INTERMITTENT FASTING - A LIFESTYLE MAKEOVER
Replies
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »CorneliusPhoton wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »CorneliusPhoton wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »
Can we all agree until one finds the micro at works best for them at the current time that counting calories is secondary to one's long term health success? I know I have to get what to eat correct before I know how much of it to eat. When to eat it can fall under how to do IF in a way at works best for me.
bodybuilding.com/fun/ask-the-macro-manager-low-carb-or-fasting.html
"I recommend my clients using a VLCD rather than fasting. My interpretation of the science is that due to the consistent, repeated stimulation of protein synthesis that you get with VLCD, it is a superior approach when looking at overall improvements in body composition. However, if executed properly, both these systems should result in similar fat loss. The key when choosing a VLCD or fasting is to decide which will enable you to execute most consistently and efficiently in your lifestyle."
This Ph.D. leans towards VLCD vs. IF.
No, "we" cannot agree on finding a "micro" that works best. Macro nutrient balance is about satiety and compliance which comes secondary to calorie consumption in the hierarchy of weight loss protocol. They are important factors -- very important factors, but they come down to individual preference. Calorie deficit is needed for everyone to lose weight and is universal. How does that make it secondary?
As for VLCD, why are you going there?
I *think* that the post was about nutrition being of primary importance to long-term health, which is different from what is important (energy balance) for weight loss. For long-term health, you'd be better off being a bit overweight, eating a varied diet to ensure adequate nutrient consumption than eating your TDEE in Skittles for perfect energy balance.
But I could be making the wrong assumption about what that post was about.
Ah, thank you. So, to answer what was actually addressed, I can't agree that being overweight is better for health in any way.
My example was about being overweight (I didn't say morbidly obese) and eating a balanced, varied diet long term, compared to being a normal weight and eating nothing but Skittles long term. It was an extreme example, just to try to highlight what I thought the intention of that post was. And yes, it is my opinion that the person who eats a varied diet with a BMI that indicates "overweight" will live longer than the person who only eats Skittles. Long term.Let me see if I can find that recent study that shattered the so-called "obesity paradox" myth...
http://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i2156
If you think that my intention was that it was the "overweight" part that was healthy, you totally missed my point. "Obese and healthy" is a myth. However, the obesity paradox is not a myth to shatter. It is a viewpoint that elderly and chronically ill may sometimes benefit from having extra weight when they experience unintentional extreme weight loss as a result of their illness. Being overweight has been associated with lower mortality rates in some cases. [/b]
nytimes.com/2013/01/02/health/study-suggests-lower-death-risk-for-the-overweight.html
"But a new report suggests that Miss Scheel may have been onto something. The report on nearly three million people found that those whose B.M.I. ranked them as overweight had less risk of dying than people of normal weight. And while obese people had a greater mortality risk over all, those at the lowest obesity level (B.M.I. of 30 to 34.9) were not more likely to die than normal-weight people."
Gale, that is from 2013. A new meta analysis, controlling for confounders like smoking, has found that not to be the case.
Read the BMJ link I posted upthread.
Conclusion Overweight and obesity is associated with increased risk of all cause mortality and the nadir of the curve was observed at BMI 23-24 among never smokers, 22-23 among healthy never smokers, and 20-22 with longer durations of follow-up. The increased risk of mortality observed in underweight people could at least partly be caused by residual confounding from prediagnostic disease. Lack of exclusion of ever smokers, people with prevalent and preclinical disease, and early follow-up could bias the results towards a more U shaped association.
And I buy into this.
Physically and mentally healthy people with a full choice of foods to eat typically are not under weight or obese so I agree there often may be underlying health issues impacting death rates besides body weight.
You seem to be saying that obese people have an increased risk of mortality (within a certain number of years) because they have an underlying condition that is also causing the obesity, and not because it is a risk factor in and of itself. Also, you seem to be saying that healthy people can't become obese, that obesity must be caused by an underlying physical or mental illness* -- is that right?
Out of curiosity, what was your top BMI and what is your BMI now?
*I suspect you are defining any tendency to overeat as a mental illness which is, well, interesting.
Well, wait a moment. Obesity/weight gain is a symptom for several diseases as well as a side effect of many medications...same thing as being under weight.
The best thing I ever learned in business school was that correlation does not equal causation.0 -
I personally am on a path to see what method of CICO works for me. The IF method may work it may not, still gonna try it
not everything works for everyone! What I love about life in general, if we were all the same it'd be boring but I'm sure we'd still disagree and find things to complain about or get offended by! 2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »CorneliusPhoton wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »CorneliusPhoton wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »
Can we all agree until one finds the micro at works best for them at the current time that counting calories is secondary to one's long term health success? I know I have to get what to eat correct before I know how much of it to eat. When to eat it can fall under how to do IF in a way at works best for me.
bodybuilding.com/fun/ask-the-macro-manager-low-carb-or-fasting.html
"I recommend my clients using a VLCD rather than fasting. My interpretation of the science is that due to the consistent, repeated stimulation of protein synthesis that you get with VLCD, it is a superior approach when looking at overall improvements in body composition. However, if executed properly, both these systems should result in similar fat loss. The key when choosing a VLCD or fasting is to decide which will enable you to execute most consistently and efficiently in your lifestyle."
This Ph.D. leans towards VLCD vs. IF.
No, "we" cannot agree on finding a "micro" that works best. Macro nutrient balance is about satiety and compliance which comes secondary to calorie consumption in the hierarchy of weight loss protocol. They are important factors -- very important factors, but they come down to individual preference. Calorie deficit is needed for everyone to lose weight and is universal. How does that make it secondary?
As for VLCD, why are you going there?
I *think* that the post was about nutrition being of primary importance to long-term health, which is different from what is important (energy balance) for weight loss. For long-term health, you'd be better off being a bit overweight, eating a varied diet to ensure adequate nutrient consumption than eating your TDEE in Skittles for perfect energy balance.
But I could be making the wrong assumption about what that post was about.
Ah, thank you. So, to answer what was actually addressed, I can't agree that being overweight is better for health in any way.
My example was about being overweight (I didn't say morbidly obese) and eating a balanced, varied diet long term, compared to being a normal weight and eating nothing but Skittles long term. It was an extreme example, just to try to highlight what I thought the intention of that post was. And yes, it is my opinion that the person who eats a varied diet with a BMI that indicates "overweight" will live longer than the person who only eats Skittles. Long term.Let me see if I can find that recent study that shattered the so-called "obesity paradox" myth...
http://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i2156
If you think that my intention was that it was the "overweight" part that was healthy, you totally missed my point. "Obese and healthy" is a myth. However, the obesity paradox is not a myth to shatter. It is a viewpoint that elderly and chronically ill may sometimes benefit from having extra weight when they experience unintentional extreme weight loss as a result of their illness. Being overweight has been associated with lower mortality rates in some cases. [/b]
nytimes.com/2013/01/02/health/study-suggests-lower-death-risk-for-the-overweight.html
"But a new report suggests that Miss Scheel may have been onto something. The report on nearly three million people found that those whose B.M.I. ranked them as overweight had less risk of dying than people of normal weight. And while obese people had a greater mortality risk over all, those at the lowest obesity level (B.M.I. of 30 to 34.9) were not more likely to die than normal-weight people."
Gale, that is from 2013. A new meta analysis, controlling for confounders like smoking, has found that not to be the case.
Read the BMJ link I posted upthread.
Conclusion Overweight and obesity is associated with increased risk of all cause mortality and the nadir of the curve was observed at BMI 23-24 among never smokers, 22-23 among healthy never smokers, and 20-22 with longer durations of follow-up. The increased risk of mortality observed in underweight people could at least partly be caused by residual confounding from prediagnostic disease. Lack of exclusion of ever smokers, people with prevalent and preclinical disease, and early follow-up could bias the results towards a more U shaped association.
And I buy into this.
Physically and mentally healthy people with a full choice of foods to eat typically are not under weight or obese so I agree there often may be underlying health issues impacting death rates besides body weight.
You seem to be saying that obese people have an increased risk of mortality (within a certain number of years) because they have an underlying condition that is also causing the obesity, and not because it is a risk factor in and of itself. Also, you seem to be saying that healthy people can't become obese, that obesity must be caused by an underlying physical or mental illness* -- is that right?
Out of curiosity, what was your top BMI and what is your BMI now?
*I suspect you are defining any tendency to overeat as a mental illness which is, well, interesting.
Well, wait a moment. Obesity/weight gain is a symptom for several diseases as well as a side effect of many medications...same thing as being under weight.
The best thing I ever learned in business school was that correlation does not equal causation.
As you say, obesity is sometimes related to other diseases but may not be caused by them or may not be the cause of them. Sometimes it's just a co-factor. Most of the diseases that I know of that actually are related to obesity are genetic and tend to have reduced life expectancy. Those would be ruled out of any studies of obesity and disease incidence since that would be a confounding factor as would any ones caused by medicines.0 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »CorneliusPhoton wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »CorneliusPhoton wrote: »*Hugs companion cube*
So, fasting enhances autophagy which may be beneficial to longevity. Autophagy is the body’s mechanism of getting rid of all the broken down, old cell organelles, proteins and cell membranes. It is suspected that a buildup of these types of things causes cancer, alzheimers, accelerated aging. <-- those are links
More goodies:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17934054
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20880415
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20300080
There is also evidence that many cancer types are actually enhanced via Chaperoned-Mediated Autophagy (CMA).
http://www.nature.com/cr/journal/v24/n1/full/cr2013153a.html
"While CMA deficiency characterizes many neurodegenerative pathologies, upregulation of CMA has been linked to the survival and proliferation of cancer cells17,35,64. Examination of CMA activity in a wide array of cancer cell lines and human tumor biopsies has demonstrated a consistent increase in basal CMA activity35. Activation of CMA is mostly due to an increase in the LAMP-2A levels in these cancer cells and tumors. Genetic knock-down of LAMP-2A in cancer cells helped to establish that CMA is required for cancer cell proliferation, optimal tumor growth and metastasis35."
Yeah, nothing is ever simple in physiology.
Interesting things about alzheimers and aging in there too.
ETA: Reading a bit more... So reduced CMA is associated with Parkinsons and Alzheimers and aging... Enhanced CMA is associated with cancer. Does any of it say that fasting causes the deficiency or upregulation of that particular autophagy pathway?
I don't think that was explored and part of the problem isn't so much that it's not activated but that the CMA mechanism starts to deteriorate with age -- big surprise there! In particular, the LAMP-2 cells, which are the recyclers, become less efficient so they aren't able to clean up the cells as well as you age. Not sure if increased activation would help or not. There is still a lot to explore here by the looks of it.
Yea, just reading another paper about dietary lipids having an inhibitory effect on CMA. I need to take a giant step back before I get too lost in this and just assume that my autophagy pathways are working nominally.0 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »CorneliusPhoton wrote: »*Hugs companion cube*
So, fasting enhances autophagy which may be beneficial to longevity. Autophagy is the body’s mechanism of getting rid of all the broken down, old cell organelles, proteins and cell membranes. It is suspected that a buildup of these types of things causes cancer, alzheimers, accelerated aging. <-- those are links
More goodies:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17934054
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20880415
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20300080
There is also evidence that many cancer types are actually enhanced via Chaperoned-Mediated Autophagy (CMA).
http://www.nature.com/cr/journal/v24/n1/full/cr2013153a.html
"While CMA deficiency characterizes many neurodegenerative pathologies, upregulation of CMA has been linked to the survival and proliferation of cancer cells17,35,64. Examination of CMA activity in a wide array of cancer cell lines and human tumor biopsies has demonstrated a consistent increase in basal CMA activity35. Activation of CMA is mostly due to an increase in the LAMP-2A levels in these cancer cells and tumors. Genetic knock-down of LAMP-2A in cancer cells helped to establish that CMA is required for cancer cell proliferation, optimal tumor growth and metastasis35."
Yeah, nothing is ever simple in physiology.
So true.
I read this a couple years ago and have found the same thing to be true in other cases.
LCHF or any form of nutritional ketosis may help prevent or even reverse some health issues however after one has cancer it would be a while card based on my reading and especially for lung cancer. I study different cancer protocols used around the world and some are mainly whole grains and that is what I would look perhaps fighting cancer. I am currently testing one of high liposomal Vit C and organic sulfur just in case it is needed by one in the family.
Death is coming some day by some means. I just want to be walking and talking until that time comes.
0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »CorneliusPhoton wrote: »*Hugs companion cube*
So, fasting enhances autophagy which may be beneficial to longevity. Autophagy is the body’s mechanism of getting rid of all the broken down, old cell organelles, proteins and cell membranes. It is suspected that a buildup of these types of things causes cancer, alzheimers, accelerated aging. <-- those are links
More goodies:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17934054
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20880415
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20300080
There is also evidence that many cancer types are actually enhanced via Chaperoned-Mediated Autophagy (CMA).
http://www.nature.com/cr/journal/v24/n1/full/cr2013153a.html
"While CMA deficiency characterizes many neurodegenerative pathologies, upregulation of CMA has been linked to the survival and proliferation of cancer cells17,35,64. Examination of CMA activity in a wide array of cancer cell lines and human tumor biopsies has demonstrated a consistent increase in basal CMA activity35. Activation of CMA is mostly due to an increase in the LAMP-2A levels in these cancer cells and tumors. Genetic knock-down of LAMP-2A in cancer cells helped to establish that CMA is required for cancer cell proliferation, optimal tumor growth and metastasis35."
Yeah, nothing is ever simple in physiology.
So true.
I read this a couple years ago and have found the same thing to be true in other cases.
LCHF or any form of nutritional ketosis may help prevent or even reverse some health issues however after one has cancer it would be a while card based on my reading and especially for lung cancer. I study different cancer protocols used around the world and some are mainly whole grains and that is what I would look perhaps fighting cancer. I am currently testing one of high liposomal Vit C and organic sulfur just in case it is needed by one in the family.
Death is coming some day by some means. I just want to be walking and talking until that time comes.
Not for me I intend to kick the Grim Reapers *kitten!
1 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »Why do think over eating of carbs increases one risk of developing cancer but over eating of fats does not increase the risk of developing cancer then?
Carbs cause cancer?
There was nothing in my post about carbs causing cancer so I do not understand your question.
You said overeating of carbs increases the risk of cancer. I was specifically asking about that. It's in the part I quoted. I've never heard that before and was asking to have some additional information.
@jprewitt1 this info came from Dr. Thompson of Sloan Kettering a few years ago. We do not know the causes of cancer but somehow over eating carbs increases the risks of cancer when over eating fats do not per this doctor. Protein does not get a free ride but Fats do.
youtube.com/watch?v=WUlE1VHGA40
Jump to 25:00 to the video if pressed for time for his quote. Below is a print article discussing this video.
https://dawnwaldron.com/2014/01/15/overeating-carbohydrates-dramatically-increases-cancer-risk/
1 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »CorneliusPhoton wrote: »*Hugs companion cube*
So, fasting enhances autophagy which may be beneficial to longevity. Autophagy is the body’s mechanism of getting rid of all the broken down, old cell organelles, proteins and cell membranes. It is suspected that a buildup of these types of things causes cancer, alzheimers, accelerated aging. <-- those are links
More goodies:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17934054
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20880415
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20300080
There is also evidence that many cancer types are actually enhanced via Chaperoned-Mediated Autophagy (CMA).
http://www.nature.com/cr/journal/v24/n1/full/cr2013153a.html
"While CMA deficiency characterizes many neurodegenerative pathologies, upregulation of CMA has been linked to the survival and proliferation of cancer cells17,35,64. Examination of CMA activity in a wide array of cancer cell lines and human tumor biopsies has demonstrated a consistent increase in basal CMA activity35. Activation of CMA is mostly due to an increase in the LAMP-2A levels in these cancer cells and tumors. Genetic knock-down of LAMP-2A in cancer cells helped to establish that CMA is required for cancer cell proliferation, optimal tumor growth and metastasis35."
Yeah, nothing is ever simple in physiology.
So true.
I read this a couple years ago and have found the same thing to be true in other cases.
LCHF or any form of nutritional ketosis may help prevent or even reverse some health issues however after one has cancer it would be a while card based on my reading and especially for lung cancer. I study different cancer protocols used around the world and some are mainly whole grains and that is what I would look perhaps fighting cancer. I am currently testing one of high liposomal Vit C and organic sulfur just in case it is needed by one in the family.
Death is coming some day by some means. I just want to be walking and talking until that time comes.
Not for me I intend to kick the Grim Reapers *kitten!
In that case you may want to read how LCHF may help you do that. Below is the last reason from a 6 page research article.
"Some laboratory studies indicate a direct antitumor potential of ketone bodies. During the past years, a multitude of mouse studies indeed proved anti-tumor effects of KDs for various tumor types, and a few case reports and pre-clinical studies obtained promising results in cancer patients as well. Several registered clinical trials are going to investigate the case for a KD as a supportive therapeutic option in oncology."
Is There a Role for Carbohydrate Restriction in the Treatment and Prevention of Cancer?medscape.com/viewarticle/757713_60 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »CorneliusPhoton wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »CorneliusPhoton wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »
Can we all agree until one finds the micro at works best for them at the current time that counting calories is secondary to one's long term health success? I know I have to get what to eat correct before I know how much of it to eat. When to eat it can fall under how to do IF in a way at works best for me.
bodybuilding.com/fun/ask-the-macro-manager-low-carb-or-fasting.html
"I recommend my clients using a VLCD rather than fasting. My interpretation of the science is that due to the consistent, repeated stimulation of protein synthesis that you get with VLCD, it is a superior approach when looking at overall improvements in body composition. However, if executed properly, both these systems should result in similar fat loss. The key when choosing a VLCD or fasting is to decide which will enable you to execute most consistently and efficiently in your lifestyle."
This Ph.D. leans towards VLCD vs. IF.
No, "we" cannot agree on finding a "micro" that works best. Macro nutrient balance is about satiety and compliance which comes secondary to calorie consumption in the hierarchy of weight loss protocol. They are important factors -- very important factors, but they come down to individual preference. Calorie deficit is needed for everyone to lose weight and is universal. How does that make it secondary?
As for VLCD, why are you going there?
I *think* that the post was about nutrition being of primary importance to long-term health, which is different from what is important (energy balance) for weight loss. For long-term health, you'd be better off being a bit overweight, eating a varied diet to ensure adequate nutrient consumption than eating your TDEE in Skittles for perfect energy balance.
But I could be making the wrong assumption about what that post was about.
Ah, thank you. So, to answer what was actually addressed, I can't agree that being overweight is better for health in any way.
My example was about being overweight (I didn't say morbidly obese) and eating a balanced, varied diet long term, compared to being a normal weight and eating nothing but Skittles long term. It was an extreme example, just to try to highlight what I thought the intention of that post was. And yes, it is my opinion that the person who eats a varied diet with a BMI that indicates "overweight" will live longer than the person who only eats Skittles. Long term.Let me see if I can find that recent study that shattered the so-called "obesity paradox" myth...
http://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i2156
If you think that my intention was that it was the "overweight" part that was healthy, you totally missed my point. "Obese and healthy" is a myth. However, the obesity paradox is not a myth to shatter. It is a viewpoint that elderly and chronically ill may sometimes benefit from having extra weight when they experience unintentional extreme weight loss as a result of their illness. Being overweight has been associated with lower mortality rates in some cases. [/b]
nytimes.com/2013/01/02/health/study-suggests-lower-death-risk-for-the-overweight.html
"But a new report suggests that Miss Scheel may have been onto something. The report on nearly three million people found that those whose B.M.I. ranked them as overweight had less risk of dying than people of normal weight. And while obese people had a greater mortality risk over all, those at the lowest obesity level (B.M.I. of 30 to 34.9) were not more likely to die than normal-weight people."
Gale, that is from 2013. A new meta analysis, controlling for confounders like smoking, has found that not to be the case.
Read the BMJ link I posted upthread.
Conclusion Overweight and obesity is associated with increased risk of all cause mortality and the nadir of the curve was observed at BMI 23-24 among never smokers, 22-23 among healthy never smokers, and 20-22 with longer durations of follow-up. The increased risk of mortality observed in underweight people could at least partly be caused by residual confounding from prediagnostic disease. Lack of exclusion of ever smokers, people with prevalent and preclinical disease, and early follow-up could bias the results towards a more U shaped association.
And I buy into this.
Physically and mentally healthy people with a full choice of foods to eat typically are not under weight or obese so I agree there often may be underlying health issues impacting death rates besides body weight.
You seem to be saying that obese people have an increased risk of mortality (within a certain number of years) because they have an underlying condition that is also causing the obesity, and not because it is a risk factor in and of itself. Also, you seem to be saying that healthy people can't become obese, that obesity must be caused by an underlying physical or mental illness* -- is that right?
Out of curiosity, what was your top BMI and what is your BMI now?
*I suspect you are defining any tendency to overeat as a mental illness which is, well, interesting.
Well, wait a moment. Obesity/weight gain is a symptom for several diseases as well as a side effect of many medications...same thing as being under weight.
The best thing I ever learned in business school was that correlation does not equal causation.GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »Why do think over eating of carbs increases one risk of developing cancer but over eating of fats does not increase the risk of developing cancer then?
Carbs cause cancer?
There was nothing in my post about carbs causing cancer so I do not understand your question.
You said overeating of carbs increases the risk of cancer. I was specifically asking about that. It's in the part I quoted. I've never heard that before and was asking to have some additional information.
@jprewitt1 this info came from Dr. Thompson of Sloan Kettering a few years ago. We do not know the causes of cancer but somehow over eating carbs increases the risks of cancer when over eating fats do not per this doctor. Protein does not get a free ride but Fats do.
youtube.com/watch?v=WUlE1VHGA40
Jump to 25:00 to the video if pressed for time for his quote. Below is a print article discussing this video.
https://dawnwaldron.com/2014/01/15/overeating-carbohydrates-dramatically-increases-cancer-risk/
I don't intend to watch this.
Here's why.
Overeating anything will cause someone to carry extra weight.
Extra weight itself is a risk factor for many types of cancer. What this particular doctor is saying makes no sense in light of that. I don't think that weight related cancers care what macro you over indulged in, Gale.
This one is personal for me, I'm at risk for one of these cancers if I don't control my weight.1 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »CorneliusPhoton wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »CorneliusPhoton wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »
Can we all agree until one finds the micro at works best for them at the current time that counting calories is secondary to one's long term health success? I know I have to get what to eat correct before I know how much of it to eat. When to eat it can fall under how to do IF in a way at works best for me.
bodybuilding.com/fun/ask-the-macro-manager-low-carb-or-fasting.html
"I recommend my clients using a VLCD rather than fasting. My interpretation of the science is that due to the consistent, repeated stimulation of protein synthesis that you get with VLCD, it is a superior approach when looking at overall improvements in body composition. However, if executed properly, both these systems should result in similar fat loss. The key when choosing a VLCD or fasting is to decide which will enable you to execute most consistently and efficiently in your lifestyle."
This Ph.D. leans towards VLCD vs. IF.
No, "we" cannot agree on finding a "micro" that works best. Macro nutrient balance is about satiety and compliance which comes secondary to calorie consumption in the hierarchy of weight loss protocol. They are important factors -- very important factors, but they come down to individual preference. Calorie deficit is needed for everyone to lose weight and is universal. How does that make it secondary?
As for VLCD, why are you going there?
I *think* that the post was about nutrition being of primary importance to long-term health, which is different from what is important (energy balance) for weight loss. For long-term health, you'd be better off being a bit overweight, eating a varied diet to ensure adequate nutrient consumption than eating your TDEE in Skittles for perfect energy balance.
But I could be making the wrong assumption about what that post was about.
Ah, thank you. So, to answer what was actually addressed, I can't agree that being overweight is better for health in any way.
My example was about being overweight (I didn't say morbidly obese) and eating a balanced, varied diet long term, compared to being a normal weight and eating nothing but Skittles long term. It was an extreme example, just to try to highlight what I thought the intention of that post was. And yes, it is my opinion that the person who eats a varied diet with a BMI that indicates "overweight" will live longer than the person who only eats Skittles. Long term.Let me see if I can find that recent study that shattered the so-called "obesity paradox" myth...
http://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i2156
If you think that my intention was that it was the "overweight" part that was healthy, you totally missed my point. "Obese and healthy" is a myth. However, the obesity paradox is not a myth to shatter. It is a viewpoint that elderly and chronically ill may sometimes benefit from having extra weight when they experience unintentional extreme weight loss as a result of their illness. Being overweight has been associated with lower mortality rates in some cases. [/b]
nytimes.com/2013/01/02/health/study-suggests-lower-death-risk-for-the-overweight.html
"But a new report suggests that Miss Scheel may have been onto something. The report on nearly three million people found that those whose B.M.I. ranked them as overweight had less risk of dying than people of normal weight. And while obese people had a greater mortality risk over all, those at the lowest obesity level (B.M.I. of 30 to 34.9) were not more likely to die than normal-weight people."
Gale, that is from 2013. A new meta analysis, controlling for confounders like smoking, has found that not to be the case.
Read the BMJ link I posted upthread.
Conclusion Overweight and obesity is associated with increased risk of all cause mortality and the nadir of the curve was observed at BMI 23-24 among never smokers, 22-23 among healthy never smokers, and 20-22 with longer durations of follow-up. The increased risk of mortality observed in underweight people could at least partly be caused by residual confounding from prediagnostic disease. Lack of exclusion of ever smokers, people with prevalent and preclinical disease, and early follow-up could bias the results towards a more U shaped association.
And I buy into this.
Physically and mentally healthy people with a full choice of foods to eat typically are not under weight or obese so I agree there often may be underlying health issues impacting death rates besides body weight.
You seem to be saying that obese people have an increased risk of mortality (within a certain number of years) because they have an underlying condition that is also causing the obesity, and not because it is a risk factor in and of itself. Also, you seem to be saying that healthy people can't become obese, that obesity must be caused by an underlying physical or mental illness* -- is that right?
Out of curiosity, what was your top BMI and what is your BMI now?
*I suspect you are defining any tendency to overeat as a mental illness which is, well, interesting.
Well, wait a moment. Obesity/weight gain is a symptom for several diseases as well as a side effect of many medications...same thing as being under weight.
The best thing I ever learned in business school was that correlation does not equal causation.GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »Why do think over eating of carbs increases one risk of developing cancer but over eating of fats does not increase the risk of developing cancer then?
Carbs cause cancer?
There was nothing in my post about carbs causing cancer so I do not understand your question.
You said overeating of carbs increases the risk of cancer. I was specifically asking about that. It's in the part I quoted. I've never heard that before and was asking to have some additional information.
@jprewitt1 this info came from Dr. Thompson of Sloan Kettering a few years ago. We do not know the causes of cancer but somehow over eating carbs increases the risks of cancer when over eating fats do not per this doctor. Protein does not get a free ride but Fats do.
youtube.com/watch?v=WUlE1VHGA40
Jump to 25:00 to the video if pressed for time for his quote. Below is a print article discussing this video.
https://dawnwaldron.com/2014/01/15/overeating-carbohydrates-dramatically-increases-cancer-risk/
I don't intend to watch this.
Here's why.
Overeating anything will cause someone to carry extra weight.
Extra weight itself is a risk factor for many types of cancer. What this particular doctor is saying makes no sense in light of that. I don't think that weight related cancers care what macro you over indulged in, Gale.
This one is personal for me, I'm at risk for one of these cancers if I don't control my weight.
I understand preventing a premature death is not of interest to some people but I would not have found MFP and its value had I not been interested in trying to prevent my premature death and of two other family members.
Over eating is not a good thing but since over eating FATS does not increase my risks of cancer if I over eat I try to make sure it is FATS. Best of success.0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »CorneliusPhoton wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »CorneliusPhoton wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »
Can we all agree until one finds the micro at works best for them at the current time that counting calories is secondary to one's long term health success? I know I have to get what to eat correct before I know how much of it to eat. When to eat it can fall under how to do IF in a way at works best for me.
bodybuilding.com/fun/ask-the-macro-manager-low-carb-or-fasting.html
"I recommend my clients using a VLCD rather than fasting. My interpretation of the science is that due to the consistent, repeated stimulation of protein synthesis that you get with VLCD, it is a superior approach when looking at overall improvements in body composition. However, if executed properly, both these systems should result in similar fat loss. The key when choosing a VLCD or fasting is to decide which will enable you to execute most consistently and efficiently in your lifestyle."
This Ph.D. leans towards VLCD vs. IF.
No, "we" cannot agree on finding a "micro" that works best. Macro nutrient balance is about satiety and compliance which comes secondary to calorie consumption in the hierarchy of weight loss protocol. They are important factors -- very important factors, but they come down to individual preference. Calorie deficit is needed for everyone to lose weight and is universal. How does that make it secondary?
As for VLCD, why are you going there?
I *think* that the post was about nutrition being of primary importance to long-term health, which is different from what is important (energy balance) for weight loss. For long-term health, you'd be better off being a bit overweight, eating a varied diet to ensure adequate nutrient consumption than eating your TDEE in Skittles for perfect energy balance.
But I could be making the wrong assumption about what that post was about.
Ah, thank you. So, to answer what was actually addressed, I can't agree that being overweight is better for health in any way.
My example was about being overweight (I didn't say morbidly obese) and eating a balanced, varied diet long term, compared to being a normal weight and eating nothing but Skittles long term. It was an extreme example, just to try to highlight what I thought the intention of that post was. And yes, it is my opinion that the person who eats a varied diet with a BMI that indicates "overweight" will live longer than the person who only eats Skittles. Long term.Let me see if I can find that recent study that shattered the so-called "obesity paradox" myth...
http://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i2156
If you think that my intention was that it was the "overweight" part that was healthy, you totally missed my point. "Obese and healthy" is a myth. However, the obesity paradox is not a myth to shatter. It is a viewpoint that elderly and chronically ill may sometimes benefit from having extra weight when they experience unintentional extreme weight loss as a result of their illness. Being overweight has been associated with lower mortality rates in some cases. [/b]
nytimes.com/2013/01/02/health/study-suggests-lower-death-risk-for-the-overweight.html
"But a new report suggests that Miss Scheel may have been onto something. The report on nearly three million people found that those whose B.M.I. ranked them as overweight had less risk of dying than people of normal weight. And while obese people had a greater mortality risk over all, those at the lowest obesity level (B.M.I. of 30 to 34.9) were not more likely to die than normal-weight people."
Gale, that is from 2013. A new meta analysis, controlling for confounders like smoking, has found that not to be the case.
Read the BMJ link I posted upthread.
Conclusion Overweight and obesity is associated with increased risk of all cause mortality and the nadir of the curve was observed at BMI 23-24 among never smokers, 22-23 among healthy never smokers, and 20-22 with longer durations of follow-up. The increased risk of mortality observed in underweight people could at least partly be caused by residual confounding from prediagnostic disease. Lack of exclusion of ever smokers, people with prevalent and preclinical disease, and early follow-up could bias the results towards a more U shaped association.
And I buy into this.
Physically and mentally healthy people with a full choice of foods to eat typically are not under weight or obese so I agree there often may be underlying health issues impacting death rates besides body weight.
You seem to be saying that obese people have an increased risk of mortality (within a certain number of years) because they have an underlying condition that is also causing the obesity, and not because it is a risk factor in and of itself. Also, you seem to be saying that healthy people can't become obese, that obesity must be caused by an underlying physical or mental illness* -- is that right?
Out of curiosity, what was your top BMI and what is your BMI now?
*I suspect you are defining any tendency to overeat as a mental illness which is, well, interesting.
Well, wait a moment. Obesity/weight gain is a symptom for several diseases as well as a side effect of many medications...same thing as being under weight.
The best thing I ever learned in business school was that correlation does not equal causation.GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »Why do think over eating of carbs increases one risk of developing cancer but over eating of fats does not increase the risk of developing cancer then?
Carbs cause cancer?
There was nothing in my post about carbs causing cancer so I do not understand your question.
You said overeating of carbs increases the risk of cancer. I was specifically asking about that. It's in the part I quoted. I've never heard that before and was asking to have some additional information.
@jprewitt1 this info came from Dr. Thompson of Sloan Kettering a few years ago. We do not know the causes of cancer but somehow over eating carbs increases the risks of cancer when over eating fats do not per this doctor. Protein does not get a free ride but Fats do.
youtube.com/watch?v=WUlE1VHGA40
Jump to 25:00 to the video if pressed for time for his quote. Below is a print article discussing this video.
https://dawnwaldron.com/2014/01/15/overeating-carbohydrates-dramatically-increases-cancer-risk/
I don't intend to watch this.
Here's why.
Overeating anything will cause someone to carry extra weight.
Extra weight itself is a risk factor for many types of cancer. What this particular doctor is saying makes no sense in light of that. I don't think that weight related cancers care what macro you over indulged in, Gale.
This one is personal for me, I'm at risk for one of these cancers if I don't control my weight.
I understand preventing a premature death is not of interest to some people but I would not have found MFP and its value had I not been interested in trying to prevent my premature death and of two other family members. Best of success.
So anyone that doesn't adopt LCHF is not interested in preventing premature death? That's quite a leap there, Gale.5 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »CorneliusPhoton wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »CorneliusPhoton wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »
Can we all agree until one finds the micro at works best for them at the current time that counting calories is secondary to one's long term health success? I know I have to get what to eat correct before I know how much of it to eat. When to eat it can fall under how to do IF in a way at works best for me.
bodybuilding.com/fun/ask-the-macro-manager-low-carb-or-fasting.html
"I recommend my clients using a VLCD rather than fasting. My interpretation of the science is that due to the consistent, repeated stimulation of protein synthesis that you get with VLCD, it is a superior approach when looking at overall improvements in body composition. However, if executed properly, both these systems should result in similar fat loss. The key when choosing a VLCD or fasting is to decide which will enable you to execute most consistently and efficiently in your lifestyle."
This Ph.D. leans towards VLCD vs. IF.
No, "we" cannot agree on finding a "micro" that works best. Macro nutrient balance is about satiety and compliance which comes secondary to calorie consumption in the hierarchy of weight loss protocol. They are important factors -- very important factors, but they come down to individual preference. Calorie deficit is needed for everyone to lose weight and is universal. How does that make it secondary?
As for VLCD, why are you going there?
I *think* that the post was about nutrition being of primary importance to long-term health, which is different from what is important (energy balance) for weight loss. For long-term health, you'd be better off being a bit overweight, eating a varied diet to ensure adequate nutrient consumption than eating your TDEE in Skittles for perfect energy balance.
But I could be making the wrong assumption about what that post was about.
Ah, thank you. So, to answer what was actually addressed, I can't agree that being overweight is better for health in any way.
My example was about being overweight (I didn't say morbidly obese) and eating a balanced, varied diet long term, compared to being a normal weight and eating nothing but Skittles long term. It was an extreme example, just to try to highlight what I thought the intention of that post was. And yes, it is my opinion that the person who eats a varied diet with a BMI that indicates "overweight" will live longer than the person who only eats Skittles. Long term.Let me see if I can find that recent study that shattered the so-called "obesity paradox" myth...
http://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i2156
If you think that my intention was that it was the "overweight" part that was healthy, you totally missed my point. "Obese and healthy" is a myth. However, the obesity paradox is not a myth to shatter. It is a viewpoint that elderly and chronically ill may sometimes benefit from having extra weight when they experience unintentional extreme weight loss as a result of their illness. Being overweight has been associated with lower mortality rates in some cases. [/b]
nytimes.com/2013/01/02/health/study-suggests-lower-death-risk-for-the-overweight.html
"But a new report suggests that Miss Scheel may have been onto something. The report on nearly three million people found that those whose B.M.I. ranked them as overweight had less risk of dying than people of normal weight. And while obese people had a greater mortality risk over all, those at the lowest obesity level (B.M.I. of 30 to 34.9) were not more likely to die than normal-weight people."
Gale, that is from 2013. A new meta analysis, controlling for confounders like smoking, has found that not to be the case.
Read the BMJ link I posted upthread.
Conclusion Overweight and obesity is associated with increased risk of all cause mortality and the nadir of the curve was observed at BMI 23-24 among never smokers, 22-23 among healthy never smokers, and 20-22 with longer durations of follow-up. The increased risk of mortality observed in underweight people could at least partly be caused by residual confounding from prediagnostic disease. Lack of exclusion of ever smokers, people with prevalent and preclinical disease, and early follow-up could bias the results towards a more U shaped association.
And I buy into this.
Physically and mentally healthy people with a full choice of foods to eat typically are not under weight or obese so I agree there often may be underlying health issues impacting death rates besides body weight.
You seem to be saying that obese people have an increased risk of mortality (within a certain number of years) because they have an underlying condition that is also causing the obesity, and not because it is a risk factor in and of itself. Also, you seem to be saying that healthy people can't become obese, that obesity must be caused by an underlying physical or mental illness* -- is that right?
Out of curiosity, what was your top BMI and what is your BMI now?
*I suspect you are defining any tendency to overeat as a mental illness which is, well, interesting.
Well, wait a moment. Obesity/weight gain is a symptom for several diseases as well as a side effect of many medications...same thing as being under weight.
The best thing I ever learned in business school was that correlation does not equal causation.GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »Why do think over eating of carbs increases one risk of developing cancer but over eating of fats does not increase the risk of developing cancer then?
Carbs cause cancer?
There was nothing in my post about carbs causing cancer so I do not understand your question.
You said overeating of carbs increases the risk of cancer. I was specifically asking about that. It's in the part I quoted. I've never heard that before and was asking to have some additional information.
@jprewitt1 this info came from Dr. Thompson of Sloan Kettering a few years ago. We do not know the causes of cancer but somehow over eating carbs increases the risks of cancer when over eating fats do not per this doctor. Protein does not get a free ride but Fats do.
youtube.com/watch?v=WUlE1VHGA40
Jump to 25:00 to the video if pressed for time for his quote. Below is a print article discussing this video.
https://dawnwaldron.com/2014/01/15/overeating-carbohydrates-dramatically-increases-cancer-risk/
I don't intend to watch this.
Here's why.
Overeating anything will cause someone to carry extra weight.
Extra weight itself is a risk factor for many types of cancer. What this particular doctor is saying makes no sense in light of that. I don't think that weight related cancers care what macro you over indulged in, Gale.
This one is personal for me, I'm at risk for one of these cancers if I don't control my weight.
I understand preventing a premature death is not of interest to some people but I would not have found MFP and its value had I not been interested in trying to prevent my premature death and of two other family members.
Over eating is not a good thing but since over eating FATS does not increase my risks of cancer if I over eat I try to make sure it is FATS. Best of success.
Excuse me? Overeating fats until the point you put on extra weight indeed increases your risk of many terminal diseases.
Surely you aren't asserting that you can carry extra weight, even to the point of obesity, but if you've put that weight on through eating fats, you're protected from the side effects of extra adipose tissue.
Surely you aren't asserting that overeating fats won't lead to weight gain.
Surely you aren't asserting that I have a death wish because I eat carbs.7 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »CorneliusPhoton wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »CorneliusPhoton wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »
Can we all agree until one finds the micro at works best for them at the current time that counting calories is secondary to one's long term health success? I know I have to get what to eat correct before I know how much of it to eat. When to eat it can fall under how to do IF in a way at works best for me.
bodybuilding.com/fun/ask-the-macro-manager-low-carb-or-fasting.html
"I recommend my clients using a VLCD rather than fasting. My interpretation of the science is that due to the consistent, repeated stimulation of protein synthesis that you get with VLCD, it is a superior approach when looking at overall improvements in body composition. However, if executed properly, both these systems should result in similar fat loss. The key when choosing a VLCD or fasting is to decide which will enable you to execute most consistently and efficiently in your lifestyle."
This Ph.D. leans towards VLCD vs. IF.
No, "we" cannot agree on finding a "micro" that works best. Macro nutrient balance is about satiety and compliance which comes secondary to calorie consumption in the hierarchy of weight loss protocol. They are important factors -- very important factors, but they come down to individual preference. Calorie deficit is needed for everyone to lose weight and is universal. How does that make it secondary?
As for VLCD, why are you going there?
I *think* that the post was about nutrition being of primary importance to long-term health, which is different from what is important (energy balance) for weight loss. For long-term health, you'd be better off being a bit overweight, eating a varied diet to ensure adequate nutrient consumption than eating your TDEE in Skittles for perfect energy balance.
But I could be making the wrong assumption about what that post was about.
Ah, thank you. So, to answer what was actually addressed, I can't agree that being overweight is better for health in any way.
My example was about being overweight (I didn't say morbidly obese) and eating a balanced, varied diet long term, compared to being a normal weight and eating nothing but Skittles long term. It was an extreme example, just to try to highlight what I thought the intention of that post was. And yes, it is my opinion that the person who eats a varied diet with a BMI that indicates "overweight" will live longer than the person who only eats Skittles. Long term.Let me see if I can find that recent study that shattered the so-called "obesity paradox" myth...
http://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i2156
If you think that my intention was that it was the "overweight" part that was healthy, you totally missed my point. "Obese and healthy" is a myth. However, the obesity paradox is not a myth to shatter. It is a viewpoint that elderly and chronically ill may sometimes benefit from having extra weight when they experience unintentional extreme weight loss as a result of their illness. Being overweight has been associated with lower mortality rates in some cases. [/b]
nytimes.com/2013/01/02/health/study-suggests-lower-death-risk-for-the-overweight.html
"But a new report suggests that Miss Scheel may have been onto something. The report on nearly three million people found that those whose B.M.I. ranked them as overweight had less risk of dying than people of normal weight. And while obese people had a greater mortality risk over all, those at the lowest obesity level (B.M.I. of 30 to 34.9) were not more likely to die than normal-weight people."
Gale, that is from 2013. A new meta analysis, controlling for confounders like smoking, has found that not to be the case.
Read the BMJ link I posted upthread.
Conclusion Overweight and obesity is associated with increased risk of all cause mortality and the nadir of the curve was observed at BMI 23-24 among never smokers, 22-23 among healthy never smokers, and 20-22 with longer durations of follow-up. The increased risk of mortality observed in underweight people could at least partly be caused by residual confounding from prediagnostic disease. Lack of exclusion of ever smokers, people with prevalent and preclinical disease, and early follow-up could bias the results towards a more U shaped association.
And I buy into this.
Physically and mentally healthy people with a full choice of foods to eat typically are not under weight or obese so I agree there often may be underlying health issues impacting death rates besides body weight.
You seem to be saying that obese people have an increased risk of mortality (within a certain number of years) because they have an underlying condition that is also causing the obesity, and not because it is a risk factor in and of itself. Also, you seem to be saying that healthy people can't become obese, that obesity must be caused by an underlying physical or mental illness* -- is that right?
Out of curiosity, what was your top BMI and what is your BMI now?
*I suspect you are defining any tendency to overeat as a mental illness which is, well, interesting.
Well, wait a moment. Obesity/weight gain is a symptom for several diseases as well as a side effect of many medications...same thing as being under weight.
The best thing I ever learned in business school was that correlation does not equal causation.GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »Why do think over eating of carbs increases one risk of developing cancer but over eating of fats does not increase the risk of developing cancer then?
Carbs cause cancer?
There was nothing in my post about carbs causing cancer so I do not understand your question.
You said overeating of carbs increases the risk of cancer. I was specifically asking about that. It's in the part I quoted. I've never heard that before and was asking to have some additional information.
@jprewitt1 this info came from Dr. Thompson of Sloan Kettering a few years ago. We do not know the causes of cancer but somehow over eating carbs increases the risks of cancer when over eating fats do not per this doctor. Protein does not get a free ride but Fats do.
youtube.com/watch?v=WUlE1VHGA40
Jump to 25:00 to the video if pressed for time for his quote. Below is a print article discussing this video.
https://dawnwaldron.com/2014/01/15/overeating-carbohydrates-dramatically-increases-cancer-risk/
I don't intend to watch this.
Here's why.
Overeating anything will cause someone to carry extra weight.
Extra weight itself is a risk factor for many types of cancer. What this particular doctor is saying makes no sense in light of that. I don't think that weight related cancers care what macro you over indulged in, Gale.
This one is personal for me, I'm at risk for one of these cancers if I don't control my weight.
I understand preventing a premature death is not of interest to some people but I would not have found MFP and its value had I not been interested in trying to prevent my premature death and of two other family members. Best of success.
So anyone that doesn't adopt LCHF is not interested in preventing premature death? That's quite a leap there, Gale.
I think you know that is not true. It is the over eating of CARBS that is known to increase the risks of cancer. Overeating FATS do not increase the risk of cancer so if one is going to overeat at the buffet they can just make sure it is on fats is my take from Dr. Thompson's presentation. LCHF is just one WOE.
Not over eating CARBS and PROTEINS is one way to help prevent a premature death from can cancer per the doctor.
0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »CorneliusPhoton wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »CorneliusPhoton wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »
Can we all agree until one finds the micro at works best for them at the current time that counting calories is secondary to one's long term health success? I know I have to get what to eat correct before I know how much of it to eat. When to eat it can fall under how to do IF in a way at works best for me.
bodybuilding.com/fun/ask-the-macro-manager-low-carb-or-fasting.html
"I recommend my clients using a VLCD rather than fasting. My interpretation of the science is that due to the consistent, repeated stimulation of protein synthesis that you get with VLCD, it is a superior approach when looking at overall improvements in body composition. However, if executed properly, both these systems should result in similar fat loss. The key when choosing a VLCD or fasting is to decide which will enable you to execute most consistently and efficiently in your lifestyle."
This Ph.D. leans towards VLCD vs. IF.
No, "we" cannot agree on finding a "micro" that works best. Macro nutrient balance is about satiety and compliance which comes secondary to calorie consumption in the hierarchy of weight loss protocol. They are important factors -- very important factors, but they come down to individual preference. Calorie deficit is needed for everyone to lose weight and is universal. How does that make it secondary?
As for VLCD, why are you going there?
I *think* that the post was about nutrition being of primary importance to long-term health, which is different from what is important (energy balance) for weight loss. For long-term health, you'd be better off being a bit overweight, eating a varied diet to ensure adequate nutrient consumption than eating your TDEE in Skittles for perfect energy balance.
But I could be making the wrong assumption about what that post was about.
Ah, thank you. So, to answer what was actually addressed, I can't agree that being overweight is better for health in any way.
My example was about being overweight (I didn't say morbidly obese) and eating a balanced, varied diet long term, compared to being a normal weight and eating nothing but Skittles long term. It was an extreme example, just to try to highlight what I thought the intention of that post was. And yes, it is my opinion that the person who eats a varied diet with a BMI that indicates "overweight" will live longer than the person who only eats Skittles. Long term.Let me see if I can find that recent study that shattered the so-called "obesity paradox" myth...
http://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i2156
If you think that my intention was that it was the "overweight" part that was healthy, you totally missed my point. "Obese and healthy" is a myth. However, the obesity paradox is not a myth to shatter. It is a viewpoint that elderly and chronically ill may sometimes benefit from having extra weight when they experience unintentional extreme weight loss as a result of their illness. Being overweight has been associated with lower mortality rates in some cases. [/b]
nytimes.com/2013/01/02/health/study-suggests-lower-death-risk-for-the-overweight.html
"But a new report suggests that Miss Scheel may have been onto something. The report on nearly three million people found that those whose B.M.I. ranked them as overweight had less risk of dying than people of normal weight. And while obese people had a greater mortality risk over all, those at the lowest obesity level (B.M.I. of 30 to 34.9) were not more likely to die than normal-weight people."
Gale, that is from 2013. A new meta analysis, controlling for confounders like smoking, has found that not to be the case.
Read the BMJ link I posted upthread.
Conclusion Overweight and obesity is associated with increased risk of all cause mortality and the nadir of the curve was observed at BMI 23-24 among never smokers, 22-23 among healthy never smokers, and 20-22 with longer durations of follow-up. The increased risk of mortality observed in underweight people could at least partly be caused by residual confounding from prediagnostic disease. Lack of exclusion of ever smokers, people with prevalent and preclinical disease, and early follow-up could bias the results towards a more U shaped association.
And I buy into this.
Physically and mentally healthy people with a full choice of foods to eat typically are not under weight or obese so I agree there often may be underlying health issues impacting death rates besides body weight.
You seem to be saying that obese people have an increased risk of mortality (within a certain number of years) because they have an underlying condition that is also causing the obesity, and not because it is a risk factor in and of itself. Also, you seem to be saying that healthy people can't become obese, that obesity must be caused by an underlying physical or mental illness* -- is that right?
Out of curiosity, what was your top BMI and what is your BMI now?
*I suspect you are defining any tendency to overeat as a mental illness which is, well, interesting.
Well, wait a moment. Obesity/weight gain is a symptom for several diseases as well as a side effect of many medications...same thing as being under weight.
The best thing I ever learned in business school was that correlation does not equal causation.GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »Why do think over eating of carbs increases one risk of developing cancer but over eating of fats does not increase the risk of developing cancer then?
Carbs cause cancer?
There was nothing in my post about carbs causing cancer so I do not understand your question.
You said overeating of carbs increases the risk of cancer. I was specifically asking about that. It's in the part I quoted. I've never heard that before and was asking to have some additional information.
@jprewitt1 this info came from Dr. Thompson of Sloan Kettering a few years ago. We do not know the causes of cancer but somehow over eating carbs increases the risks of cancer when over eating fats do not per this doctor. Protein does not get a free ride but Fats do.
youtube.com/watch?v=WUlE1VHGA40
Jump to 25:00 to the video if pressed for time for his quote. Below is a print article discussing this video.
https://dawnwaldron.com/2014/01/15/overeating-carbohydrates-dramatically-increases-cancer-risk/
I don't intend to watch this.
Here's why.
Overeating anything will cause someone to carry extra weight.
Extra weight itself is a risk factor for many types of cancer. What this particular doctor is saying makes no sense in light of that. I don't think that weight related cancers care what macro you over indulged in, Gale.
This one is personal for me, I'm at risk for one of these cancers if I don't control my weight.
I understand preventing a premature death is not of interest to some people but I would not have found MFP and its value had I not been interested in trying to prevent my premature death and of two other family members. Best of success.
So anyone that doesn't adopt LCHF is not interested in preventing premature death? That's quite a leap there, Gale.
I think you know that is not true. It is the over eating of CARBS that is known to increase the risks of cancer. Overeating FATS do not increase the risk of cancer so if one is going to overeat at the buffet they can just make sure it is on fats is my take from Dr. Thompson's presentation. LCHF is just one WOE.
Not over eating CARBS and PROTEINS is one way to help prevent a premature death from can cancer per the doctor.
So if I overeat to the point of obesity, I am safe as long as I only overeat fat and not carbs?6 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »CorneliusPhoton wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »CorneliusPhoton wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »
Can we all agree until one finds the micro at works best for them at the current time that counting calories is secondary to one's long term health success? I know I have to get what to eat correct before I know how much of it to eat. When to eat it can fall under how to do IF in a way at works best for me.
bodybuilding.com/fun/ask-the-macro-manager-low-carb-or-fasting.html
"I recommend my clients using a VLCD rather than fasting. My interpretation of the science is that due to the consistent, repeated stimulation of protein synthesis that you get with VLCD, it is a superior approach when looking at overall improvements in body composition. However, if executed properly, both these systems should result in similar fat loss. The key when choosing a VLCD or fasting is to decide which will enable you to execute most consistently and efficiently in your lifestyle."
This Ph.D. leans towards VLCD vs. IF.
No, "we" cannot agree on finding a "micro" that works best. Macro nutrient balance is about satiety and compliance which comes secondary to calorie consumption in the hierarchy of weight loss protocol. They are important factors -- very important factors, but they come down to individual preference. Calorie deficit is needed for everyone to lose weight and is universal. How does that make it secondary?
As for VLCD, why are you going there?
I *think* that the post was about nutrition being of primary importance to long-term health, which is different from what is important (energy balance) for weight loss. For long-term health, you'd be better off being a bit overweight, eating a varied diet to ensure adequate nutrient consumption than eating your TDEE in Skittles for perfect energy balance.
But I could be making the wrong assumption about what that post was about.
Ah, thank you. So, to answer what was actually addressed, I can't agree that being overweight is better for health in any way.
My example was about being overweight (I didn't say morbidly obese) and eating a balanced, varied diet long term, compared to being a normal weight and eating nothing but Skittles long term. It was an extreme example, just to try to highlight what I thought the intention of that post was. And yes, it is my opinion that the person who eats a varied diet with a BMI that indicates "overweight" will live longer than the person who only eats Skittles. Long term.Let me see if I can find that recent study that shattered the so-called "obesity paradox" myth...
http://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i2156
If you think that my intention was that it was the "overweight" part that was healthy, you totally missed my point. "Obese and healthy" is a myth. However, the obesity paradox is not a myth to shatter. It is a viewpoint that elderly and chronically ill may sometimes benefit from having extra weight when they experience unintentional extreme weight loss as a result of their illness. Being overweight has been associated with lower mortality rates in some cases. [/b]
nytimes.com/2013/01/02/health/study-suggests-lower-death-risk-for-the-overweight.html
"But a new report suggests that Miss Scheel may have been onto something. The report on nearly three million people found that those whose B.M.I. ranked them as overweight had less risk of dying than people of normal weight. And while obese people had a greater mortality risk over all, those at the lowest obesity level (B.M.I. of 30 to 34.9) were not more likely to die than normal-weight people."
Gale, that is from 2013. A new meta analysis, controlling for confounders like smoking, has found that not to be the case.
Read the BMJ link I posted upthread.
Conclusion Overweight and obesity is associated with increased risk of all cause mortality and the nadir of the curve was observed at BMI 23-24 among never smokers, 22-23 among healthy never smokers, and 20-22 with longer durations of follow-up. The increased risk of mortality observed in underweight people could at least partly be caused by residual confounding from prediagnostic disease. Lack of exclusion of ever smokers, people with prevalent and preclinical disease, and early follow-up could bias the results towards a more U shaped association.
And I buy into this.
Physically and mentally healthy people with a full choice of foods to eat typically are not under weight or obese so I agree there often may be underlying health issues impacting death rates besides body weight.
You seem to be saying that obese people have an increased risk of mortality (within a certain number of years) because they have an underlying condition that is also causing the obesity, and not because it is a risk factor in and of itself. Also, you seem to be saying that healthy people can't become obese, that obesity must be caused by an underlying physical or mental illness* -- is that right?
Out of curiosity, what was your top BMI and what is your BMI now?
*I suspect you are defining any tendency to overeat as a mental illness which is, well, interesting.
Well, wait a moment. Obesity/weight gain is a symptom for several diseases as well as a side effect of many medications...same thing as being under weight.
The best thing I ever learned in business school was that correlation does not equal causation.GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »Why do think over eating of carbs increases one risk of developing cancer but over eating of fats does not increase the risk of developing cancer then?
Carbs cause cancer?
There was nothing in my post about carbs causing cancer so I do not understand your question.
You said overeating of carbs increases the risk of cancer. I was specifically asking about that. It's in the part I quoted. I've never heard that before and was asking to have some additional information.
@jprewitt1 this info came from Dr. Thompson of Sloan Kettering a few years ago. We do not know the causes of cancer but somehow over eating carbs increases the risks of cancer when over eating fats do not per this doctor. Protein does not get a free ride but Fats do.
youtube.com/watch?v=WUlE1VHGA40
Jump to 25:00 to the video if pressed for time for his quote. Below is a print article discussing this video.
https://dawnwaldron.com/2014/01/15/overeating-carbohydrates-dramatically-increases-cancer-risk/
I don't intend to watch this.
Here's why.
Overeating anything will cause someone to carry extra weight.
Extra weight itself is a risk factor for many types of cancer. What this particular doctor is saying makes no sense in light of that. I don't think that weight related cancers care what macro you over indulged in, Gale.
This one is personal for me, I'm at risk for one of these cancers if I don't control my weight.
I understand preventing a premature death is not of interest to some people but I would not have found MFP and its value had I not been interested in trying to prevent my premature death and of two other family members. Best of success.
So anyone that doesn't adopt LCHF is not interested in preventing premature death? That's quite a leap there, Gale.
I think you know that is not true. It is the over eating of CARBS that is known to increase the risks of cancer. Overeating FATS do not increase the risk of cancer so if one is going to overeat at the buffet they can just make sure it is on fats is my take from Dr. Thompson's presentation. LCHF is just one WOE.
Not over eating CARBS and PROTEINS is one way to help prevent a premature death from can cancer per the doctor.
So if I overeat to the point of obesity, I am safe as long as I only overeat fat and not carbs?
Thank you. Maybe if someone else asks this, he'll answer.1 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »CorneliusPhoton wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »CorneliusPhoton wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »
Can we all agree until one finds the micro at works best for them at the current time that counting calories is secondary to one's long term health success? I know I have to get what to eat correct before I know how much of it to eat. When to eat it can fall under how to do IF in a way at works best for me.
bodybuilding.com/fun/ask-the-macro-manager-low-carb-or-fasting.html
"I recommend my clients using a VLCD rather than fasting. My interpretation of the science is that due to the consistent, repeated stimulation of protein synthesis that you get with VLCD, it is a superior approach when looking at overall improvements in body composition. However, if executed properly, both these systems should result in similar fat loss. The key when choosing a VLCD or fasting is to decide which will enable you to execute most consistently and efficiently in your lifestyle."
This Ph.D. leans towards VLCD vs. IF.
No, "we" cannot agree on finding a "micro" that works best. Macro nutrient balance is about satiety and compliance which comes secondary to calorie consumption in the hierarchy of weight loss protocol. They are important factors -- very important factors, but they come down to individual preference. Calorie deficit is needed for everyone to lose weight and is universal. How does that make it secondary?
As for VLCD, why are you going there?
I *think* that the post was about nutrition being of primary importance to long-term health, which is different from what is important (energy balance) for weight loss. For long-term health, you'd be better off being a bit overweight, eating a varied diet to ensure adequate nutrient consumption than eating your TDEE in Skittles for perfect energy balance.
But I could be making the wrong assumption about what that post was about.
Ah, thank you. So, to answer what was actually addressed, I can't agree that being overweight is better for health in any way.
My example was about being overweight (I didn't say morbidly obese) and eating a balanced, varied diet long term, compared to being a normal weight and eating nothing but Skittles long term. It was an extreme example, just to try to highlight what I thought the intention of that post was. And yes, it is my opinion that the person who eats a varied diet with a BMI that indicates "overweight" will live longer than the person who only eats Skittles. Long term.Let me see if I can find that recent study that shattered the so-called "obesity paradox" myth...
http://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i2156
If you think that my intention was that it was the "overweight" part that was healthy, you totally missed my point. "Obese and healthy" is a myth. However, the obesity paradox is not a myth to shatter. It is a viewpoint that elderly and chronically ill may sometimes benefit from having extra weight when they experience unintentional extreme weight loss as a result of their illness. Being overweight has been associated with lower mortality rates in some cases. [/b]
nytimes.com/2013/01/02/health/study-suggests-lower-death-risk-for-the-overweight.html
"But a new report suggests that Miss Scheel may have been onto something. The report on nearly three million people found that those whose B.M.I. ranked them as overweight had less risk of dying than people of normal weight. And while obese people had a greater mortality risk over all, those at the lowest obesity level (B.M.I. of 30 to 34.9) were not more likely to die than normal-weight people."
Gale, that is from 2013. A new meta analysis, controlling for confounders like smoking, has found that not to be the case.
Read the BMJ link I posted upthread.
Conclusion Overweight and obesity is associated with increased risk of all cause mortality and the nadir of the curve was observed at BMI 23-24 among never smokers, 22-23 among healthy never smokers, and 20-22 with longer durations of follow-up. The increased risk of mortality observed in underweight people could at least partly be caused by residual confounding from prediagnostic disease. Lack of exclusion of ever smokers, people with prevalent and preclinical disease, and early follow-up could bias the results towards a more U shaped association.
And I buy into this.
Physically and mentally healthy people with a full choice of foods to eat typically are not under weight or obese so I agree there often may be underlying health issues impacting death rates besides body weight.
You seem to be saying that obese people have an increased risk of mortality (within a certain number of years) because they have an underlying condition that is also causing the obesity, and not because it is a risk factor in and of itself. Also, you seem to be saying that healthy people can't become obese, that obesity must be caused by an underlying physical or mental illness* -- is that right?
Out of curiosity, what was your top BMI and what is your BMI now?
*I suspect you are defining any tendency to overeat as a mental illness which is, well, interesting.
Well, wait a moment. Obesity/weight gain is a symptom for several diseases as well as a side effect of many medications...same thing as being under weight.
The best thing I ever learned in business school was that correlation does not equal causation.GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »Why do think over eating of carbs increases one risk of developing cancer but over eating of fats does not increase the risk of developing cancer then?
Carbs cause cancer?
There was nothing in my post about carbs causing cancer so I do not understand your question.
You said overeating of carbs increases the risk of cancer. I was specifically asking about that. It's in the part I quoted. I've never heard that before and was asking to have some additional information.
@jprewitt1 this info came from Dr. Thompson of Sloan Kettering a few years ago. We do not know the causes of cancer but somehow over eating carbs increases the risks of cancer when over eating fats do not per this doctor. Protein does not get a free ride but Fats do.
youtube.com/watch?v=WUlE1VHGA40
Jump to 25:00 to the video if pressed for time for his quote. Below is a print article discussing this video.
https://dawnwaldron.com/2014/01/15/overeating-carbohydrates-dramatically-increases-cancer-risk/
I don't intend to watch this.
Here's why.
Overeating anything will cause someone to carry extra weight.
Extra weight itself is a risk factor for many types of cancer. What this particular doctor is saying makes no sense in light of that. I don't think that weight related cancers care what macro you over indulged in, Gale.
This one is personal for me, I'm at risk for one of these cancers if I don't control my weight.
I understand preventing a premature death is not of interest to some people but I would not have found MFP and its value had I not been interested in trying to prevent my premature death and of two other family members. Best of success.
So anyone that doesn't adopt LCHF is not interested in preventing premature death? That's quite a leap there, Gale.
I think you know that is not true. It is the over eating of CARBS that is known to increase the risks of cancer. Overeating FATS do not increase the risk of cancer so if one is going to overeat at the buffet they can just make sure it is on fats is my take from Dr. Thompson's presentation. LCHF is just one WOE.
Not over eating CARBS and PROTEINS is one way to help prevent a premature death from can cancer per the doctor.
1) Why are you yelling macros at me?
2) Who says that poster overeats carbs?
4 -
Fats at a buffet, let's see. Choices are very limited, I will take a scoop of that melted butter, hold the crab please.3
-
GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »CorneliusPhoton wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »CorneliusPhoton wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »
Can we all agree until one finds the micro at works best for them at the current time that counting calories is secondary to one's long term health success? I know I have to get what to eat correct before I know how much of it to eat. When to eat it can fall under how to do IF in a way at works best for me.
bodybuilding.com/fun/ask-the-macro-manager-low-carb-or-fasting.html
"I recommend my clients using a VLCD rather than fasting. My interpretation of the science is that due to the consistent, repeated stimulation of protein synthesis that you get with VLCD, it is a superior approach when looking at overall improvements in body composition. However, if executed properly, both these systems should result in similar fat loss. The key when choosing a VLCD or fasting is to decide which will enable you to execute most consistently and efficiently in your lifestyle."
This Ph.D. leans towards VLCD vs. IF.
No, "we" cannot agree on finding a "micro" that works best. Macro nutrient balance is about satiety and compliance which comes secondary to calorie consumption in the hierarchy of weight loss protocol. They are important factors -- very important factors, but they come down to individual preference. Calorie deficit is needed for everyone to lose weight and is universal. How does that make it secondary?
As for VLCD, why are you going there?
I *think* that the post was about nutrition being of primary importance to long-term health, which is different from what is important (energy balance) for weight loss. For long-term health, you'd be better off being a bit overweight, eating a varied diet to ensure adequate nutrient consumption than eating your TDEE in Skittles for perfect energy balance.
But I could be making the wrong assumption about what that post was about.
Ah, thank you. So, to answer what was actually addressed, I can't agree that being overweight is better for health in any way.
My example was about being overweight (I didn't say morbidly obese) and eating a balanced, varied diet long term, compared to being a normal weight and eating nothing but Skittles long term. It was an extreme example, just to try to highlight what I thought the intention of that post was. And yes, it is my opinion that the person who eats a varied diet with a BMI that indicates "overweight" will live longer than the person who only eats Skittles. Long term.Let me see if I can find that recent study that shattered the so-called "obesity paradox" myth...
http://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i2156
If you think that my intention was that it was the "overweight" part that was healthy, you totally missed my point. "Obese and healthy" is a myth. However, the obesity paradox is not a myth to shatter. It is a viewpoint that elderly and chronically ill may sometimes benefit from having extra weight when they experience unintentional extreme weight loss as a result of their illness. Being overweight has been associated with lower mortality rates in some cases. [/b]
nytimes.com/2013/01/02/health/study-suggests-lower-death-risk-for-the-overweight.html
"But a new report suggests that Miss Scheel may have been onto something. The report on nearly three million people found that those whose B.M.I. ranked them as overweight had less risk of dying than people of normal weight. And while obese people had a greater mortality risk over all, those at the lowest obesity level (B.M.I. of 30 to 34.9) were not more likely to die than normal-weight people."
Gale, that is from 2013. A new meta analysis, controlling for confounders like smoking, has found that not to be the case.
Read the BMJ link I posted upthread.
Conclusion Overweight and obesity is associated with increased risk of all cause mortality and the nadir of the curve was observed at BMI 23-24 among never smokers, 22-23 among healthy never smokers, and 20-22 with longer durations of follow-up. The increased risk of mortality observed in underweight people could at least partly be caused by residual confounding from prediagnostic disease. Lack of exclusion of ever smokers, people with prevalent and preclinical disease, and early follow-up could bias the results towards a more U shaped association.
And I buy into this.
Physically and mentally healthy people with a full choice of foods to eat typically are not under weight or obese so I agree there often may be underlying health issues impacting death rates besides body weight.
You seem to be saying that obese people have an increased risk of mortality (within a certain number of years) because they have an underlying condition that is also causing the obesity, and not because it is a risk factor in and of itself. Also, you seem to be saying that healthy people can't become obese, that obesity must be caused by an underlying physical or mental illness* -- is that right?
Out of curiosity, what was your top BMI and what is your BMI now?
*I suspect you are defining any tendency to overeat as a mental illness which is, well, interesting.
Well, wait a moment. Obesity/weight gain is a symptom for several diseases as well as a side effect of many medications...same thing as being under weight.
The best thing I ever learned in business school was that correlation does not equal causation.GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »Why do think over eating of carbs increases one risk of developing cancer but over eating of fats does not increase the risk of developing cancer then?
Carbs cause cancer?
There was nothing in my post about carbs causing cancer so I do not understand your question.
You said overeating of carbs increases the risk of cancer. I was specifically asking about that. It's in the part I quoted. I've never heard that before and was asking to have some additional information.
@jprewitt1 this info came from Dr. Thompson of Sloan Kettering a few years ago. We do not know the causes of cancer but somehow over eating carbs increases the risks of cancer when over eating fats do not per this doctor. Protein does not get a free ride but Fats do.
youtube.com/watch?v=WUlE1VHGA40
Jump to 25:00 to the video if pressed for time for his quote. Below is a print article discussing this video.
https://dawnwaldron.com/2014/01/15/overeating-carbohydrates-dramatically-increases-cancer-risk/
I don't intend to watch this.
Here's why.
Overeating anything will cause someone to carry extra weight.
Extra weight itself is a risk factor for many types of cancer. What this particular doctor is saying makes no sense in light of that. I don't think that weight related cancers care what macro you over indulged in, Gale.
This one is personal for me, I'm at risk for one of these cancers if I don't control my weight.
I understand preventing a premature death is not of interest to some people but I would not have found MFP and its value had I not been interested in trying to prevent my premature death and of two other family members. Best of success.
So anyone that doesn't adopt LCHF is not interested in preventing premature death? That's quite a leap there, Gale.
I think you know that is not true. It is the over eating of CARBS that is known to increase the risks of cancer. Overeating FATS do not increase the risk of cancer so if one is going to overeat at the buffet they can just make sure it is on fats is my take from Dr. Thompson's presentation. LCHF is just one WOE.
Not over eating CARBS and PROTEINS is one way to help prevent a premature death from can cancer per the doctor.
So if I overeat fats, but don't overeat on proteins or carbs, then...wait how did you overeat only on fat? The body has magic measuring device to determine the caloric surplus is in fat and not protein? Am I missing something?3 -
Why do we suddenly have a strawman about overeating at all in a thread about intermittent fasting? Let alone why are we talking about cancer?5
-
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »CorneliusPhoton wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »CorneliusPhoton wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »
Can we all agree until one finds the micro at works best for them at the current time that counting calories is secondary to one's long term health success? I know I have to get what to eat correct before I know how much of it to eat. When to eat it can fall under how to do IF in a way at works best for me.
bodybuilding.com/fun/ask-the-macro-manager-low-carb-or-fasting.html
"I recommend my clients using a VLCD rather than fasting. My interpretation of the science is that due to the consistent, repeated stimulation of protein synthesis that you get with VLCD, it is a superior approach when looking at overall improvements in body composition. However, if executed properly, both these systems should result in similar fat loss. The key when choosing a VLCD or fasting is to decide which will enable you to execute most consistently and efficiently in your lifestyle."
This Ph.D. leans towards VLCD vs. IF.
No, "we" cannot agree on finding a "micro" that works best. Macro nutrient balance is about satiety and compliance which comes secondary to calorie consumption in the hierarchy of weight loss protocol. They are important factors -- very important factors, but they come down to individual preference. Calorie deficit is needed for everyone to lose weight and is universal. How does that make it secondary?
As for VLCD, why are you going there?
I *think* that the post was about nutrition being of primary importance to long-term health, which is different from what is important (energy balance) for weight loss. For long-term health, you'd be better off being a bit overweight, eating a varied diet to ensure adequate nutrient consumption than eating your TDEE in Skittles for perfect energy balance.
But I could be making the wrong assumption about what that post was about.
Ah, thank you. So, to answer what was actually addressed, I can't agree that being overweight is better for health in any way.
My example was about being overweight (I didn't say morbidly obese) and eating a balanced, varied diet long term, compared to being a normal weight and eating nothing but Skittles long term. It was an extreme example, just to try to highlight what I thought the intention of that post was. And yes, it is my opinion that the person who eats a varied diet with a BMI that indicates "overweight" will live longer than the person who only eats Skittles. Long term.Let me see if I can find that recent study that shattered the so-called "obesity paradox" myth...
http://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i2156
If you think that my intention was that it was the "overweight" part that was healthy, you totally missed my point. "Obese and healthy" is a myth. However, the obesity paradox is not a myth to shatter. It is a viewpoint that elderly and chronically ill may sometimes benefit from having extra weight when they experience unintentional extreme weight loss as a result of their illness. Being overweight has been associated with lower mortality rates in some cases. [/b]
nytimes.com/2013/01/02/health/study-suggests-lower-death-risk-for-the-overweight.html
"But a new report suggests that Miss Scheel may have been onto something. The report on nearly three million people found that those whose B.M.I. ranked them as overweight had less risk of dying than people of normal weight. And while obese people had a greater mortality risk over all, those at the lowest obesity level (B.M.I. of 30 to 34.9) were not more likely to die than normal-weight people."
Gale, that is from 2013. A new meta analysis, controlling for confounders like smoking, has found that not to be the case.
Read the BMJ link I posted upthread.
Conclusion Overweight and obesity is associated with increased risk of all cause mortality and the nadir of the curve was observed at BMI 23-24 among never smokers, 22-23 among healthy never smokers, and 20-22 with longer durations of follow-up. The increased risk of mortality observed in underweight people could at least partly be caused by residual confounding from prediagnostic disease. Lack of exclusion of ever smokers, people with prevalent and preclinical disease, and early follow-up could bias the results towards a more U shaped association.
And I buy into this.
Physically and mentally healthy people with a full choice of foods to eat typically are not under weight or obese so I agree there often may be underlying health issues impacting death rates besides body weight.
You seem to be saying that obese people have an increased risk of mortality (within a certain number of years) because they have an underlying condition that is also causing the obesity, and not because it is a risk factor in and of itself. Also, you seem to be saying that healthy people can't become obese, that obesity must be caused by an underlying physical or mental illness* -- is that right?
Out of curiosity, what was your top BMI and what is your BMI now?
*I suspect you are defining any tendency to overeat as a mental illness which is, well, interesting.
Well, wait a moment. Obesity/weight gain is a symptom for several diseases as well as a side effect of many medications...same thing as being under weight.
The best thing I ever learned in business school was that correlation does not equal causation.GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »Why do think over eating of carbs increases one risk of developing cancer but over eating of fats does not increase the risk of developing cancer then?
Carbs cause cancer?
There was nothing in my post about carbs causing cancer so I do not understand your question.
You said overeating of carbs increases the risk of cancer. I was specifically asking about that. It's in the part I quoted. I've never heard that before and was asking to have some additional information.
@jprewitt1 this info came from Dr. Thompson of Sloan Kettering a few years ago. We do not know the causes of cancer but somehow over eating carbs increases the risks of cancer when over eating fats do not per this doctor. Protein does not get a free ride but Fats do.
youtube.com/watch?v=WUlE1VHGA40
Jump to 25:00 to the video if pressed for time for his quote. Below is a print article discussing this video.
https://dawnwaldron.com/2014/01/15/overeating-carbohydrates-dramatically-increases-cancer-risk/
I don't intend to watch this.
Here's why.
Overeating anything will cause someone to carry extra weight.
Extra weight itself is a risk factor for many types of cancer. What this particular doctor is saying makes no sense in light of that. I don't think that weight related cancers care what macro you over indulged in, Gale.
This one is personal for me, I'm at risk for one of these cancers if I don't control my weight.
I understand preventing a premature death is not of interest to some people but I would not have found MFP and its value had I not been interested in trying to prevent my premature death and of two other family members. Best of success.
So anyone that doesn't adopt LCHF is not interested in preventing premature death? That's quite a leap there, Gale.
I think you know that is not true. It is the over eating of CARBS that is known to increase the risks of cancer. Overeating FATS do not increase the risk of cancer so if one is going to overeat at the buffet they can just make sure it is on fats is my take from Dr. Thompson's presentation. LCHF is just one WOE.
Not over eating CARBS and PROTEINS is one way to help prevent a premature death from can cancer per the doctor.
So if I overeat fats, but don't overeat on proteins or carbs, then...wait how did you overeat only on fat? The body has magic measuring device to determine the caloric surplus is in fat and not protein? Am I missing something?
Your brain has a direct link to the macro split you input in mfp. *nods*5 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »CorneliusPhoton wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »CorneliusPhoton wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »
Can we all agree until one finds the micro at works best for them at the current time that counting calories is secondary to one's long term health success? I know I have to get what to eat correct before I know how much of it to eat. When to eat it can fall under how to do IF in a way at works best for me.
bodybuilding.com/fun/ask-the-macro-manager-low-carb-or-fasting.html
"I recommend my clients using a VLCD rather than fasting. My interpretation of the science is that due to the consistent, repeated stimulation of protein synthesis that you get with VLCD, it is a superior approach when looking at overall improvements in body composition. However, if executed properly, both these systems should result in similar fat loss. The key when choosing a VLCD or fasting is to decide which will enable you to execute most consistently and efficiently in your lifestyle."
This Ph.D. leans towards VLCD vs. IF.
No, "we" cannot agree on finding a "micro" that works best. Macro nutrient balance is about satiety and compliance which comes secondary to calorie consumption in the hierarchy of weight loss protocol. They are important factors -- very important factors, but they come down to individual preference. Calorie deficit is needed for everyone to lose weight and is universal. How does that make it secondary?
As for VLCD, why are you going there?
I *think* that the post was about nutrition being of primary importance to long-term health, which is different from what is important (energy balance) for weight loss. For long-term health, you'd be better off being a bit overweight, eating a varied diet to ensure adequate nutrient consumption than eating your TDEE in Skittles for perfect energy balance.
But I could be making the wrong assumption about what that post was about.
Ah, thank you. So, to answer what was actually addressed, I can't agree that being overweight is better for health in any way.
My example was about being overweight (I didn't say morbidly obese) and eating a balanced, varied diet long term, compared to being a normal weight and eating nothing but Skittles long term. It was an extreme example, just to try to highlight what I thought the intention of that post was. And yes, it is my opinion that the person who eats a varied diet with a BMI that indicates "overweight" will live longer than the person who only eats Skittles. Long term.Let me see if I can find that recent study that shattered the so-called "obesity paradox" myth...
http://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i2156
If you think that my intention was that it was the "overweight" part that was healthy, you totally missed my point. "Obese and healthy" is a myth. However, the obesity paradox is not a myth to shatter. It is a viewpoint that elderly and chronically ill may sometimes benefit from having extra weight when they experience unintentional extreme weight loss as a result of their illness. Being overweight has been associated with lower mortality rates in some cases. [/b]
nytimes.com/2013/01/02/health/study-suggests-lower-death-risk-for-the-overweight.html
"But a new report suggests that Miss Scheel may have been onto something. The report on nearly three million people found that those whose B.M.I. ranked them as overweight had less risk of dying than people of normal weight. And while obese people had a greater mortality risk over all, those at the lowest obesity level (B.M.I. of 30 to 34.9) were not more likely to die than normal-weight people."
Gale, that is from 2013. A new meta analysis, controlling for confounders like smoking, has found that not to be the case.
Read the BMJ link I posted upthread.
Conclusion Overweight and obesity is associated with increased risk of all cause mortality and the nadir of the curve was observed at BMI 23-24 among never smokers, 22-23 among healthy never smokers, and 20-22 with longer durations of follow-up. The increased risk of mortality observed in underweight people could at least partly be caused by residual confounding from prediagnostic disease. Lack of exclusion of ever smokers, people with prevalent and preclinical disease, and early follow-up could bias the results towards a more U shaped association.
And I buy into this.
Physically and mentally healthy people with a full choice of foods to eat typically are not under weight or obese so I agree there often may be underlying health issues impacting death rates besides body weight.
You seem to be saying that obese people have an increased risk of mortality (within a certain number of years) because they have an underlying condition that is also causing the obesity, and not because it is a risk factor in and of itself. Also, you seem to be saying that healthy people can't become obese, that obesity must be caused by an underlying physical or mental illness* -- is that right?
Out of curiosity, what was your top BMI and what is your BMI now?
*I suspect you are defining any tendency to overeat as a mental illness which is, well, interesting.
Well, wait a moment. Obesity/weight gain is a symptom for several diseases as well as a side effect of many medications...same thing as being under weight.
The best thing I ever learned in business school was that correlation does not equal causation.GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »Why do think over eating of carbs increases one risk of developing cancer but over eating of fats does not increase the risk of developing cancer then?
Carbs cause cancer?
There was nothing in my post about carbs causing cancer so I do not understand your question.
You said overeating of carbs increases the risk of cancer. I was specifically asking about that. It's in the part I quoted. I've never heard that before and was asking to have some additional information.
@jprewitt1 this info came from Dr. Thompson of Sloan Kettering a few years ago. We do not know the causes of cancer but somehow over eating carbs increases the risks of cancer when over eating fats do not per this doctor. Protein does not get a free ride but Fats do.
youtube.com/watch?v=WUlE1VHGA40
Jump to 25:00 to the video if pressed for time for his quote. Below is a print article discussing this video.
https://dawnwaldron.com/2014/01/15/overeating-carbohydrates-dramatically-increases-cancer-risk/
I don't intend to watch this.
Here's why.
Overeating anything will cause someone to carry extra weight.
Extra weight itself is a risk factor for many types of cancer. What this particular doctor is saying makes no sense in light of that. I don't think that weight related cancers care what macro you over indulged in, Gale.
This one is personal for me, I'm at risk for one of these cancers if I don't control my weight.
I understand preventing a premature death is not of interest to some people but I would not have found MFP and its value had I not been interested in trying to prevent my premature death and of two other family members. Best of success.
So anyone that doesn't adopt LCHF is not interested in preventing premature death? That's quite a leap there, Gale.
I think you know that is not true. It is the over eating of CARBS that is known to increase the risks of cancer. Overeating FATS do not increase the risk of cancer so if one is going to overeat at the buffet they can just make sure it is on fats is my take from Dr. Thompson's presentation. LCHF is just one WOE.
Not over eating CARBS and PROTEINS is one way to help prevent a premature death from can cancer per the doctor.
So if I overeat fats, but don't overeat on proteins or carbs, then...wait how did you overeat only on fat? The body has magic measuring device to determine the caloric surplus is in fat and not protein? Am I missing something?
Not only that, but heart disease, diabetes, and cancer know that the weight you put on will be from fat, so they'll all nope out on bothering with you.3 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Why do we suddenly have a strawman about overeating at all in a thread about intermittent fasting? Let alone why are we talking about cancer?
You must be new here.
3 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »CorneliusPhoton wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »CorneliusPhoton wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »
Can we all agree until one finds the micro at works best for them at the current time that counting calories is secondary to one's long term health success? I know I have to get what to eat correct before I know how much of it to eat. When to eat it can fall under how to do IF in a way at works best for me.
bodybuilding.com/fun/ask-the-macro-manager-low-carb-or-fasting.html
"I recommend my clients using a VLCD rather than fasting. My interpretation of the science is that due to the consistent, repeated stimulation of protein synthesis that you get with VLCD, it is a superior approach when looking at overall improvements in body composition. However, if executed properly, both these systems should result in similar fat loss. The key when choosing a VLCD or fasting is to decide which will enable you to execute most consistently and efficiently in your lifestyle."
This Ph.D. leans towards VLCD vs. IF.
No, "we" cannot agree on finding a "micro" that works best. Macro nutrient balance is about satiety and compliance which comes secondary to calorie consumption in the hierarchy of weight loss protocol. They are important factors -- very important factors, but they come down to individual preference. Calorie deficit is needed for everyone to lose weight and is universal. How does that make it secondary?
As for VLCD, why are you going there?
I *think* that the post was about nutrition being of primary importance to long-term health, which is different from what is important (energy balance) for weight loss. For long-term health, you'd be better off being a bit overweight, eating a varied diet to ensure adequate nutrient consumption than eating your TDEE in Skittles for perfect energy balance.
But I could be making the wrong assumption about what that post was about.
Ah, thank you. So, to answer what was actually addressed, I can't agree that being overweight is better for health in any way.
My example was about being overweight (I didn't say morbidly obese) and eating a balanced, varied diet long term, compared to being a normal weight and eating nothing but Skittles long term. It was an extreme example, just to try to highlight what I thought the intention of that post was. And yes, it is my opinion that the person who eats a varied diet with a BMI that indicates "overweight" will live longer than the person who only eats Skittles. Long term.Let me see if I can find that recent study that shattered the so-called "obesity paradox" myth...
http://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i2156
If you think that my intention was that it was the "overweight" part that was healthy, you totally missed my point. "Obese and healthy" is a myth. However, the obesity paradox is not a myth to shatter. It is a viewpoint that elderly and chronically ill may sometimes benefit from having extra weight when they experience unintentional extreme weight loss as a result of their illness. Being overweight has been associated with lower mortality rates in some cases. [/b]
nytimes.com/2013/01/02/health/study-suggests-lower-death-risk-for-the-overweight.html
"But a new report suggests that Miss Scheel may have been onto something. The report on nearly three million people found that those whose B.M.I. ranked them as overweight had less risk of dying than people of normal weight. And while obese people had a greater mortality risk over all, those at the lowest obesity level (B.M.I. of 30 to 34.9) were not more likely to die than normal-weight people."
Gale, that is from 2013. A new meta analysis, controlling for confounders like smoking, has found that not to be the case.
Read the BMJ link I posted upthread.
Conclusion Overweight and obesity is associated with increased risk of all cause mortality and the nadir of the curve was observed at BMI 23-24 among never smokers, 22-23 among healthy never smokers, and 20-22 with longer durations of follow-up. The increased risk of mortality observed in underweight people could at least partly be caused by residual confounding from prediagnostic disease. Lack of exclusion of ever smokers, people with prevalent and preclinical disease, and early follow-up could bias the results towards a more U shaped association.
And I buy into this.
Physically and mentally healthy people with a full choice of foods to eat typically are not under weight or obese so I agree there often may be underlying health issues impacting death rates besides body weight.
You seem to be saying that obese people have an increased risk of mortality (within a certain number of years) because they have an underlying condition that is also causing the obesity, and not because it is a risk factor in and of itself. Also, you seem to be saying that healthy people can't become obese, that obesity must be caused by an underlying physical or mental illness* -- is that right?
Out of curiosity, what was your top BMI and what is your BMI now?
*I suspect you are defining any tendency to overeat as a mental illness which is, well, interesting.
Well, wait a moment. Obesity/weight gain is a symptom for several diseases as well as a side effect of many medications...same thing as being under weight.
The best thing I ever learned in business school was that correlation does not equal causation.GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »Why do think over eating of carbs increases one risk of developing cancer but over eating of fats does not increase the risk of developing cancer then?
Carbs cause cancer?
There was nothing in my post about carbs causing cancer so I do not understand your question.
You said overeating of carbs increases the risk of cancer. I was specifically asking about that. It's in the part I quoted. I've never heard that before and was asking to have some additional information.
@jprewitt1 this info came from Dr. Thompson of Sloan Kettering a few years ago. We do not know the causes of cancer but somehow over eating carbs increases the risks of cancer when over eating fats do not per this doctor. Protein does not get a free ride but Fats do.
youtube.com/watch?v=WUlE1VHGA40
Jump to 25:00 to the video if pressed for time for his quote. Below is a print article discussing this video.
https://dawnwaldron.com/2014/01/15/overeating-carbohydrates-dramatically-increases-cancer-risk/
I don't intend to watch this.
Here's why.
Overeating anything will cause someone to carry extra weight.
Extra weight itself is a risk factor for many types of cancer. What this particular doctor is saying makes no sense in light of that. I don't think that weight related cancers care what macro you over indulged in, Gale.
This one is personal for me, I'm at risk for one of these cancers if I don't control my weight.
I understand preventing a premature death is not of interest to some people but I would not have found MFP and its value had I not been interested in trying to prevent my premature death and of two other family members. Best of success.
So anyone that doesn't adopt LCHF is not interested in preventing premature death? That's quite a leap there, Gale.
I think you know that is not true. It is the over eating of CARBS that is known to increase the risks of cancer. Overeating FATS do not increase the risk of cancer so if one is going to overeat at the buffet they can just make sure it is on fats is my take from Dr. Thompson's presentation. LCHF is just one WOE.
Not over eating CARBS and PROTEINS is one way to help prevent a premature death from can cancer per the doctor.
So if I overeat to the point of obesity, I am safe as long as I only overeat fat and not carbs?
The doctor did not address that I remember. After over eating carbs 40 years and not being able to over eat fat as long as I keep my carbs <50 grams a day with none from sugar or grains I have not been able to regain my obese state after trying for three months. I would appreciate if you would give it a go and see if you can and report back.
I am not saying it is not possible just because I could not become obese overeating fats and very low carbs at the same time. Now over eating carbs and fats at the same time becoming obese would be a cake walk in my case.0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »CorneliusPhoton wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »CorneliusPhoton wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »
Can we all agree until one finds the micro at works best for them at the current time that counting calories is secondary to one's long term health success? I know I have to get what to eat correct before I know how much of it to eat. When to eat it can fall under how to do IF in a way at works best for me.
bodybuilding.com/fun/ask-the-macro-manager-low-carb-or-fasting.html
"I recommend my clients using a VLCD rather than fasting. My interpretation of the science is that due to the consistent, repeated stimulation of protein synthesis that you get with VLCD, it is a superior approach when looking at overall improvements in body composition. However, if executed properly, both these systems should result in similar fat loss. The key when choosing a VLCD or fasting is to decide which will enable you to execute most consistently and efficiently in your lifestyle."
This Ph.D. leans towards VLCD vs. IF.
No, "we" cannot agree on finding a "micro" that works best. Macro nutrient balance is about satiety and compliance which comes secondary to calorie consumption in the hierarchy of weight loss protocol. They are important factors -- very important factors, but they come down to individual preference. Calorie deficit is needed for everyone to lose weight and is universal. How does that make it secondary?
As for VLCD, why are you going there?
I *think* that the post was about nutrition being of primary importance to long-term health, which is different from what is important (energy balance) for weight loss. For long-term health, you'd be better off being a bit overweight, eating a varied diet to ensure adequate nutrient consumption than eating your TDEE in Skittles for perfect energy balance.
But I could be making the wrong assumption about what that post was about.
Ah, thank you. So, to answer what was actually addressed, I can't agree that being overweight is better for health in any way.
My example was about being overweight (I didn't say morbidly obese) and eating a balanced, varied diet long term, compared to being a normal weight and eating nothing but Skittles long term. It was an extreme example, just to try to highlight what I thought the intention of that post was. And yes, it is my opinion that the person who eats a varied diet with a BMI that indicates "overweight" will live longer than the person who only eats Skittles. Long term.Let me see if I can find that recent study that shattered the so-called "obesity paradox" myth...
http://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i2156
If you think that my intention was that it was the "overweight" part that was healthy, you totally missed my point. "Obese and healthy" is a myth. However, the obesity paradox is not a myth to shatter. It is a viewpoint that elderly and chronically ill may sometimes benefit from having extra weight when they experience unintentional extreme weight loss as a result of their illness. Being overweight has been associated with lower mortality rates in some cases. [/b]
nytimes.com/2013/01/02/health/study-suggests-lower-death-risk-for-the-overweight.html
"But a new report suggests that Miss Scheel may have been onto something. The report on nearly three million people found that those whose B.M.I. ranked them as overweight had less risk of dying than people of normal weight. And while obese people had a greater mortality risk over all, those at the lowest obesity level (B.M.I. of 30 to 34.9) were not more likely to die than normal-weight people."
Gale, that is from 2013. A new meta analysis, controlling for confounders like smoking, has found that not to be the case.
Read the BMJ link I posted upthread.
Conclusion Overweight and obesity is associated with increased risk of all cause mortality and the nadir of the curve was observed at BMI 23-24 among never smokers, 22-23 among healthy never smokers, and 20-22 with longer durations of follow-up. The increased risk of mortality observed in underweight people could at least partly be caused by residual confounding from prediagnostic disease. Lack of exclusion of ever smokers, people with prevalent and preclinical disease, and early follow-up could bias the results towards a more U shaped association.
And I buy into this.
Physically and mentally healthy people with a full choice of foods to eat typically are not under weight or obese so I agree there often may be underlying health issues impacting death rates besides body weight.
You seem to be saying that obese people have an increased risk of mortality (within a certain number of years) because they have an underlying condition that is also causing the obesity, and not because it is a risk factor in and of itself. Also, you seem to be saying that healthy people can't become obese, that obesity must be caused by an underlying physical or mental illness* -- is that right?
Out of curiosity, what was your top BMI and what is your BMI now?
*I suspect you are defining any tendency to overeat as a mental illness which is, well, interesting.
Well, wait a moment. Obesity/weight gain is a symptom for several diseases as well as a side effect of many medications...same thing as being under weight.
The best thing I ever learned in business school was that correlation does not equal causation.GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »Why do think over eating of carbs increases one risk of developing cancer but over eating of fats does not increase the risk of developing cancer then?
Carbs cause cancer?
There was nothing in my post about carbs causing cancer so I do not understand your question.
You said overeating of carbs increases the risk of cancer. I was specifically asking about that. It's in the part I quoted. I've never heard that before and was asking to have some additional information.
@jprewitt1 this info came from Dr. Thompson of Sloan Kettering a few years ago. We do not know the causes of cancer but somehow over eating carbs increases the risks of cancer when over eating fats do not per this doctor. Protein does not get a free ride but Fats do.
youtube.com/watch?v=WUlE1VHGA40
Jump to 25:00 to the video if pressed for time for his quote. Below is a print article discussing this video.
https://dawnwaldron.com/2014/01/15/overeating-carbohydrates-dramatically-increases-cancer-risk/
I don't intend to watch this.
Here's why.
Overeating anything will cause someone to carry extra weight.
Extra weight itself is a risk factor for many types of cancer. What this particular doctor is saying makes no sense in light of that. I don't think that weight related cancers care what macro you over indulged in, Gale.
This one is personal for me, I'm at risk for one of these cancers if I don't control my weight.
I understand preventing a premature death is not of interest to some people but I would not have found MFP and its value had I not been interested in trying to prevent my premature death and of two other family members. Best of success.
So anyone that doesn't adopt LCHF is not interested in preventing premature death? That's quite a leap there, Gale.
I think you know that is not true. It is the over eating of CARBS that is known to increase the risks of cancer. Overeating FATS do not increase the risk of cancer so if one is going to overeat at the buffet they can just make sure it is on fats is my take from Dr. Thompson's presentation. LCHF is just one WOE.
Not over eating CARBS and PROTEINS is one way to help prevent a premature death from can cancer per the doctor.
So if I overeat to the point of obesity, I am safe as long as I only overeat fat and not carbs?
The doctor did not address that I remember. After over eating carbs 40 years and not being able to over eat fat as long as I keep my carbs <50 grams a day with none from sugar or grains I have not been able to regain my obese state after trying for three months. I would appreciate if you would give it a go and see if you can and report back.
I am not saying it is not possible just because I could not become obese overeating fats and very low carbs at the same time. Now over eating carbs and fats at the same time becoming obese would be a cake walk in my case.
So when you say over eat, you do not mean over eat to the point of overweight then. So it's being overweight that puts you at risk, not carbs, fats or proteins. You just happen to have found your solution of losing weight and improving health markers...1 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Why do we suddenly have a strawman about overeating at all in a thread about intermittent fasting? Let alone why are we talking about cancer?
IF is one method to prevent over eating of carbs and protein. Not overeating them per the doctor in the video means no increase in cancer risks. Based on that a side effect of effectively doing IF could be reduced risk type 2 diabetes, heart disease and cancer.0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »CorneliusPhoton wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »CorneliusPhoton wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »
Can we all agree until one finds the micro at works best for them at the current time that counting calories is secondary to one's long term health success? I know I have to get what to eat correct before I know how much of it to eat. When to eat it can fall under how to do IF in a way at works best for me.
bodybuilding.com/fun/ask-the-macro-manager-low-carb-or-fasting.html
"I recommend my clients using a VLCD rather than fasting. My interpretation of the science is that due to the consistent, repeated stimulation of protein synthesis that you get with VLCD, it is a superior approach when looking at overall improvements in body composition. However, if executed properly, both these systems should result in similar fat loss. The key when choosing a VLCD or fasting is to decide which will enable you to execute most consistently and efficiently in your lifestyle."
This Ph.D. leans towards VLCD vs. IF.
No, "we" cannot agree on finding a "micro" that works best. Macro nutrient balance is about satiety and compliance which comes secondary to calorie consumption in the hierarchy of weight loss protocol. They are important factors -- very important factors, but they come down to individual preference. Calorie deficit is needed for everyone to lose weight and is universal. How does that make it secondary?
As for VLCD, why are you going there?
I *think* that the post was about nutrition being of primary importance to long-term health, which is different from what is important (energy balance) for weight loss. For long-term health, you'd be better off being a bit overweight, eating a varied diet to ensure adequate nutrient consumption than eating your TDEE in Skittles for perfect energy balance.
But I could be making the wrong assumption about what that post was about.
Ah, thank you. So, to answer what was actually addressed, I can't agree that being overweight is better for health in any way.
My example was about being overweight (I didn't say morbidly obese) and eating a balanced, varied diet long term, compared to being a normal weight and eating nothing but Skittles long term. It was an extreme example, just to try to highlight what I thought the intention of that post was. And yes, it is my opinion that the person who eats a varied diet with a BMI that indicates "overweight" will live longer than the person who only eats Skittles. Long term.Let me see if I can find that recent study that shattered the so-called "obesity paradox" myth...
http://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i2156
If you think that my intention was that it was the "overweight" part that was healthy, you totally missed my point. "Obese and healthy" is a myth. However, the obesity paradox is not a myth to shatter. It is a viewpoint that elderly and chronically ill may sometimes benefit from having extra weight when they experience unintentional extreme weight loss as a result of their illness. Being overweight has been associated with lower mortality rates in some cases. [/b]
nytimes.com/2013/01/02/health/study-suggests-lower-death-risk-for-the-overweight.html
"But a new report suggests that Miss Scheel may have been onto something. The report on nearly three million people found that those whose B.M.I. ranked them as overweight had less risk of dying than people of normal weight. And while obese people had a greater mortality risk over all, those at the lowest obesity level (B.M.I. of 30 to 34.9) were not more likely to die than normal-weight people."
Gale, that is from 2013. A new meta analysis, controlling for confounders like smoking, has found that not to be the case.
Read the BMJ link I posted upthread.
Conclusion Overweight and obesity is associated with increased risk of all cause mortality and the nadir of the curve was observed at BMI 23-24 among never smokers, 22-23 among healthy never smokers, and 20-22 with longer durations of follow-up. The increased risk of mortality observed in underweight people could at least partly be caused by residual confounding from prediagnostic disease. Lack of exclusion of ever smokers, people with prevalent and preclinical disease, and early follow-up could bias the results towards a more U shaped association.
And I buy into this.
Physically and mentally healthy people with a full choice of foods to eat typically are not under weight or obese so I agree there often may be underlying health issues impacting death rates besides body weight.
You seem to be saying that obese people have an increased risk of mortality (within a certain number of years) because they have an underlying condition that is also causing the obesity, and not because it is a risk factor in and of itself. Also, you seem to be saying that healthy people can't become obese, that obesity must be caused by an underlying physical or mental illness* -- is that right?
Out of curiosity, what was your top BMI and what is your BMI now?
*I suspect you are defining any tendency to overeat as a mental illness which is, well, interesting.
Well, wait a moment. Obesity/weight gain is a symptom for several diseases as well as a side effect of many medications...same thing as being under weight.
The best thing I ever learned in business school was that correlation does not equal causation.GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »Why do think over eating of carbs increases one risk of developing cancer but over eating of fats does not increase the risk of developing cancer then?
Carbs cause cancer?
There was nothing in my post about carbs causing cancer so I do not understand your question.
You said overeating of carbs increases the risk of cancer. I was specifically asking about that. It's in the part I quoted. I've never heard that before and was asking to have some additional information.
@jprewitt1 this info came from Dr. Thompson of Sloan Kettering a few years ago. We do not know the causes of cancer but somehow over eating carbs increases the risks of cancer when over eating fats do not per this doctor. Protein does not get a free ride but Fats do.
youtube.com/watch?v=WUlE1VHGA40
Jump to 25:00 to the video if pressed for time for his quote. Below is a print article discussing this video.
https://dawnwaldron.com/2014/01/15/overeating-carbohydrates-dramatically-increases-cancer-risk/
I don't intend to watch this.
Here's why.
Overeating anything will cause someone to carry extra weight.
Extra weight itself is a risk factor for many types of cancer. What this particular doctor is saying makes no sense in light of that. I don't think that weight related cancers care what macro you over indulged in, Gale.
This one is personal for me, I'm at risk for one of these cancers if I don't control my weight.
I understand preventing a premature death is not of interest to some people but I would not have found MFP and its value had I not been interested in trying to prevent my premature death and of two other family members. Best of success.
So anyone that doesn't adopt LCHF is not interested in preventing premature death? That's quite a leap there, Gale.
I think you know that is not true. It is the over eating of CARBS that is known to increase the risks of cancer. Overeating FATS do not increase the risk of cancer so if one is going to overeat at the buffet they can just make sure it is on fats is my take from Dr. Thompson's presentation. LCHF is just one WOE.
Not over eating CARBS and PROTEINS is one way to help prevent a premature death from can cancer per the doctor.
So if I overeat to the point of obesity, I am safe as long as I only overeat fat and not carbs?
The doctor did not address that I remember. After over eating carbs 40 years and not being able to over eat fat as long as I keep my carbs <50 grams a day with none from sugar or grains I have not been able to regain my obese state after trying for three months. I would appreciate if you would give it a go and see if you can and report back.
I am not saying it is not possible just because I could not become obese overeating fats and very low carbs at the same time. Now over eating carbs and fats at the same time becoming obese would be a cake walk in my case.
So when you say over eat, you do not mean over eat to the point of overweight then. So it's being overweight that puts you at risk, not carbs, fats or proteins. You just happen to have found your solution of losing weight and improving health markers...
He states it is over eating of carbs and protein to a lesser extent that increases the risks of cancer in humans as I understood it. Over eating of fats carries not increase in cancer is what I heard him say.0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Why do we suddenly have a strawman about overeating at all in a thread about intermittent fasting? Let alone why are we talking about cancer?
IF is one method to prevent over eating of carbs and protein. Not overeating them per the doctor in the video means no increase in cancer risks. Based on that a side effect of effectively doing IF could be reduced risk type 2 diabetes, heart disease and cancer.
Correction, IF is one method to prevent overeating...4 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Why do we suddenly have a strawman about overeating at all in a thread about intermittent fasting? Let alone why are we talking about cancer?
IF is one method to prevent over eating of carbs and protein. Not overeating them per the doctor in the video means no increase in cancer risks. Based on that a side effect of effectively doing IF could be reduced risk type 2 diabetes, heart disease and cancer.
So, let's assume that someone's TDEE is 3000 calories. If they eat 500 calories in carbs and protein and eat 3000 calories in fat, they will gain because of the carbs and protein. Is this what you are essentially saying?
0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Why do we suddenly have a strawman about overeating at all in a thread about intermittent fasting? Let alone why are we talking about cancer?
IF is one method to prevent over eating of carbs and protein. Not overeating them per the doctor in the video means no increase in cancer risks. Based on that a side effect of effectively doing IF could be reduced risk type 2 diabetes, heart disease and cancer.
So, being at a healthy weight decreases the risks of type 2 diabetes, heart disease, and cancer. And IF is one way that people can use to stay in a deficit to lose weight.
Uh. Yeah. We all got that.3 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »CorneliusPhoton wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »CorneliusPhoton wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »
Can we all agree until one finds the micro at works best for them at the current time that counting calories is secondary to one's long term health success? I know I have to get what to eat correct before I know how much of it to eat. When to eat it can fall under how to do IF in a way at works best for me.
bodybuilding.com/fun/ask-the-macro-manager-low-carb-or-fasting.html
"I recommend my clients using a VLCD rather than fasting. My interpretation of the science is that due to the consistent, repeated stimulation of protein synthesis that you get with VLCD, it is a superior approach when looking at overall improvements in body composition. However, if executed properly, both these systems should result in similar fat loss. The key when choosing a VLCD or fasting is to decide which will enable you to execute most consistently and efficiently in your lifestyle."
This Ph.D. leans towards VLCD vs. IF.
No, "we" cannot agree on finding a "micro" that works best. Macro nutrient balance is about satiety and compliance which comes secondary to calorie consumption in the hierarchy of weight loss protocol. They are important factors -- very important factors, but they come down to individual preference. Calorie deficit is needed for everyone to lose weight and is universal. How does that make it secondary?
As for VLCD, why are you going there?
I *think* that the post was about nutrition being of primary importance to long-term health, which is different from what is important (energy balance) for weight loss. For long-term health, you'd be better off being a bit overweight, eating a varied diet to ensure adequate nutrient consumption than eating your TDEE in Skittles for perfect energy balance.
But I could be making the wrong assumption about what that post was about.
Ah, thank you. So, to answer what was actually addressed, I can't agree that being overweight is better for health in any way.
My example was about being overweight (I didn't say morbidly obese) and eating a balanced, varied diet long term, compared to being a normal weight and eating nothing but Skittles long term. It was an extreme example, just to try to highlight what I thought the intention of that post was. And yes, it is my opinion that the person who eats a varied diet with a BMI that indicates "overweight" will live longer than the person who only eats Skittles. Long term.Let me see if I can find that recent study that shattered the so-called "obesity paradox" myth...
http://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i2156
If you think that my intention was that it was the "overweight" part that was healthy, you totally missed my point. "Obese and healthy" is a myth. However, the obesity paradox is not a myth to shatter. It is a viewpoint that elderly and chronically ill may sometimes benefit from having extra weight when they experience unintentional extreme weight loss as a result of their illness. Being overweight has been associated with lower mortality rates in some cases. [/b]
nytimes.com/2013/01/02/health/study-suggests-lower-death-risk-for-the-overweight.html
"But a new report suggests that Miss Scheel may have been onto something. The report on nearly three million people found that those whose B.M.I. ranked them as overweight had less risk of dying than people of normal weight. And while obese people had a greater mortality risk over all, those at the lowest obesity level (B.M.I. of 30 to 34.9) were not more likely to die than normal-weight people."
Gale, that is from 2013. A new meta analysis, controlling for confounders like smoking, has found that not to be the case.
Read the BMJ link I posted upthread.
Conclusion Overweight and obesity is associated with increased risk of all cause mortality and the nadir of the curve was observed at BMI 23-24 among never smokers, 22-23 among healthy never smokers, and 20-22 with longer durations of follow-up. The increased risk of mortality observed in underweight people could at least partly be caused by residual confounding from prediagnostic disease. Lack of exclusion of ever smokers, people with prevalent and preclinical disease, and early follow-up could bias the results towards a more U shaped association.
And I buy into this.
Physically and mentally healthy people with a full choice of foods to eat typically are not under weight or obese so I agree there often may be underlying health issues impacting death rates besides body weight.
You seem to be saying that obese people have an increased risk of mortality (within a certain number of years) because they have an underlying condition that is also causing the obesity, and not because it is a risk factor in and of itself. Also, you seem to be saying that healthy people can't become obese, that obesity must be caused by an underlying physical or mental illness* -- is that right?
Out of curiosity, what was your top BMI and what is your BMI now?
*I suspect you are defining any tendency to overeat as a mental illness which is, well, interesting.
Well, wait a moment. Obesity/weight gain is a symptom for several diseases as well as a side effect of many medications...same thing as being under weight.
The best thing I ever learned in business school was that correlation does not equal causation.GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »Why do think over eating of carbs increases one risk of developing cancer but over eating of fats does not increase the risk of developing cancer then?
Carbs cause cancer?
There was nothing in my post about carbs causing cancer so I do not understand your question.
You said overeating of carbs increases the risk of cancer. I was specifically asking about that. It's in the part I quoted. I've never heard that before and was asking to have some additional information.
@jprewitt1 this info came from Dr. Thompson of Sloan Kettering a few years ago. We do not know the causes of cancer but somehow over eating carbs increases the risks of cancer when over eating fats do not per this doctor. Protein does not get a free ride but Fats do.
youtube.com/watch?v=WUlE1VHGA40
Jump to 25:00 to the video if pressed for time for his quote. Below is a print article discussing this video.
https://dawnwaldron.com/2014/01/15/overeating-carbohydrates-dramatically-increases-cancer-risk/
I don't intend to watch this.
Here's why.
Overeating anything will cause someone to carry extra weight.
Extra weight itself is a risk factor for many types of cancer. What this particular doctor is saying makes no sense in light of that. I don't think that weight related cancers care what macro you over indulged in, Gale.
This one is personal for me, I'm at risk for one of these cancers if I don't control my weight.
I understand preventing a premature death is not of interest to some people but I would not have found MFP and its value had I not been interested in trying to prevent my premature death and of two other family members. Best of success.
So anyone that doesn't adopt LCHF is not interested in preventing premature death? That's quite a leap there, Gale.
I think you know that is not true. It is the over eating of CARBS that is known to increase the risks of cancer. Overeating FATS do not increase the risk of cancer so if one is going to overeat at the buffet they can just make sure it is on fats is my take from Dr. Thompson's presentation. LCHF is just one WOE.
Not over eating CARBS and PROTEINS is one way to help prevent a premature death from can cancer per the doctor.
So if I overeat to the point of obesity, I am safe as long as I only overeat fat and not carbs?
The doctor did not address that I remember. After over eating carbs 40 years and not being able to over eat fat as long as I keep my carbs <50 grams a day with none from sugar or grains I have not been able to regain my obese state after trying for three months. I would appreciate if you would give it a go and see if you can and report back.
I am not saying it is not possible just because I could not become obese overeating fats and very low carbs at the same time. Now over eating carbs and fats at the same time becoming obese would be a cake walk in my case.
So when you say over eat, you do not mean over eat to the point of overweight then. So it's being overweight that puts you at risk, not carbs, fats or proteins. You just happen to have found your solution of losing weight and improving health markers...
He states it is over eating of carbs and protein to a lesser extent that increases the risks of cancer in humans as I understood it. Over eating of fats carries not increase in cancer is what I heard him say.
But if one is not gaining weight/fat they are not overeating...1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 423 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions