Support NeoGAF

[mooooose]

I try to avoid carbs that aren't low glycemic and treat meat and veggies like free food and eat as much as I want and I've lost over 15 pounds in two months give or take some water weight. Low carb life style is doable long term but if you enjoy food a lot you are compromising your quality of life a little haha.

 

[marrec]

At the same time we expect these individuals to take better care of themselves when so much cheap food is downright awful. You can't really expect a whole lifestyle change without a lot of work if they're indoctrinated into sugar tastes good and fast food so early on.

Not to mention gym or activities that could be more fun aren't cheap either.

I completely agree and we need to have some kind of overall community support for people living in a food desert with little to no access to cheap healthy food. The lifestyle is the most important part of losing the weight, but if there is no opportunity to change, then you cannot expect someone to change.

 

[MjFrancis]

If you only ate cheese, beef, and eggs you wouldn't eat 3,000 calories. For argument's sake, if you did, you would gain less than someone eating 3,000 calories of carbohydrates.

You'd be hard-pressed to find someone to disagree with you here. You also would gain less weight if you ate 3,000 calories of protein. Again, more agreement, but feel free to argue!

Yes, but studies also show that the eating same amount of calories from fat leads to more weight loss than carbohydrates. The basic science behind insulin regulating fat storage is solid. You're saying it's not (or unimportant.) Which is false.

Yeah, and the rule still stands. Show me how it doesn't. As I already mentioned, you can go all-protein with trace amounts of essential fats, vitamins and minerals and lose even MORE weight. They all follow principle #1. And Brad Pilon and his contemporaries like Martin Berkhan go into great deal on insulin and it's effects. It's not the end of the world if insulin sensitivity and manipulation is #4 on the list of important shit about weight loss, especially since people can manipulate insulin LIKE A BOSS with rule #2. But that's right, you haven't read Brad Pilon and likened him to a fictional hack instead of figuring out all this has been accounted for.

In fact, the main reason they're eating less calories is because they don't need to. Once fat stores are burning you need less energy from food and your hunger instinct works better. You have your causality backwards.

I'm well aware of the effects of satiety. Reaching this under your daily caloric baseline is a must for successful diet adherence, as I readily acknowledged beforehand.

 

[mooooose]

Not for everyone, cutting a whole macro nutrient is not that easy for some people. Portion control and calorie management is easier and more effective for plenty of people. I get to eat pizza and muffins once in a while and I haven't been overweight since I was 12 or 13.

So do people on low carb diets... Especially it the pizza is whole wheat. Not everyone is aiming for ketosis.

 

[Cheech]

Not to mention gym or activities that could be more fun aren't cheap either.

You have to take a long term view, though.

It costs money to get into shape. Most types of exercise cost money.

But what's the dollar value of:

Getting your knees replaced in your 50s because they wore out?

The public humiliation of being an enormous blob of fat riding a scooter around the mall?

Having a horrendous sex life?

The moment you have a heart attack, no way to call for help, and then those last few seconds of wishing you'd spent more time exercising and eating well?

Your parents burying you because you didn't take care of yourself?

I understand that eating right and exercise is an awful lot to ask of someone who has spent their lives sedentary and eating garbage. But I am old enough to have personally experienced all the of the above through friends, family, and personal experiences, to know that the alternatives to not living a healthy life are FAR worse than the expense and effort.

 

[beastmode]

Not for everyone, cutting a whole macro nutrient is not that easy for some people. Portion control and calorie management is easier and more effective for plenty of people. I get to eat pizza and muffins once in a while and I haven't been overweight since I was 12 or 13.

Not according to actual studies.

I've never recommended no carbs for everyone.

Healthy lean people: no sugar/HFCS. Keep in mind the risks associated with a high-carbohydrate diet.
Lean people who've been obese in the past: no sugar/HFCS, pasta, potatoes, rice. You can try different things out and see how your body responds.
Obese people losing weight: don't eat enough to boot you out of ketosis.

That seems reasonable to me.

 

[marrec]

You have to take a long term view, though.

It costs money to get into shape. Most types of exercise cost money.

But what's the dollar value of:

Getting your knees replaced in your 50s because they wore out?

The public humiliation of being an enormous blob of fat riding a scooter around the mall?

Having a horrendous sex life?

The moment you have a heart attack, no way to call for help, and then those last few seconds of wishing you'd spent more time exercising and eating well?

Your parents burying you because you didn't take care of yourself?

I understand that eating right and exercise is an awful lot to ask of someone who has spent their lives sedentary and eating garbage. But I am old enough to have personally experienced all the of the above through friends, family, and personal experiences, to know that the alternatives to not living a healthy life are FAR worse than the expense and effort.

Well, the great thing about running is that it's the least expensive way to get into shape. The only thing you HAVE to buy is a good pair of running shoes and they will last you a few hundred miles before needing replaced.

Not according to actual studies.

I've never recommended no carbs for everyone.

Healthy lean people: no sugar/HFCS.
Lean people who've been obese in the past: no sugar/HFCS, pasta, potatoes, rice. You can try different things out and see how your body responds.
Obese people losing weight: don't eat enough to boot you out of ketosis.

That seems reasonable to me.

Have you cited these studies yet? I haven't been following this thread since about page 3 so I may have missed them.

Just about every doctor you hear talking about losing weight will say 'Lower calorie intake plus extra activity = lost weight'.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

Well, the great thing about running is that it's the least expensive way to get into shape. The only thing you HAVE to buy is a good pair of running shoes and they will last you a few hundred miles before needing replaced.

For the most part. However, it's not always universally applicable. Some climates are miserable to run in. Some people live in places they don't feel safe in. And so on. If any of this is true, access to a treadmill becomes important, which isn't always practical.

Not that you were doing it, but I just offer this as a response to the argument that some make wherein it's suggested that running is something everyone can do with ease.

 

[andycapps]

I hope you're doing the same with people who smoke, drink regularly, take drugs regularly (legal and illegal), partake in any kind of extreme sport or drive too fast.

Since we're talking in generalizations and false equivalences, I hope that you tell people to jump off the Empire State Building with no parachute, and that you tell them to smoke, drink regularly, partake in extreme sports or drive too fast.

I try to take a nuanced stance. As stated earlier, I don't think obesity is necessarily something deserving of a pride movement. However, I don't necessarily think that warrants the brow-beating, either. Yes, people I think should be encouraged -- if they haven't tried on their own already -- to eat better and be more active. But encouragement doesn't need to bleed over into shaming with derision and condescension that this is some character flaw on their part that they deserve to be mocked for. Often, there can be a fine line that separates this. It's also not uncommon for people to run way past that line and attempt to humiliate all in the name of helping them help themselves, which seems rather disingenuous.

I agree completely.

 

[Gustav]

Since we're talking in generalizations and false equivalences, I hope that you tell people to jump off the Empire State Building with no parachute, and that you tell them to smoke, drink regularly, partake in extreme sports or drive too fast.



I agree completely.

Because I tell people to get fat? What is this?

 

[marrec]

For the most part. However, it's not always universally applicable. Some climates are miserable to run in. Some people live in places they don't feel safe in. And so on. If any of this is true, access to a treadmill becomes important, which isn't always practical.

Not that you were doing it, but I just offer this as a response to the argument that some make wherein it's suggested that running is something everyone can do with ease.

That's all very true but for most people running is an economic and safe way to increase activity levels.

There are also aerobic activities one can do in their own house that are effective.

 

[Cheech]

Well, the great thing about running is that it's the least expensive way to get into shape. The only thing you HAVE to buy is a good pair of running shoes and they will last you a few hundred miles before needing replaced.

My first pair of running shoes cost $130. However, I lost 70 pounds on that pair of shoes. I run on public trails/at the local high school's track, so no expense there.

That is a pretty good value. I lost enough weight where I was able to get out of motion control shoes and a basic stability shoe, so my current pair was $110.

And honestly, the only reason I even needed to spend that much on shoes is because I wear a 4E width, and they simply do not make cheap running shoes in that size. There are plenty of sub-$100 running shoes that are great, they just don't come in widths.

For the most part. However, it's not always universally applicable. Some climates are miserable to run in. Some people live in places they don't feel safe in. And so on. If any of this is true, access to a treadmill becomes important, which isn't always practical.

Not that you were doing it, but I just offer this as a response to the argument that some make wherein it's suggested that running is something everyone can do with ease.

Even in this horrendously hot summer, I kept running. I just had to wake up at 5:30a to do it before it got too hot. "You gots to do what you gots to do."

 

[Deleted member 12837]

People do not (primarily) gain weight because of energy imbalance...Insulin is (primarily) what makes you fat...The biggest factor in the obesity epidemic seems obvious: sugar/HFCS.

You're not helping yourself by making all of these claims and not providing hard evidence. Wikipedia links and a graph don't count. You continue to make these grand statements saying "studies back this and that up" but never actually link to proof. That makes it really frustrating to have a debate with you.

(for the record, I agree, that insulin and sugar/HFCS plays a large part in all of this, so let's not continue pursuing this particular point)

I have no doubt that the diet and exercise method works. I have not disputed this, nor tried to "discredit" it.

*sigh*

Look back at the 3 quotes of yours that I posted. You said it's "practically worthless" and "bad advice".

I have said that treating the cause of the illness (insulin) seems preferable both in terms of effectiveness (backed by multiple studies) and easiness/idiot proofing (also backed by studies.)

Still waiting to see these studies that prove that they're more preferable and more effective and easier/more idiot-proof (pretty subjective if you ask me) than a normal diet + exercise.

Not everyone is going to have an easy time cutting out most of their carbs to do keto, just like not everyone would have an easy time going on a balanced but calorie-restricted diet, and exercising regularly.

If you're going the ketosis route, exercise would seem to have a largely diminished return. Exercise and calorie counting isn't necessary. Please point out to me what's so "insane" or "wrong/crazy" about this.

I don't have any proof about exercise + ketosis and diminishing returns or not, and neither do you, so that particularly statement isn't necessarily wrong/crazy. The 3 quotes of yours that I made reference to above, are.

He's right though. Our bodily composition isn't simple enough to work in the way that you're suggesting, the first law of thermodynamic, the basis behind the calories in/out diet, does not really apply to our body in ways that calories in/out suggests.

There are other forms of dieting that can result in weight loss, but at the end of the day, the reason calorie restriction works is because it forces you to make cuts to your diet, a lot of which are carbohydrates since they're some of the most calorie dense foods in a person's diet. What are the first things we cut from our diets when we want to lose weight? Soda, candy and other forms nutrition free junk. And what are they filled with? Sugar/Carbs.

Calorie restriction certainly works because of the above, but study after study has proven that a Low-Carb diet is more effective than a low calorie diet. Why? Because it's singling out the aspect of the calorie restriction diet that is responsible for the weight loss, and perfecting the practice.

And in terms of exercise; while cardio is certainly good for you're overall health, it's not going to really help you lose weight. Strength training is infinitely more effective for fat burning than Cardio, due to the fact that your metabolism is spiked post workout while your body is trying repair your muscles. Not to mention the fact that the negligible effect that Cardio will have on your weight is counter balanced by the fact that you're more likely to splurge on food, due to the fact that your body will demand food to replenish spent energy.

I agree with all of this. Not sure where you're finding any issues with my statements. I personally eat a pretty low-carb diet and have found a lot of success with it. I recommend it to people (with exercise - specifically strength training).

The Brad Pilon statement was simply that any effective nutritional method for weight loss will be the result of some sort of caloric deficit. It's saying that you won't find a diet that works that involves a caloric surplus leading to weight loss. It sounds dumb/obvious, and that's the point. The point is that the universal nutrition truths are pretty basic, and there's still a lot of studying to be done.

It's not saying that there can't be more depth to calories in vs calories out (ex: using low carb specifically to get to the caloric restriction). It's just simply saying that any diet that works will boil down to that basic principle. You even said so yourself:

There are other forms of dieting that can result in weight loss, but at the end of the day, the reason calorie restriction works is because it forces you to make cuts to your diet, a lot of which are carbohydrates since they're some of the most calorie dense foods in a person's diet.

I also think it's worth mentioning that not all low-carb diets are keto. Keto is an extreme version of low-carb.

Additional food for thought:

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/83/5/1055.long
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/re...c-low-carbohydrate-diets-research-review.html

 

[Devolution]

For the most part. However, it's not always universally applicable. Some climates are miserable to run in. Some people live in places they don't feel safe in. And so on. If any of this is true, access to a treadmill becomes important, which isn't always practical.

Not that you were doing it, but I just offer this as a response to the argument that some make wherein it's suggested that running is something everyone can do with ease.

Also some people have joint problems already so access to gym equipment is optimal. But gyms don't come cheap and not everyone can fit the proper machinery in their home or apt. I recently checked out a nearby gym and it has a climbing treadwall. Looks fun.

 

[andycapps]

Because I tell people to get fat? What is this?

You tell me. You've been contradicting everything I say and seem to have the opposite viewpoint on the topic at hand.

 

[marrec]

Also some people have joint problems already so access to gym equipment is optimal. But gyms don't come cheap and not everyone can fit the proper machinery in their home or apt.

Which is again why the lifestyle change is the most important. Not everyone has access to regulated exercise and not everyone has access to a healthy diet, but the healthy diet is most important for immediate health. We should be focusing our efforts on increasing education and availability of healthy foods first, then we can start in on activity levels.

And by 'We' I mean we as a nation ('Merica!)

 

[IceCold]

Well, the great thing about running is that it's the least expensive way to get into shape. The only thing you HAVE to buy is a good pair of running shoes and they will last you a few hundred miles before needing replaced.



Have you cited these studies yet? I haven't been following this thread since about page 3 so I may have missed them.

Just about every doctor you hear talking about losing weight will say 'Lower calorie intake plus extra activity = lost weight'.

Running is a bad idea if you are obese. You don't want to ruin your knees.

 

[Cheech]

Also some people have joint problems already so access to gym equipment is optimal. But gyms don't come cheap and not everyone can fit the proper machinery in their home or apt. I recently checked out a nearby gym and it has a climbing treadwall. Looks fun.

Even the nicest, most expensive gym in my city is $40/month. But see my previous post about how much someone's quality of life is worth. I would spend $500/month if I had to to increase my chances of living longer.

A climbing treadwall? Really? That sounds awesome.

Running is a bad idea if you are obese. You don't want to ruin your knees.

This is fiction. Google it. When I was 300 lbs, my knees could barely get me up a flight of stairs. This morning, I ran up and down every single flight of stairs, about 3 stories' worth times 8 at my high school's stadium. When I got home, I did a couple squats to stretch my knees out so I don't get runner's knee. Doing a single squat when I was 300 pounds would be absurd pain.

Like any other joint/muscle, knees get stronger with use. With running, the trick is keeping your quads/glutes worked out so you don't get runner's knee (kneecap discomfort). That's why I do my bleacher "runs".

 

[marrec]

Running is a bad idea if you are obese. You don't want to ruin your knees.

The 'Couch to 5k' cited addresses this by not doing any actual 'Running' until your body is ready for it. It starts with walks and eventually goes on to jogs and eventually, when you can handle it, goes for running.

'Running' is just the name for the sport, as an exercise routine it's much more complicated.

 

[Devolution]

Even the nicest, most expensive gym in my city is $40/month. But see my previous post about how much someone's quality of life is worth. I would spend $500/month if I had to to increase my chances of living longer.

A climbing treadwall? Really? That sounds awesome.

I think they have to be educated about that kind of thing though. A lot of people are really short sighted and would just dismiss you regardless of how right you are.

 

[Natetan]

You know son, a woman is a lot like a refrigerator.

 

[Cheech]

I think they have to be educated about that kind of thing though. A lot of people are really short sighted and would just dismiss you regardless of how right you are.

All I can offer are my experiences and a harsh dose of reality. I'm 38, older than nearly everyone on GAF, so my patience is shorter than the twentysomethings that make up the bulk of this forum. I just hope that people come to the realization earlier than I have; I've already done what I'm sure is permanent damage to my body by letting myself go for so long. In your 20s, it is far easier to unwind the clock.

 

[beastmode]

I wasn't talking about a DIET diet, I was talking about the food intake everybody needs to stay healthy. And that includes eating carbs.

Low-carbohydrate =/= no carbohydrates.

You'd be hard-pressed to find someone to disagree with you here. You also would gain less weight if you ate 3,000 calories of protein. Again, more agreement, but feel free to argue!

Yeah, and the rule still stands. Show me how it doesn't. As I already mentioned, you can go all-protein with trace amounts of essential fats, vitamins and minerals and lose even MORE weight. They all follow principle #1. And Brad Pilon and his contemporaries like Martin Berkhan go into great deal on insulin and it's effects. It's not the end of the world if insulin sensitivity and manipulation is #4 on the list of important shit about weight loss, especially since people can manipulate insulin LIKE A BOSS with rule #2. But that's right, you haven't read Brad Pilon and likened him to a fictional hack instead of figuring out all this has been accounted for.

I'm well aware of the effects of satiety. Reaching this under your daily caloric baseline is a must for successful diet adherence, as I readily acknowledged beforehand.

So you agree with me on the facts, still maintain that low-carbohydrate diets are not important (or the most important) treatment, and are just having a hissy fit that I found his website unappealing on first impression (which it is.) Are you Brad Pilon? Because I honestly do not care about this person or his book. DO NOT CARE. I HAVE NO MEANINGFUL OPINIONS, INSIGHTS, OR JUDGEMENTS OF BRAD PILON. And I have already stated as such.

Also, don't try and lie. You said that low-carbohydrate diets work solely because people are calorie deficient. Your quote from Brad Pilon: "Prolonged caloric restriction is the only proven nutritional method of weight loss."

Quack Alert!

You're quickly moving into pseudoscientific crankery here.

Go do a few Google searches. Insulin + diabetes, Alzheimer's, cancer, heart disease. Show me the science that says this is false. I'm not going to drag myself through the internet to find studies that people will just ignore.

Have you cited these studies yet? I haven't been following this thread since about page 3 so I may have missed them.

All right, you asked for them:

Journal of the American Medical Association, 2012

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.

American Society for Nutrition, 2010

Long-term study titled "Mediterranean and carbohydrate-restricted diets and mortality among elderly men: a cohort study in Sweden" concluded following:

Adherence to a Mediterranean-like dietary pattern reduced mortality, whereas adherence to a CR [carbohydrate-restricted] dietary pattern appeared to increase mortality in elderly Swedish men, especially when only adequate dietary reporters were considered.

Study measured all-cause mortality and specifically cardiovascular mortality

Archives of Internal Medicine, 2009

Study titled "Long-term Effects of a Very Low-Carbohydrate Diet and a Low-Fat Diet on Mood and Cognitive Function" concluded following:

Over 1 year, there was a favorable effect of an energy-restricted LF [low-fat] diet compared with an isocaloric LC [low-carbohydrate] diet on mood state and affect in overweight and obese individuals. Both diets had similar effects on working memory and speed of processing.

New England Journal of Medicine, 2008

Shai et al., 2008 studied 322 moderately obese adults over a 2-year period assigning each to one of three diets: a low-fat, restricted-calorie diet (based on the 2000 AHA recommendations); a "Mediterranean", restricted-calorie diet; or a low-carbohydrate, non-restricted-calorie diet in which the participants were counseled to choose vegetarian sources of fat and protein and to avoid trans fat (based on the Atkins Diet, however ketosis was detected only 8.3% from participants). Adherence among the participants was high (84.6%). The low-carbohydrate group showed both the greatest weight loss and the most improvement in lipids (cholesterol). The Mediterranean group showed the greatest improvement in glycemic control (related to diabetes). They conclude

The more favorable effects on lipids (with the low-carbohydrate diet) and on glycemic control (with the Mediterranean diet) suggest that personal preferences and metabolic considerations might inform individualized tailoring of dietary interventions.

Interestingly, this study was significant enough that the American Heart Association issued an immediate response to clarify its position (essentially saying that the low-fat diet used in the study is no longer recommended by the AHA and that the AHA's 2006 guidelines emphasize more fiber, vegetables, and "lean" meats).

Journal of the American Medical Association, 2007

Gardner et al., 2007 studied 311 overweight women each following one of four diet plans (Atkins, Zone, LEARN, and Ornish) in 12-month trials. The authors concluded the following.

In this study, premenopausal overweight and obese women assigned to follow the Atkins diet, which had the lowest carbohydrate intake, lost more weight and experienced more favorable overall metabolic effects at 12 months than women assigned to follow the Zone, Ornish, or LEARN diets. While questions remain about long-term effects and mechanisms, a low-carbohydrate, high-protein, high-fat diet may be considered a feasible alternative recommendation for weight loss.

Nutrition and Metabolism, 2006

Nielsen et al., 2006 completed a study of type 2 diabetics randomly assigned to low-carbohydrate diets and conventional high-carbohydrate diets monitored over 22 months. All test subjects consumed the same amount of calories. Over the first 6 months the low-carbohydrate group was found to have significantly greater weight loss and glycemic control, after which many of the control (high-carbohydrate) group changed diets. The low-carbohydrate group was found to mostly maintain their weight loss and glycemic control through the 22 months of the study. The authors conclude

Weight reduction is primarily caused by decreased caloric intake although decreased energy efficiency has also been found. A high-starch, high-carbohydrate diet excessively stimulates appetite and disturbs energy balance in patients with the metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes. A reduction of carbohydrates normalises the balance, reduces insulin concentrations and favours utilization of stored fat as fuel as well as significantly reducing insulin resistance. Weight loss in overweight persons is improved by a higher proportion of protein, presumably due to protein's effect on satiety and/or metabolic efficiency. A reduction in carbohydrates for patients with type 2 diabetes effectively reduces both fasting and postprandial glucose as well as HbA1c. These effects can be independent of weight loss.

International Journal of Cancer, 2006

Bravi et al., 2006 completed a study of 2301 subjects, 767 with renal cell carcinoma (cancer of the kidneys), analyzing the effects of various types of foods on the risk of developing the cancer. The authors of the paper concluded the following.

A significant direct trend in risk was found for bread (OR = 1.94 for the highest versus the lowest intake quintile), and a modest excess of risk was observed for pasta and rice (OR = 1.29), and milk and yoghurt (OR = 1.27). Poultry (OR = 0.74), processed meat (OR = 0.64) and vegetables (OR = 0.65) were inversely associated with RCC [renal cell carcinoma] risk.

This, in effect, says that bread consumption was strongly correlated with increased risk of this carcinoma whereas the consumption of meats and vegetables decreased the risk.

Journal of Nutrition and Metabolism: 2005

Yancy et al., 2005 completed a study of 28 overweight subjects with type 2 diabetes. The conclusion of the study was the following.

The LCKD [low carbohydrate, ketogenic diet] improved glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes such that diabetes medications were discontinued or reduced in most participants. Because the LCKD can be very effective at lowering blood glucose, patients on diabetes medication who use this diet should be under close medical supervision or capable of adjusting their medication.

The article lends support to the argument that low carbohydrate diets can be at least a partial remedy for some forms of diabetes (and may lend support to the argument that some forms of diabetes may in fact be caused by high carbohydrate diets).

American Journal of Epidemiology: 2005

Ma et al., 2005 completed a one-year study of 572 healthy adults monitoring their diet and physical activity. The study concluded the following.

In conclusion, results from our study suggest that daily dietary glycemic index is independently and positively associated with BMI [Body Mass Index]. This finding is consistent with the hypothesis that with increased glycemic index, more insulin is produced and more fat is stored, suggesting that type of carbohydrate may be related to body weight. Our data did not support the current public trend of lowering total carbohydrate intake for weight loss or of lowering glycemic load for weight loss, as suggested by other researchers.

This study refutes the suggestion that total carbohydrate consumption directly correlates with weight loss but does support the notion that the glycemic index of foods consumed correlates with weight loss. The study does not specifically distinguish between nutritive and non-nutritive carbohydrate consumption nor is it clear that any of the diets was ketogenic (a key factor for most low-carbohydrate diets).

Summed up in this post from the last page: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=41575576&postcount=781

 

[sphinx]

Running is a bad idea if you are obese. You don't want to ruin your knees.

that's why there's static bicycle and other equipment that are low(er) impact on knees and legs but of course, everytime I suggest that to overweight friends worried about it, it's just "I will kill myself if I move too much"

I said "o.k" out of respect but I honestly think "If you don't want to move your fucking ass, then quit whining and don't talk about your overweight at all"

 

[Socreges]

The difference between concern and disgust is that with concern, you are overcome by empathy to want to help them out of their plight.

Disgust is where you look at a person and assume they're doing something wrong and proceed to start telling them what you think they should be doing.

I don't know which one you are - but there's very little confusion between the two internally - as long as you're been honest with yourself.

Yes, you do. I told you. I am concerned. Don't try to twist this into me potentially still being a "hater".

Also, your definition of "disgust" really lowered the bar.

 

[Devolution]

All I can offer are my experiences and a harsh dose of reality. I'm 38, older than nearly everyone on GAF, so my patience is shorter than the twentysomethings that make up the bulk of this forum. I just hope that people come to the realization earlier than I have; I've already done what I'm sure is permanent damage to my body by letting myself go for so long. In your 20s, it is far easier to unwind the clock.

Well you sound way more logical and compassionate then the kind of "you're fat get healthy" screeching I tend to hear. I think more people like you should probably set the bar and warn others with your cautionary tale. I think a bunch of already super fit people being self-righteous about how they conquered their fat just doesn't do it for most folks.

 

[beastmode]

Look back at the 3 quotes of yours that I posted. You said it's "practically worthless" and "bad advice".

Both are opinions. The bad advice statement is backed up by studies. "Practically worthless" is in the context of losing weight on a ketogenic diet - I think this is probably true, you are free to disagree.

Not anywhere near the worst statements in this thread.

 

[bengraven]

I honestly have zero respect for someone who bitches about fat people. It's like being fat is worse than doing meth these days. Fuck those people.

 

[marrec]

Summed up in this post from the last page: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=41575576&postcount=781

Not that I doubt the veracity of your claims (OKAY I DO) but can I have actual links?

 

[DR2K]

I honestly have zero respect for someone who bitches about fat people. It's like being fat is worse than doing meth these days. Fuck those people.

Fat people don't like being fat. A fat person will think worse of themselves than anything anyone could say.

 

[marrec]

Well you sound way more logical and compassionate then the kind of "you're fat get healthy" screeching I tend to hear. I think more people like you should probably set the bar and warn others with your cautionary tale. I think a bunch of already super fit people being self-righteous about how they conquered their fat just doesn't do it for most folks.

As always the internet tends to turn reasonable opinions into irrational judgements. It has to be the case that most people want to help other people get and stay fit right? As much as I tend to (wrongly) judge larger people from a distance, if I know someone who's big and wants help then I'll do what I can to help them without trying to make them feel bad. I've been there so I know how much of a step back one can take when they feel like they don't have any support.

 

[bengraven]

Why we got fat people if it's so easy?

Fat people don't like being fat. A fat person will think worse of themselves than anything anyone could say.

I've never met a drug addict who was like "god, I fucking love doing this drug and alienating my family and destroying my life". I'm sure they exist, though, same as how fat people exist who say "I like being fat."

 

[andycapps]

Why we got fat people if it's so easy?

I've never met a drug addict who was like "god, I fucking love doing this drug and alienating my family and destroying my life". I'm sure they exist, though, same as how fat people exist who say "I like being fat."

I don't think anybody's said losing weight is easy. If they did, they're a snake oil salesman trying to sell you something.

 

[marrec]

I don't think anybody's said losing weight is easy. If they did, they're a snake oil salesman trying to sell you something.

Once you make the commitment and are able to change everything about your life that's created the fat you, it SEEMS easy, but that change never is.

 

[Devolution]

As always the internet tends to turn reasonable opinions into irrational judgements. It has to be the case that most people want to help other people get and stay fit right? As much as I tend to (wrongly) judge larger people from a distance, if I know someone who's big and wants help then I'll do what I can to help them without trying to make them feel bad. I've been there so I know how much of a step back one can take when they feel like they don't have any support.

Some larger people I know are aware that they have an issue and they are working to correct it but then get blitzed by hateful shit and it's back to square one because eating is also a comfort.

I don't think anybody's said losing weight is easy. If they did, they're a snake oil salesman trying to sell you something.

People insinuate it's easy, they are self-righteous about losing the weight or they're in a class of people that will never have to worry about food making them fat. How does any of that assist in the process?

 

[beastmode]

Not that I doubt the veracity of your claims (OKAY I DO) but can I have actual links?

Research:

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/161/4/359.abstract
http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/2/1/34
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijc.22225/abstract
http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/3/1/22
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=205916
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa0708681
http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1108558
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/92/4/967.long
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1199154

Meta-analysises:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-789X.2008.00518.x/abstract
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-789X.2012.01021.x/abstract

People insinuate it's easy, they are self-righteous about losing the weight or they're in a class of people that will never have to worry about food making them fat. How does any of that assist in the process?

Low-carb is easy, that's why it's important that people know it's an option (and probably the best one at that.)

 

[zoukka]

I remember searching for studies about obesity and the causes some time ago and one big research did put obese parents as the single biggest risk for a child to get obese as well.

So yeah the "choice" part is not as simple as some of us want to believe.

 

[andycapps]

Once you make the commitment and are able to change everything about your life that's created the fat you, it SEEMS easy, but that change never is.

People insinuate it's easy, they are self-righteous about losing the weight or they're in a class of people that will never have to worry about food making them fat. How does any of that assist in the process?

What marrec said is basically what I'd respond to this with. Deciding you want to make the change is easy enough.. The process of making the change happen is painful, requires work, and isn't a quick fix. Most people that are posting in this thread and sharing something meaningful are either in the process of losing weight, or have lost it and are maintaining. If you've been somewhere where you've been overweight, you tend to see the excuses that other people say and it may get people riled up because they used to say those same things. But I don't think we have too many genetically gifted freaks here that can't put on weight to save their lives. If we have those, not many post in the fitness thread, that's for sure. And the few that are.. they're trying to figure out how to put on mass.

 

[Devolution]

I remember searching for studies about obesity and the causes some time ago and one big research did put obese parents as the single biggest risk for a child to get obese as well.

So yeah the "choice" part is not as simple as some of us want to believe.

School lunches are also a problem. They're absolute shit. Of course kids run off to McDonalds or Jack in the Box and then get hooked on the stuff.

 

[marrec]

Research:

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/161/4/359.abstract
http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/2/1/34
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijc.22225/abstract
http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/3/1/22
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=205916
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa0708681
http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1108558
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/92/4/967.long
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1199154

Meta-analysises:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-789X.2008.00518.x/abstract
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-789X.2012.01021.x/abstractLow-carb is easy, that's why it's important that people know it's an option (and probably the best.)

The first Meta-Analysis is cited 56 times which is a good sign, but browsing through the citations shows a slightly different story:

I found these two in a few minutes.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1753-0407.2009.00033.x/abstract

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=8654929

That first study is actually conducted by 4 of the 5 from the first meta-study you linked. The articles are published a year apart. Take a read through them and tell me what you think. This is only from a casual analysis of the citations of ONE meta-study. I'm certain if I do the necessary research I can find just as many studies and meta-studies that show LCHP diets are not as effective.

There is hardly a scientific consensus on LCHP diets, and the claims that HFCS or Carbs are a major risk factor for the majority of North American diseases is bordering on straight up bunk.

 

[SeanR1221]

Man, if my wedding wasn't in 9 months I'd do a little experiment and eat 3000-3500 calories a day in ketosis and see if the weight just flies off like beast suggests.

 

[rando14]

Man, if my wedding wasn't in 9 months I'd do a little experiment and eat 3000-3500 calories a day in ketosis and see if the weight just flies off like beast suggests.

Don't. You'll feel like absolute shit.

 

[beastmode]

Man, if my wedding wasn't in 9 months I'd do a little experiment and eat 3000-3500 calories a day in ketosis and see if the weight just flies off like beast suggests.

That is a lie.

 

[Yo Gotti]

I've never met a drug addict who was like "god, I fucking love doing this drug and alienating my family and destroying my life". I'm sure they exist, though, same as how fat people exist who say "I like being fat."

It's not like they sit, think and make the choice. In the moment only the drug matters. I doubt people who start doing heavy drugs even consider everything they stand to lose until it's gone.

With obesity, I'm sure more often than not it's a case of "I accept being fat.", rather than "I like being fat."

 

[Deified Data]

I'm never sure which side of this debate is more misinformed.

 

[SeanR1221]

That is a lie.

You said calories don't matter when in ketosis.

 

[Deleted member 12837]

Both are opinions. The bad advice statement is backed up by studies.

Again:

Still waiting to see these studies that prove that they're more preferable and more effective and easier/more idiot-proof (pretty subjective if you ask me) than a normal diet + exercise.

I posted studies that show diet + exercise > diet alone. Can you refute them?

 

[Cheech]

I remember searching for studies about obesity and the causes some time ago and one big research did put obese parents as the single biggest risk for a child to get obese as well.

So yeah the "choice" part is not as simple as some of us want to believe.

This is absolutely true. One of the things that turned my wife and I around was watching our kids want to eat garbage all the time because it was what WE ate.

We are still paying the price for that. The doctor told us our 6 YO's BMI had gone up by "several points" at her last wellness check, and that was "red alert" time. She is not visibly fat, but it was enough. She's slimmed down quite a bit since we've been eating healthier as a family.

I go to my kids' sporting events, and looking at all the fat little kids running around makes me want to cry. It simply was not like that in the 1980s when I was growing up. You'd have like 1 in 40 or 1 in 50 kids who where just ridiculously overweight. Now it seems like 25% of them are, and these are LITTLE kids, like 5-8 year olds.

 

[AgentP]

I remember searching for studies about obesity and the causes some time ago and one big research did put obese parents as the single biggest risk for a child to get obese as well.

So yeah the "choice" part is not as simple as some of us want to believe.

By choice I mean it is not predetermined, the food one eats is a choice, who's choice is a different matter. If it is the parents fault, it was still their choice. Some 200lb ten year was not born to be that weight, it can be changed.

 

[beastmode]

You said calories don't matter when in ketosis.

I did not say that.

If you only ate cheese, beef, and eggs you wouldn't eat 3,000 calories. For argument's sake, if you did, you would gain less than someone eating 3,000 calories of carbohydrates.