Support NeoGAF

[Brera]

Get the grilled chicken variety. Boom!

Not enough fat...needs to be fried!

 

[Brera]

Fried in lard with bacon flour would be better.

Can't have lard or bacon so I have shitloads mayo or sour cream!

It's strange having to try and fatten up food! Best diet ever!

 

[Seanspeed]

I hate these idiots insisting you should add more fat into your diet. Hasn't it been made clear enough that excess fat blocks your arteries in the long run? It's healthier to eat some carbs (just cut down your consumption a bit and don't get a huge plateful of rice/potatoes/pasta with your lunch/dinner/whatever) and ordinary amounts of fat than to eat no/very little carbs and replace it all with more fat.

This is what we've been told in school/at home/and by the government, but its wrong. Excess anything is usually bad for you. But fats alone, apart from trans fats, are very good for you and able to be consumed in pretty healthy amounts so long as the rest of your diet is in order. High fat/low carb is definitely ideal.

 

[UrokeJoe]

Can't have lard or bacon so I have shitloads mayo or sour cream!

It's strange having to try and fatten up food! Best diet ever!

Coconut oil by the spoonful.

 

[TheHeretic]

Taking the bullshit out of it and jumping right into the science, you can look here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medica...l_of_the_American_Medical_Association.2C_2012

There's no consensus view, reading the studies many of them conclude its an equal or better diet than low fat in losing weight, but comes with serious health risks (cardiovascular disease) that mean you should transition out of the diet after you've reached your appropriate weight.

 

[GatorBait]

I hate these idiots insisting you should add more fat into your diet. Hasn't it been made clear enough that excess fat blocks your arteries in the long run? It's healthier to eat some carbs (just cut down your consumption a bit and don't get a huge plateful of rice/potatoes/pasta with your lunch/dinner/whatever) and ordinary amounts of fat than to eat no/very little carbs and replace it all with more fat.

There are good fats. There are bad fats. To not make a distinction between the two is making a significant mistake.

Anyway, I hate the dogmatic arguments that arise when it comes to diets. They're sometimes as bad as politics.

Gaining or losing weight can be affected by: 1) how many calories you consume; 2) what types of calories you are consuming; and 3) your activity level (i.e. caloric expenditure). The percentage to which each matters is debatable, but to wholly neglect one of these factors reeks of dishonesty or pushing an agenda.

 

[Brera]

This is what we've been told in school/at home/and by the government, but its wrong. Excess anything is usually bad for you. But fats alone, apart from trans fats, are very good for you and able to be consumed in pretty healthy amounts so long as the rest of your diet is in order. High fat/low carb is definitely ideal.

Exactly.

The government are in the pockets of the farmers and Kelloggs.

 

[Imm0rt4l]

Low carb wonder food.

I don't think it's even really as bad as it looks, I believe its high in sodium though.

 

[Brera]

Taking the bullshit out of it and jumping right into the science, you can look here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medica...l_of_the_American_Medical_Association.2C_2012

There's no consensus view, reading the studies many of them conclude its an equal or better diet than low fat in losing weight, but comes with serious health risks (cardiovascular disease) that mean you should transition out of the diet after you've reached your appropriate weight.

I couldn't stay on this long term. Another Stone and I'm out!

 

[Piecake]

I don't think it's even really as bad as it looks, I believe its high in sodium though.

THere is nothing wrong with sodium, though id be worried about what that stuff was cooked in

 

[Seanspeed]

Taking the bullshit out of it and jumping right into the science, you can look here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medica...l_of_the_American_Medical_Association.2C_2012

There's no consensus view, reading the studies many of them conclude its an equal or better diet than low fat in losing weight, but comes with serious health risks (cardiovascular disease) that mean you should transition out of the diet after you've reached your appropriate weight.

Thats not what it means at all. Exercise reduces CRP levels. If you just sit on your butt all day, it might come with an increase in risk of cardiovascular disease, but sitting on your butt all day tends to make most any diet come with long-term downsides.

 

[TheHeretic]

Thats not what it means at all. Exercise reduces CRP levels. If you just sit on your butt all day, it might come with an increase in risk of cardiovascular disease, but sitting on your butt all day tends to make most any diet come with long-term downsides.

I'm not interested in theory, i'm interested in trials. From the American Medical Association:

A four-year long study titled "Effects of Dietary Composition on Energy Expenditure During Weight-Loss Maintenance" was done at Boston Children's Hospital examining the effects of three dieting regimens on resting energy expenditure and total energy expenditure and other hormonal and metabolic markers. The study closely followed 21 overweight and obese males and females ages 10–40 years, and compared a very low carbohydrate diet (the Atkins diet) with a low fat, high carbohydrate diet, and a low glycemic index diet. Reduction of the resting metabolic rate as a result of dieting, a known factor in the failure of dieting, was the least in the very low carbohydrate diet. In addition, measured total energy expenditure in the patients was the highest in the very low carbohydrate diet, suggesting that a very low carbohydrate diet would be the most likely to produce a sustained weight loss. A possible negative side effect was that C-Reactive Protein levels, a marker for possible future cardiovascular disease, trended higher in the very low carbohydrate diet.

 

[CornBurrito]

Yep...ever noticed how when you have a big mac, you feel full but an hour later you are starving?

What has happened is that your body has used up all the carbs in the bun and salad, stored the fat from the lovely meat (never to be used) and now wants more energy (carbs) to use up what's been burned and will again store all the fat and use the carbs for energy (never to be used).

That's why people get obese. The body craves more and more carbs...it doesn't crave the fat, that just gets stored.

So now you are saying that veggies make you fat?

 

[Mumei]

Body fat deposition and usage is determined hormonally; hormones, in turn, or at least the primarily relevant hormone (insulin), is spiked by a particular type of macronutrient (carbohydrate) with little (protein) or no (fat) effect from others.

Thusly, so the idea goes in the most simplified way it can be explained, the type of calorie is more important than the number of calories being intaken since insulin is the body's primary driver of fat storage.

The book Good Calories, Bad Calories goes into this in much more depth, as well as covering the history of the nutrition & fitness debate, and is probably one of the more thorough, convincing, & scientifically sound nonfiction books I've read, certainly so on the topic of nutrition. Definitely recommended if you're curious to read more on the subject.

Ah. I suppose there could be something to it; I've noticed something of what you and Wafflecakes are talking about when I eat differently, particularly regarding cravings; I've noticed I eat significantly less when I eat more healthily.

 

[Seanspeed]

I'm not interested in theory, i'm interested in trials. From the American Medical Association:

A four-year long study titled "Effects of Dietary Composition on Energy Expenditure During Weight-Loss Maintenance" was done at Boston Children's Hospital examining the effects of three dieting regimens on resting energy expenditure and total energy expenditure and other hormonal and metabolic markers. The study closely followed 21 overweight and obese males and females ages 10–40 years, and compared a very low carbohydrate diet (the Atkins diet) with a low fat, high carbohydrate diet, and a low glycemic index diet. Reduction of the resting metabolic rate as a result of dieting, a known factor in the failure of dieting, was the least in the very low carbohydrate diet. In addition, measured total energy expenditure in the patients was the highest in the very low carbohydrate diet, suggesting that a very low carbohydrate diet would be the most likely to produce a sustained weight loss. A possible negative side effect was that C-Reactive Protein levels, a marker for possible future cardiovascular disease, trended higher in the very low carbohydrate diet.

That exercise reduces CRP levels isn't a theory.

 

[Brera]

In a round about way yes but veggies don't have fat!

 

[TheHeretic]

That exercise reduces CRP levels isn't a theory.

We aren't talking about exercise, we are talking about the diet.

 

[CornBurrito]

In a round about way yes but veggies don't have fat!

So you are claiming that eating vegetables is bad for you, because they will make you eat more, and thus gain more weight?

The only thing good for humans is meat?

 

[Devolution]

I'm not interested in theory, i'm interested in trials. From the American Medical Association:

A four-year long study titled "Effects of Dietary Composition on Energy Expenditure During Weight-Loss Maintenance" was done at Boston Children's Hospital examining the effects of three dieting regimens on resting energy expenditure and total energy expenditure and other hormonal and metabolic markers. The study closely followed 21 overweight and obese males and females ages 10–40 years, and compared a very low carbohydrate diet (the Atkins diet) with a low fat, high carbohydrate diet, and a low glycemic index diet. Reduction of the resting metabolic rate as a result of dieting, a known factor in the failure of dieting, was the least in the very low carbohydrate diet. In addition, measured total energy expenditure in the patients was the highest in the very low carbohydrate diet, suggesting that a very low carbohydrate diet would be the most likely to produce a sustained weight loss. A possible negative side effect was that C-Reactive Protein levels, a marker for possible future cardiovascular disease, trended higher in the very low carbohydrate diet.

I thought it was well known that low carb diets can fuck with your heart and liver.

 

[Piecake]

We aren't talking about exercise, we are talking about the diet.

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/high-fat-diet-healthy-safe/#axzz2DvkCipjl

“But Dean Ornish/my mom/Walter Willet/the AHA/my doctor said saturated fat will give you heart attacks.”

They all may say that, and sound pretty convincing as they say it, but the science says differently. I tend to listen to the science, rather than what I think the science is saying:

A 2011 study found that “reducing the intake of CHO with high glycaemic index is more effective in the prevention of CVD than reducing SAFA intake per se.”
From a 2010 study out of Japan, saturated fat intake “was inversely associated with mortality from total stroke.”
A 2010 meta-analysis found “that there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD.”
That looks pretty clear cut to me.

Response: “The most recent studies have concluded that saturated fat intake likely has no relation to heart disease, contrary to popular opinion.”

I thought it was well known that low carb diets can fuck with your heart and liver.

What fucks with your liver is HFCS since only the liver can process HFCS. Yes, your body treats HFCS as a poison. its a shame that HFCS are pretty much in all processed foods. But hey, companies had to make food delicious and healthy, and you cant do that when you take out all the fat

 

[Brera]

So you are claiming that eating vegetables is bad for you, because they will make you eat more, and thus gain more weight?

The only thing good for humans is meat?

One thing you have to realise is that there is no one way to be healthy or not obese/fat.

Going low fat will be harder but you will lose weight.

The body is an amazing machine, it's all about manipulating it's systems to get what you want!

 

[Deleted member 17706]

I hope the people eating a lot of "meat" are sticking with chicken and fish =/.

Why just chicken and fish? Eat all kinds of meats!

I always thought high fat, low carb diets were bad for your heart.

That idea came about because of a respected (at the time) guy in the medical community publishing a study in which he knowingly and willfully manipulated the data to support his hypothesis. It probably stuck because manufacturing "low-fat" stuff can be ridiculously cheap.

I hate these idiots insisting you should add more fat into your diet. Hasn't it been made clear enough that excess fat blocks your arteries in the long run? It's healthier to eat some carbs (just cut down your consumption a bit and don't get a huge plateful of rice/potatoes/pasta with your lunch/dinner/whatever) and ordinary amounts of fat than to eat no/very little carbs and replace it all with more fat.

This is simply not true. Consumption of dietary fat does not clog your arteries. It does not lead to heart disease.

The causes of heart diseases are still unclear, but all signs seem to indicate that inflammation is the primary culprit.

 

[inm8num2]

A moderate diet mixed with regular exercise is the best lifestyle.

Too many want to declare absolutely what is good/bad, when in reality it's a blend of the above, not to mention a bit of genetics.

Too much of anything can be a bad thing.

 

[Seanspeed]

Yep...ever noticed how when you have a big mac, you feel full but an hour later you are starving?

What has happened is that your body has used up all the carbs in the bun and salad, stored the fat from the lovely meat (never to be used) and now wants more energy (carbs) to use up what's been burned and will again store all the fat and use the carbs for energy (never to be used).

That's why people get obese. The body craves more and more carbs...it doesn't crave the fat, that just gets stored.

This is a bit wrong, too. Your body will only use as much carbs as it feels it needs to. The rest is stored as fat. So yea, if you eat carbs and are active, you'll probably burn the majority of those carbs off. The reason people get hungry so easily after eating carbs is cuz unless you're eating good carbs, your body tends to store those carbs fairly quickly, meaning you've got a smaller window to burn it. So your body is soon saying, "Yea, we need more food again" cuz its stopped using it as an energy source.

 

[ZombieSupaStar]

meh stuck to 2000 cals a day, and exercise, lost 60 lbs since july.

Sometimes the 2000 is good food, sometimes its a bag of chex mix and a few sandwhiches. Got a full round of blood work done right before thanksgiving, no diabetes, high cholesterol, blood pressure, etc.

I also lost weight back in high school eating pretty much anything as long as it was 2000 cal a day. So I guess im lucky counting calories is all I need.

 

[Piecake]

meh stuck to 2000 cals a day, and exercise, lost 60 lbs since july.

Sometimes the 2000 is good food, sometimes its a bag of chex mix and a few sandwhiches. Got a full round of blood work done right before thanksgiving, no diabetes, high cholesterol, blood pressure, etc.

I also lost weight back in high school eating pretty much anything as long as it was 2000 cal a day. So I guess im lucky counting calories is all I need.

See, I would much prefer to eat no grains, no sugar, and no processed foods, and simply eat all the meat, fruit, veggies, and dairy I want than count calories

I just think that counting calories is too much work and not sustainable. Sure, you can do it for a while, but for the rest of your life? I'd rather eat a diet where i get most of my energy from fat since fat satiates you more easily and longer than carbs so you will naturally eat less calories.

But hey, if you are healthy and satisfied, whatever works, works

 

[Brera]

This is a bit wrong, too. Your body will only use as much carbs as it feels it needs to. The rest is stored as fat. So yea, if you eat carbs and are active, you'll probably burn the majority of those carbs off. The reason people get hungry so easily after eating carbs is cuz unless you're eating good carbs, your body tends to store those carbs fairly quickly, meaning you've got a smaller window to burn it. So your body is soon saying, "Yea, we need more food again" cuz its stopped using it as an energy source.

What I said wasn't totally wrong, you just added more depth to what I said, I forgot to mention the unused carb gets turned to fat and stored which is totally right!

I didn't know about the good and bad carb bit though!

My theory of people getting fatter is that stuff like big macs has the bad carbs which leads to the cravings for more!

 

[Femmeworth]

I really need to cut down on my carb intake. :\

 

[TheHeretic]

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/high-fat-diet-healthy-safe/#axzz2DvkCipjl

He's (selectively) referencing studies showing saturated fats don't affect heart disease. Trials of people on the diet show increases in risks of heart problems, and the trials are more important than the theory of how this diet operates. Whether that risk outweighs the risk of being fat with all the health risks of that is another question.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

See, I would much prefer to eat no grains, no sugar, and no processed foods, and simply eat all the meat, fruit, veggies, and dairy I want than count calories

I just think that counting calories is too much work and not sustainable. Sure, you can do it for a while, but for the rest of your life? I'd rather eat a diet where i get most of my energy from fat since fat satiates you more easily and longer than carbs so you will naturally eat less calories.

But hey, if you are healthy and satisfied, whatever works, works

Exactly my view on the issue.

I wanted a solution that could last for the rest of my life. I didn't want to micromanage a spreadsheet just to achieve a goal.

 

[Seanspeed]

We aren't talking about exercise, we are talking about the diet.

We're talking about everything here. You said people should immediately get off that diet when they reach their desired weight level, which completely ignores that CRP levels can be controlled with activity. Low fat/high carb diets come with health risks, too. Like I said, most diets will if you're not active. Becoming more active should be part of anybody's plan in losing weight, burning fat or just making a general lifestyle change. You cant just ignore how activity levels play a role.

 

[Piecake]

He's (selectively) referencing studies showing saturated fats don't affect heart disease. Trials of people on the diet show increases in risks of heart problems, and the trials are more important than the theory of how this diet operates. Whether that risk outweighs the risk of being fat with all the health risks of that is another question.

a meta-analysis isnt selective

 

[Brera]

meh stuck to 2000 cals a day, and exercise, lost 60 lbs since july.

Sometimes the 2000 is good food, sometimes its a bag of chex mix and a few sandwhiches. Got a full round of blood work done right before thanksgiving, no diabetes, high cholesterol, blood pressure, etc.

I also lost weight back in high school eating pretty much anything as long as it was 2000 cal a day. So I guess im lucky counting calories is all I need.

The problem I had with calorie counting is that I just looked at the numbers and as long as it was 1400 calories I was happy.

I didn't lose anything!

 

[ZombieSupaStar]

See, I would much prefer to eat no grains, no sugar, and no processed foods, and simply eat all the meat, fruit, veggies, and dairy I want than count calories

I just think that counting calories is too much work and not sustainable. Sure, you can do it for a while, but for the rest of your life? I'd rather eat a diet where i get most of my energy from fat since fat satiates you more easily and longer than carbs so you will naturally eat less calories.

But hey, if you are healthy and satisfied, whatever works, works

its more work, but i think its worth it, I can prety much eat what I want its just you really get an idea how much calories are in stuff, and how easy it is to overeat with them for people who dont count em. Plus I give myself 1 day a month + holidays/birthday to eat whatever I want, and not count anything. That helps keep me on track also.

The problem I had with calorie counting is that I just looked at the numbers and as long as it was 1400 calories I was happy.

I didn't lose anything!

actually in high school for awhile I was trying to eat 1600 and plateaued I found when I hit 2000 I actually lost more, maybe 1400 was too low and your metabolism has slowed to compensate?


I just enjoy food too much to stick to 1 thing, with calorie counting I can eat things and not be "cheating" as long as my calories are in line (and of course my 1/2 days a month that I dont count, I do eat badly).

 

[Deleted member 17706]

He's (selectively) referencing studies showing saturated fats don't affect heart disease. Trials of people on the diet show increases in risks of heart problems, and the trials are more important than the theory of how this diet operates. Whether that risk outweighs the risk of being fat with all the health risks of that is another question.

But you're talking about things that have been identified as risk factors in people who operate on conventional diets. An increase in some trials of what may be risk factors for some does not necessarily mean an increase in heart disease.

 

[TheHeretic]

a meta-analysis isnt selective

No, but saturated fats causing (or not causing) heart disease isn't a complete answer to the question of whether the diet creates heart risks.

We're talking about everything here. You said people should immediately get off that diet when they reach their desired weight level, which completely ignores that CRP levels can be controlled with activity. Low fat/high carb diets come with health risks, too. Like I said, most diets will if you're not active. Becoming more active should be part of anybody's plan in losing weight, burning fat or just making a general lifestyle change. You cant just ignore how activity levels play a role.

People should get off the diet because its unorthodox, there are studies showing it creates health problems and long term trials aren't conclusive yet. Activity plays a role, we are looking at the diet and its effect on the body, not the role of activity and its effect on the body.

 

[Seanspeed]

its just you really get an idea how much calories are in stuff

Thats really the important part. You dont have to count calories forever. Do it for a while until you've got a pretty good idea of the caloric levels of something and then you can pretty much just use your judgement from there on out.

Its not for everybody, but its something thats pretty useful to learn.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

actually in high school for awhile I was trying to eat 1600 and plateaued I found when I hit 2000 I actually lost more, maybe 1400 was too low and your metabolism has slowed to compensate?

Seriously now? In the face of this evidence--where you yourself stated that you lost more weight with a higher daily calorie load--you still think that it's all about a caloric deficit to lose weight? I'm not sure what to say...

 

[Freshmaker]

Yep...ever noticed how when you have a big mac, you feel full but an hour later you are starving?

...

No.

This never happens.

 

[Seanspeed]

People should get off the diet because its unorthodox, there are studies showing it creates health problems and long term trials aren't conclusive yet. Activity plays a role, we are looking at the diet and its effect on the body, not the role of activity and its effect on the body.

Its not unorthodox at all, though. Its just not what we've been brought up to think is healthy.

And no, there are no studies that show it causes health problems. The most you can say is that it shows a possible connection with increased CRP levels, which is only a risk factor in cardiovascular disease, so the connection isn't quite as tight as you're making it seem.

 

[Brera]

Yeh you're right...you feel hungry as soon as you finish!

The MSG makes you hungry too!

 

[Deleted member 17706]

People should get off the diet because its unorthodox, there are studies showing it creates health problems and long term trials aren't conclusive yet. Activity plays a role, we are looking at the diet and its effect on the body, not the role of activity and its effect on the body.

Unorthodox? What defines orthodox and why does orthodox = good?

The conventional wisdom has greatly changed over the last 50 years or so.

 

[ZombieSupaStar]

Seriously now? In the face of this evidence--where you yourself stated that you lost more weight with a higher daily calorie load--you still think that it's all about a caloric deficit to lose weight? I'm not sure what to say...

I say more out than in and you lose weight. 2000 != "dont give a fuck eat eerything!", people can say I am an idiot but my scale speaks for itself, I feel sorry for those that diet and exercise don't work.

 

[Brera]

Its not unorthodox at all, though. Its just not what we've been brought up to think is healthy.

And no, there are no studies that show it causes health problems. The most you can say is that it shows a possible connection with increased CRP levels, which is only a risk factor in cardiovascular disease, so the connection isn't quite as tight as you're making it seem.

Atkins is what? Nearly 40 years old?

Yet people drum out the same old shit!

I read somewhere that there was a study in the 70s that concluded that wheat based diets are best, especially for breakfast. This study is used by governments all over the western world as health advice.

It was funded by Kelloggs!

 

[Bel Marduk]

Oh, you're too fat because you eat too much and exercise too little.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

I say more out than in and you lose weight. 2000 != "dont give a fuck eat eerything!", people can say I am an idiot but my scale speaks for itself, I feel sorry for those that diet and exercise don't work.

You acknowledged yourself that metabolism is what regulates body fat and that more caloric intake can actually lead to more loss of body fat tissue than a lower caloric intake. I think we're on the same page pretty much. Keeping insulin in check has everything to do with regulating your metabolism.

Of course diet (what you eat) and exercise are the key factors in body composition. I don't think anyone here is arguing against that.

 

[Canis lupus]

I'm so pathetic, I'm eating potato chips just as I'm reading this, its past midnight. -_-

 

[TheHeretic]

Its not unorthodox at all, though. Its just not what we've been brought up to think is healthy.

Unorthodox in that it flies in the face of the way we understand nutrition. That doesn't mean its incorrect because its new - thats just a fallacy, but the studies are what they are.

And no, there are no studies that show it causes health problems. The most you can say is that it shows a possible connection with increased CRP levels, which is only a risk factor in cardiovascular disease, so the connection isn't quite as tight as you're making it seem.

Fair enough - the mortality studies on the diet aren't encouraging. Here's another:

Journal of Internal Medicine

Decreasing carbohydrate or increasing protein intake by one decile were associated with increase in total mortality by 6% (95% CI: 0–12%) and 2% (95% CI: −1 to 5%), respectively. For cardiovascular mortality, amongst women 40–49 years old at enrolment, the corresponding increases were, respectively, 13% (95% CI: −4 to 32%) and 16% (95% CI: 5–29%), with the additive score being even more predictive.

A diet characterized by low carbohydrate and high protein intake was associated with increased total and particularly cardiovascular mortality amongst women. Vigilance with respect to long-term adherence to such weight control regimes is advisable.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2796.2007.01774.x/abstract

 

[Deleted member 17706]

Unorthodox in that it flies in the face of the way we understand nutrition. That doesn't mean its incorrect because its new - thats just a fallacy, but the studies are what they are.

You talk as if there's a consensus in the nutrition community.

 

[Devolution]

Oh, you're too fat because you eat too much and exercise too little.

Seriously when I opened up the youtube I thought it was an infomercial.