I eat vegetables and fruit every day. I eat a tiny bit of fast food, once a week, which is a pretty old ritual. The rest of the food gets home cooked, each day, every day.

Furthermore, I am only around 5-6 pounds into "overweight" territory, at least according to that BMI thingy.

So, thanks, I guess. Simply being a tad more active and burning more calories should help, while perhaps slightly decreasig, but not outright eliminating, carb intake.
 

Brera

Banned
Hello GaF. Really just reposting something I just put up on the Men's Health Fitness forums. I've been reading a lot on nutrition over the years and it's a pretty tough subject to get a grasp on. A lot of conflicting information, studies showing one thing or another, different interpretations of the results. Not to mention all the bad information out there from pseudo science and supplement marketing.

If anyone has any questions on the premise of the title feel free to ask here or PM me and I'll try and answer as best I can.

Anyway here's the post:

Posting this here because MH was the place I first started really looking into nutrition. I remember the threads talking about counting calories and WANE GAIN MAINTAIN calculations. BMR rates and Harris Benedict formula. I've used all of those and even had success doing so.

Now I'm starting to read more about calories not mattering much.

I'm reading Gary Taubes' book Why we get fat and what to do about it. Pretty compelling stuff. Here he is in an interview:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l59YyXpCT1M

The bullet points:

- We dont get fat because we eat more. We eat more because we get fat.

- Calories in and out is largely irrelevant.

- Insulin secretion makes us fat. Carbs make us secrete insulin.

- Remove carbs (sugars, grains etc) from your diet and replace it with fat.


Good 3 minute summary of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNYlIcXynwE

***EDIT***

FAQ:

If I ate a million calories of lean protein or whatever you want me to eat, wouldn't I'd get fat? So it does matter!

The argument is calories restriction may work, but not well. The weight is often regained quickly, difficult to maintain the restriction, other methods work better.

What about cultures that eat a lot of carbs? Like Asian cultures who eat a lot of rice?

28:15 into the video I posted he addresses this:

http://youtu.be/l59YyXpCT1M?t=28m15s

Basically he says the low sugar intake is the big distinguisher.

Aren't the studies on this incomplete, too short, and generally not 100% conclusive?

Around 39:15 into the video he talks about the need for more study. The whole point is to address what we do know and how it applies to what we eat:

http://youtu.be/l59YyXpCT1M?t=39m15s

How can you say no exercise and eating too much wont make you fat? If I ate too much... actually check that, I DO eat too much and dont exercise, I am indeed fat. OR I exercise and watch my portion size, which includes grains, and I have a six pack.

The point of the discussion is that our relatively recent issue with obesity is not about eating more and exercising less. In fact studies have shown those variables are less a factor than you'd imagine. We (generically) are getting fatter, in the US and elsewhere. Not by a little, and not over a long period of time. It's not that we are suddenly doing less, exercising less, or eating more calories. It's that what we are eating is making us fatter.

I agree with everything here.

Man isn't geared up for using sugar and carbs as primary energy. It should only be used when needed for extreme hunts etc

Fat should be the primary source of energy not as a reserve. Cut out carbs and after a week you will start losing shitloads of unused fat and feel more energetic for it!
 
Here's a headscratcher for you:

I used to be able to gain weight just fine when i ate more, a couple years back though i turned fructose intolerant so now i can basically eat as many carbs (not whole wheat though), fat and protein as i can possibly take in and YET i am SUPER thin and am struggling to hold my weight no matter how much of those i eat!

So basically what changed is this:

- no more sugar
- no more fructose


Either of these 2(one contains the other in parts) are probably the cause for this so to jump to a conclusion i will say that removing Sugar ENTIRELY from your diet and/or fructose(as much as possible as there is obviously always tiny quantities in some things) will probably make you lose weight...

Of course this is all highly speculative, not even mentioning the health risks that are associated with this etc. but it is an interesting theory nonetheless imo.
 

twofold

Member
His reasoning is hilarious.

Seriously. I couldn't help but roll my eyes.

He's wrong about South East Asian diets, too. A lot of places add sugar into their food rather liberally, as well as other stuff like MGS.

The reason they're not fat in SEA is that they eat small meals that don't add up to many calories. I used to eat 5-6 meals when I was in Thailand because, at 6ft3, I'm a big guy. The locals would only eat 3-4 throughout the day that would add up to about 750 fewer calories throughout the day.
 

twofold

Member
I have the idea to do a crash diet for a week, then recover, then use a normal diet with working out. Good idea?

Why bother? Just focus on slow and consistent weight loss. You'll get there in the end.

All crash dieting does is encourage muscle loss, which will give you an awful skinny fat physique once you get to your target weight.
 

Imm0rt4l

Member
Shit's all relative, Someone who does heavy resistance training for example every other day should definitely eat carbs. Carbs get demonized a lot, but they're pretty fucking essential even when it comes to preserving lean body mass(it's not only protein that's important).
 
I'm not fat because I have absurdly good genes. I went without regular exercise for about two months and got my cut back within about a week. Professional body builders will be the first to tell you that diet and exercise are way less important than good genes.
 
D

Deleted member 17706

Unconfirmed Member
Just plain false. And the amazing thing is people believe calories don't matter. It's the only thing that matters. Not hormones.

For that to be true, wouldn't the units of energy (calories) have to determine all growth? Why is it hormones that dictate how tall and fast we grow when it's calories that decide how fat we will become?

I don't believe calories in/calories out works at all to explain why we get fat. I also don't believe that all sources of calories are the same, nor do I believe they have the same effects on our bodies.
 

Dash27

Member
Shit's all relative, Someone who does heavy resistance training for example every other day should definitely eat carbs. Carbs get demonized a lot, but they're pretty fucking essential even when it comes to preserving lean body mass(it's not only protein that's important).

I think it depends on what you mean by carbs too. Sugar, or spinach. Broccoli or a bagel. All technically carbs.

When I did Starting Strength I ate basically everything in reach. So i'd agree with you. I still find this point of view compelling.
 

grumble

Member
Calories in calories out uses reported food intake for fat and thin people to demonstrate that it isn't the number of calories you eat but what type you eat that matters. This is wrong, because its been shown over and over using doubly labelled water that fat people underreport calories relative to thin people.

So his assertion that calories aren't that relevant is gutted.

As for his idea that lower carb diets are better, I can get behind that. Lower carb also means higher protein and protein is filling. Hence why people on low carb diets don't feel so hungry all the time. Low carb therefore naturally cuts calories and does so fairly easily.

Now if someone wants to reduce carb intake, sure. They aren't filling, they're easy to eat a lot of and they do result in negative hormonal changes in excess. Saying that low carb is the only way to diet safely and sustainably is stupid and wrong demonstrated by evidence every day.
 

Imm0rt4l

Member
I'm not fat because I have absurdly good genes. I went without regular exercise for about two months and got my cut back within about a week. Professional body builders will be the first to tell you that diet and exercise are way less important than good genes.
I think you're overstating good genes.


I do agree that genes matter, especially at the highest level of bodybuilding/fitness competing since genes dictate our muscle insertions, muscle shape, test levels etc. But you shouldn't undermine the hard work that goes towards attaining a great physique.

"Hard work beats talent, but not if talent works hard"
 
D

Deleted member 17706

Unconfirmed Member
My problem is that in the psace of 2 minutes I can go take some bread and some fillings and make a sandwich that fills me up and tastes nice.

What do you low carby people have in your fridge/cupboards than you can nom with little prep.

EG, I work 7-7 so I eat breakfast at work. I have no time or facilities at work to prepare anything and my equipment list is a toaster and a microwave and some dangerously blunt knives.

Dinners are less of an issue, we've been bulking up on the chicken/turkey/meat and not bothering with the pasta/rice for the most part for a while.

I don't have a weakness, I love all bad food equally. Crisps, sweets, biscuits, cookies fat Coke etc etc. I have on occasion sat here at work on a quiet day and shoved back upto 7000 calories. I felt like shit, but I kept doing it day after day. Then I'd feel bad and stop for a week, maybe 4 days and then I had to go back to the shop for something else and it started again.

Fortunately at 6'1" I only went up to 108.5KG (239lb) despite doing this for years.

Something happened a few weeks back that disgusted myself and since then I've been 98% behaved outside of the bread/rice/pasta stuff. I've dropped 5kg (11lb) so far but clearly have a long way to go. Every day is a struggle, every shopping trip is painful but I'm doing my best.

I'd love to go low carb, I know that it's the way to go, but I loves me some bread and porridge and pasta and rice.

Now that I get Grade A chicken breasts at £3.50 a KG it's also a bit cheaper than it was before!

That fact that you use language like "only" when describing a 239 pound body weight shows just how accepted obesity has become in our society. That's a dangerous body weight, but with so many people much fatter than you, it doesn't seem so bad relatively. It still is, though.

You need to be prepared to spend more time on preparing food. You also need to be prepared to spend more money on food. Many countries are now spending far less of their income on food than ever before. It's because they are buying cheap, prepared, processed garbage.

If you want to be healthy, you should really look into this. Otherwise, continue throwing together sandwiches and munching on crisps.
 

Imm0rt4l

Member
I think it depends on what you mean by carbs too. Sugar, or spinach. Broccoli or a bagel. All technically carbs.

When I did Starting Strength I ate basically everything in reach. So i'd agree with you. I still find this point of view compelling.

Exactly, it's all relative, as you mentioned those are all carbs, but they rank very differently on the Glycemic index. They all cause insulin spikes at different levels. You could do a keto diet right away and make really fast fat loss, but you'll plateau fucking hard as hell because your body is trying to reach a level of homeostasis, it also effects everybodys moods differently. Some people may be more likely to binge because they feel just downright miserable. Also it should be noted that some of that weight that is lost isn't fat, but just water and glycogen which are essential for athletes.
 

Parch

Member
Shit's all relative, Someone who does heavy resistance training for example every other day should definitely eat carbs. Carbs get demonized a lot, but they're pretty fucking essential even when it comes to preserving lean body mass(it's not only protein that's important).
True, but difficult to maintain for a lifetime. If you think heavy resistance training starts getting tougher at 40, wait until you hit 50.
 

Brera

Banned
But then you became fat from eating crap, not from being fat.

I've been eating crap for months eg kebabs, fried food. I've lost weight not gained. Nearly 2stone in fact. I've out on half a stone this month as i've been cheating and gorging on ice cream and chocolate! I'm back on it hardcore again now!

I probably eat more calories now then I did before.
 

harSon

Banned
So basically you're telling him to quit his job?

Get a foreman grill and prepare meals ahead of time? I have to leave for work at 7 in the morning and take public transportation to commute to and from work (San Jose to San Francisco), and I still have time to prepare and eat 3 meals a day... And work out multiple times per week. It just depends if you're willing to put in the effort.

Make a low carb wrap, prepare some type of meat and vegetable ahead of time (takes under 10 minutes with a foreman grill), cook your bacon and sausage in batch and heat them up through out the week for breakfast so you only have to cook the eggs. It's not that hard. I probably only spend 20-30 minutes cooking per day on average.
 

Krowley

Member
I think there is one basic misunderstanding in this thread about the whole "calories in calories out" element.

When Taubes says "calories in calories out" is irrelevant, what he means is that it is obviously true, but it doesn't solve the problem in any way. Obviously if people are adding mass to their bodies, they are eating more calories than they are expending.

The real question is why they're eating more calories than they're expending. The body is supposed to be a self-regulating system. Animals don't have to watch what they eat to maintain a stable body mass. They just know when they're full. Obviously there is something throwing off the natural regulation mechanism that should control our appetites. In fact, for most people (the skinny people) it works just fine.

A lot of people like to jump to the conclusion that the fat people just lack discipline. That they're fat because there is something wrong with the way they think. It's a behavior issue. They should just eat less and move more and everything would be fine.

He thinks that's a bunch of crap. His hypothesis is that (for some people) refined carbohydrates are throwing a monkey wrench into the metabolic self-regulation mechanism. These people become resistant to insulin, and over time they come to feel like they are starving even when they've eaten more than enough food. If they forced themselves to ignore this extreme hunger, after a while, they might lose some weight, but that is not the most efficient answer. If removing carbohydrates can repair the self-regulation of their metabolism, that would be preferable because it is more sustainable.

edit// also, when people get fat, their bodies need more food, so their appetites naturally increase, and it gets harder to move because they are carrying more weight around. So studies that show skinny people eat fewer calories and move more are showing an effect, not a cause.
 

Imm0rt4l

Member
To say that calories in vs calories out doesn't matter is some disingenuous ass shit. It's true that a calorie, may not necessarily be a calorie otherwise we wouldn't have plateaus, but there are so many different variables to the human body that you can't possibly expect for fat loss to be so linear.


I think the thread title has some merit, but is ultimately misleading because objectively one does get fat for eating too much and exercising too little. exercising/total daily energy expenditure=calories out foods=calories in. Fat loss does ultimately come down to this, you just can't expect it to be so linear or to be the exact same from person to person.
 

Imm0rt4l

Member
True, but difficult to maintain for a lifetime. If you think heavy resistance training starts getting tougher at 40, wait until you hit 50.

Yes, but it doesn't have to be heavy, it's a matter of muscles undergoing time under tension. What matters is resistance. Heavy is also a relative term. 400 lb squats may be considered heavy for me now, when I'm 50, 250 may be considered heavy.
 
D

Deleted member 17706

Unconfirmed Member
So basically you're telling him to quit his job?

Is that the only way for him to spend more time making food?

Waking up a bit earlier, preparing things in advance, etc. are not options?
 
So it seems like a low carb diet means cutting out certain things we normally dont even think of as having carbs like sugar. Is this correct? That would include like most meat marinades and such, right?

Also, the natural sugars from fruits and vegetables are allowed. I can still eat that in a high protein diet right?

I've grown quite fond of the veggies over this past year and I'd rather not go back. Cutting sugars doesn't seem like an easy task either as anything you look at these days seems to have them but I've never been one to back down from a good challenge.
 

Brera

Banned
I can't believe this thread exists.

If you honestly believe calories don't matter and it's only carbs and "correct" foods, whatever that is. I challenge someone(s) to correctly measure out 2-3x their actual caloric requirements and start pounding down the food. It essentially sounds like people in this thread believe carbs caused them to gain weight and removing them is magical.

Yeah, You lose weight when you remove carbs, water weight at first and if you have a caloric deficit, you will lose fat over time.

And last I checked, cheese has negligible carbs. Bacon and eggs probably have more carbs then cheese. Bacon is cured in sugar or similar 99.9% of time, look at the ingredients.

http://www.leangains.com/2009/02/low-carb-talibans.html

People tend to believe what they want to hear.

Between July and September I ate low carb/sugar and at SHITLOADS! No limits and no calorie counting apart from 20g of carbs a day. I lost 2 stone. My excerise levels remained the same as when I was eating normally.

It's really strange and I don't understand it either. I ate shitloads of food yet went to the toilet less and when I did, not a lot came out yet I was losing fat very fast!
 

Piecake

Member
So it seems like a low carb diet means cutting out certain things we normally dont even think of as having carbs like sugar. Is this correct? That would include like most meat marinades and such, right?

Also, the natural sugars from fruits and vegetables are allowed. I can still eat that in a high protein diet right?

I've grown quite fond of the veggies over this past year and I'd rather not go back. Cutting sugars doesn't seem like an easy task either as anything you look at these days seems to have them but I've never been one to back down from a good challenge.

sugar is a carb. its the worst carb you can eat

Veggies are awesome. I think fruit and dairy are perfectly fine. My diet consists of no grain, no sugar, and no processed foods - meaning i eat a lot of fruit and dairy. I like fruit and dairy too much to cut it, and dont feel like i need to to lose/maintain weight
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom