Let me get this straight. You are 6 foot 1 and weigh 102 pounds?
Let me get this straight. You are 6 foot 1 and weigh 102 pounds?
But isn't bacon bad for you? Saturated fat and all.
From 142 to 102. I'm 6.1 and was 37 when I started. It is a long term thing though. Over a year and change rather than months. But I'm still losing weight. It's a lifestyle adjustment rather than a diet.
Would I accelerate my weight loss with more effort? Surely. But between losing a little weight each month with practically zero effort and losing more weight but with extra effort, I'll take the zero effort solution.
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.
Bullshit. Even Gary Taubes' well-done pdf summary of numerous diet trials (can be downloaded from the Reddit link above) shows that study sample sizes are too small, have high drop-out rates, neglect intention-to-treat analyses, and overall do not show anything worthy of applying towards any individual. The problem with nutritional science in its current state is that it's trying to use population-based methods on something an individual can easily test on himself/herself every day. Look at the slew of anecdotes in this thread. It's one thing to design a trial comparing coronary artery bypass surgery versus percutanous stenting for multivessel disease; diet "trials" (especially in non-hospitalized people) is an entire different animal and there is nothing scientific about it. Your thread title should replace "We" with "I.""The truth, of course lies somewhere in the middle. While low-carbohydrate diets aren’t for everyone and have their pros and cons, the research is clear: they have major benefits under certain circumstances and can be as healthy (and sometimes healthier) than ‘standard’ carbohydrate based dieting."
We dont get fat because we eat more. We eat more because we get fat.
Taubes did a Reddit AMA about a month ago. Here's a pretty decent counterpoint to his "science":
http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/commen...es_science_writer_and_author_of_sweet/c6ud82x
Regarding the 13 studies listed in argument for weight loss, only 3 of them lasted longer than a week. One of which considered 25% calories from carbohydrate to be "low", another was entirely liquid food with fats coming exclusively from corn oil, and the other consisted of < 40% calories from fat (with no other mention of dietary composition in the abstract).
I don't find these studies to be terribly compelling. At the very least, most of these don't account for the effects of ketoadaptation which can take weeks to months to set in.
Further, IIRC, Taubes recommends very low carb diets in "Why We Get Fat", and none of the diets in these studies qualify, save possibly the liquid-diet study (which I find even less compelling, due to the subjects not actually eating food for ~1 month).
Do carbs correlate with calories at all? For example, when you say remove carbs, can this extend further, on foods purchased, should I be paying more attention to the calorie count, fat quantity or saturated fat amount?
Nope. White rice with sugar. All day errday. I do whatta wan.What? Joke post?
Eat brown rice btw, way more healthy...
I think different people (genetics) and different lifestyles (environment) require different kinds of diets. I would never go to an Olympic athlete and dictate a low carb diet, for example. It has worked for me, and ideally, I'd just like to see people respect it as a healthy, smart option for certain people who live certain kinds of lives.Nope. White rice with sugar. All day errday. I do whatta wan.
But I exercise regularly and eat a bunch of fruit and veggies so maybe it evens out. I love my carbs and I'm definitely not a fatty.
So according to this thread I can't eat quinoa, beans, steel cut oats, brown rice, milk, yogurt, cottage cheese, fat free cheese. How about I just kill myself.
Bullshit. Even Gary Taubes' well-done pdf summary of numerous diet trials (can be downloaded from the Reddit link above) shows that study sample sizes are too small, have high drop-out rates, neglect intention-to-treat analyses, and overall do not show anything worthy of applying towards any individual. The problem with nutritional science in its current state is that it's trying to use population-based methods on something an individual can easily test on himself/herself every day. Look at the slew of anecdotes in this thread. It's one thing to design a trial comparing coronary artery bypass surgery versus percutanous stenting for multivessel disease; diet "trials" (especially in non-hospitalized people) is an entire different animal and there is nothing scientific about it.
Your thread title should replace "We" with "I."
So according to this thread I can't eat quinoa, beans, steel cut oats, brown rice, milk, yogurt, cottage cheese, fat free cheese. How about I just kill myself.
They need the extra energy.What a bunch of hooey. What you eat DOES matter. If carbs made you fat then runners (and myself) would be in horrible shape. Proper diet, exercise and good genes are probably the biggest factors in staying healthy.
And I'm arguing that there's nothing well-researched in this field.As I say, nutrition info is almost comically contradicting and ever changing. Everyone should be skeptical but it's also good to keep an open mind and hear out a well reasoned, well researched and well supported argument. You can play the dueling studies game or pick apart the ones you feel arent up to snuff, that's fine.
But at least it would be more accurate and less misleading.Well that's just poor grammar.
So according to this thread I can't eat quinoa, beans, steel cut oats, brown rice, milk, yogurt, cottage cheese, fat free cheese. How about I just kill myself.
From 142 to 102. I'm 6.1 and was 37 when I started. It is a long term thing though. Over a year and change rather than months. But I'm still losing weight. It's a lifestyle adjustment rather than a diet. Would I accelerate my weight loss with more effort? Surely. But between losing a little weight each month with practically zero effort and losing more weight but with extra effort, I'll take the zero effort solution.
So according to this thread I can't eat quinoa, beans, steel cut oats, brown rice, milk, yogurt, cottage cheese, fat free cheese. How about I just kill myself.
And I'm arguing that there's nothing well-researched in this field.
But at least it would be more accurate and less misleading.
So according to this thread I can't eat quinoa, beans, steel cut oats, brown rice, milk, yogurt, cottage cheese, fat free cheese. How about I just kill myself.
The Atkins diet works based on the simple concept of causing ketosis in your body, thus leading your body to consume fat via lipolysis. There aren't many long-term medicinal studies that point it out as a particularly healthy or effective long-term diet. The whole, "My buddy worked out and cut carbs and is not shredded!" is meaningless, aside from the fact that it worked out for your buddy.
Calories in versus calories out is the MOST important factor, bar none. Your resting metabolic rate dictates what you need to eat every day. If you're gaining weight, it means you are consuming more calories than your resting metabolic rate. It can't be any simpler than that.
The macro-nutrient composition of the calories you eat plays a role in terms of how quickly they can be accessed by the body for energy (carbs are an instant insulin spike, whereas protein and fat not so much). They can also have a multitude of other factors on your overall health (you won't get a healthy balance of your bodies vitamin and amino acid needs if you eat sugary crap all day). But in terms of weight gains and weight loss, it's calories in / calories out.
Remember that guy who ate crap like Twinkies all day to get his necessary caloric intake for the day? By reducing the number of calories he took in, he lost weight and was generally speaking healthier on an all-Twinkie diet.
What happened to just eating less of everything and exercising a bit? Worked for me. I lost 40 pounds just by walking each day and eating smaller portions. I didn't give up anything either. I eat pasta, I take my coffee with sugar, I drink alcohol, I eat dairy products, I eat fried foods. I'm not going to the gym or following any sort of rigid exercise regimen. Zero sacrifices. Just a tiny bit of discipline and common sense.
According to all these advocates for weird diets I'm doing the wrong thing. Yet I'm still losing weight and my health is the best it's been since I was a teenager.
I was a super skinny child but once puberty kicked in I exploded. I spent my teens, my twenties and the early part of my thirties being miserable, out of shape and overweight. I kept looking into and trying all sorts of stuff. For a long while I even retreated to the "It's hormonal it's not my fault, it's my metabolism!" Bullshit. Once I realized that I was running out of breath while tying by boots it just clicked. Losing weight was so easy I'm actrually pissed at myself for being such a lazy asshole.
What do you think the fat is for?
I'm not about to recommend zero carbohydrate diets for all, but while you have a physiological need for glucose, how much of that must be in the form of external (i.e. eaten) glucose is debatable since your body is capable of converting it from protein and even fat in limited quantities.
That said, after extensive reading of the works of Taubes, Eades, Guyenet, and many illuminating others, I personally aim to eat mostly meat and fat with a bit of greens, fruits, and even potatoes (!!!) and don't worry too much about macronutrient ratios. I've been eating a low carbohydrate, high fat diet for about four years now (with occasional human deviations...) and my health has generally been excellent and improved.
Fat doesn't energize the brain IIRC. You need at least some carbs for that.
Yeah, that's not entirely true either.Always avoid saturated fats. Monounsaturated, and polyunsaturated fats are good for you IIRC. Definitely pay attention to caloric values as well as fat %, nothing is unimportant.
Bullshit. An all twinkie diet calorie in/calorie out diet is simply unsustainable. All sorts of crazy diets can work in the short term. The reason why the no grain, no sugar, no processed food diet works is because its easily sustainable for the rest of your life.
Seriously, I eat a TON of food. I just eat the right food and i am able to lose and maintain my weight. I honestly have no idea how much calories i eat, but that is another positive thing about the diet. You dont have to worry about that crap. You should have to worry about what you stick in your mouth, not how much
Seriously, try it for yourself before you knock it. A no grain, no sugar, no processed food diet definitely wont do any damage, no matter your views on diet
And you can get those from veggies, dairy, or fruit. You don't need to eat grain, and definitely do not need/want sugar
So according to this thread I can't eat quinoa, beans, steel cut oats, brown rice, milk, yogurt, cottage cheese, fat free cheese. How about I just kill myself.
You can eat dairy. And Quinoa, beans, and brown rice arent bad for you. they simply arent good for you
Oh I definitely wouldnt go that far. I think you can eat all of that in moderate amounts and be just fine. Fat free cheese though sounds a bit ... bleh... to me, but i digress. I think the point is how inundated our diets are with sugar and processed foods and what effect that has on us.
Cheese (why on earth would you eat fat free), and cottage cheese are encouraged on most low carb diets. Milk and Yogurt are allowed on some.
TBH there are some nutty diets out there. What you NEED to learn is the basics of the diet.....(for example if the goal is to avoid processed foods and stay under 50g of carbs a day) they work towards that goal. Rather than getting too caught up in details.
I'm not claiming the Twinkie diet is sustainable, silly goose. I'm saying that a scientific researcher was able to lose weight eating nothing but that kind of junk by limiting his caloric intake to under his metabolic resting rate. That supports what every nutritionist and dietitian in the world has known forever: calories in/calories out is what matters.
I'm happy you've found an Atkins-style diet that you can maintain for the entirety of your life. Unfortunately, there isn't long-term research that proves the diet is healthy for you. The founder died of heart disease. The over-reliance on foods heavy in fats and cholesterol is particularly worrisome for me.
I have done the Atkins diet in the past, and felt sluggish and generally bad while doing it. It was only for a month, but that was enough for me. I used it to get cut up for a summer beach season. It worked but I'm never going back.
There are lots of different diets that work for different people. The key is making sure you meet your bodies nutritional (vitamins, calories, amino acids, etc.) needs. If you're checking off those boxes, you're good to go. I've been a vegetarian for awhile now and it works for me. I am at an ideal weight, I feel energetic and great all day long, and I'm never hungry. That's sustainable for me.
I don't really eat a lot of cheese, I just eat the fat free shredded cheddar cheese as a snack since I get a lot of my fats from avocados, nuts, and fish. I love cottage cheese but I try not to eat too much because it has so much sodium. I have to drink milk, I just have to, should I replace dairy milk with something like almond milk?
I'm not claiming the Twinkie diet is sustainable, silly goose. I'm saying that a scientific researcher was able to lose weight eating nothing but that kind of junk by limiting his caloric intake to under his metabolic resting rate. That supports what every nutritionist and dietitian in the world has known forever: calories in/calories out is what matters.
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 think different people (genetics) and different lifestyles (environment) require different kinds of diets. I would never go to an Olympic athlete and dictate a low carb diet, for example. It has worked for me, and ideally, I'd just like to see people respect it as a healthy, smart option for certain people who live certain kinds of lives.
FWIW, I will continue to eat whole grains to help reduce my chances of getting colon cancer, the second most common cancer-killer in the U.S. Unlike weight-loss studies, the consistency amongst multiple studies showing the protective benefit of dietary fiber, specifically from grains, is actually convincing.And you can get those from veggies, dairy, or fruit. You dont need to eat grain, and definitely do not need/want sugar
I'm an athlete, Soneet. We typically ignore this type of bullshit.Ah, there's the zealous SapientWolf preventing people from knowing good information.
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.Taubes is calling for more research. I believe he intends to work towards those studies himself.
The title is meant to be provocative, but you should read it in the context of: 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.
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.I'm an athlete, Soneet. We typically ignore this type of bullshit.
FWIW, I will continue to eat whole grains to help reduce my chances of getting colon cancer, the second most common cancer-killer in the U.S. Unlike weight-loss studies, the consistency amongst multiple studies showing the protective benefit of dietary fiber, specifically from grains, is actually convincing.
lol Buddah was fat because of carbs and evidence of an obesity epidemic!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