Please explain low carbs and it's magical proprieties
Replies
-
I'm sad about the case too, don't want to see GMO continuing to pick up the pace. But, Seralini really screwed it up. Had rats feeding on tested substrates ad libidum, not well tracked, and test subjects euthanized to comply with ethics regulations, which screwed up the mortality data. I'm disappointed about this, a lot of time was spent, and a poorly designed pilot fell apart.
Don't forget the small sample sizes, poor choice of animal model and poor use of statistics! :frown: I guess I just worry that a trend will develop of sweeping all anti-GMO publications under the rug...lots of people have lots of reasons to make that happen. I still think the implications are serious enough that studies need to be done ASAP in case there was something to Seralini's claim...that would mean at least two more years of widely distributing a carcinogen until another chronic feeding study is completed (not to mention the even more meticulous analysis & peer review it'll have to go through).IMO the reasons Seralini is being retracted are anything but minor, and his published results border on the deceitful.
But that's a discussion for another thread.
I would love to hear your thoughts on it! I might take a peek at the thread on here and see what people are thinking. It's very possible that there are aspects I missed - like I said, I have mixed feelings about the whole ordeal and my perspective has changed a couple times as I've read more about it.
Thank you! :flowerforyou: Maybe someday I'll make it in the 19 and above category..(I am nominating Sarahnade42x for "MFP's most reasonable, intelligent, and well-spoken member" in the 19 and under category. My hope for humanity's future has been slightly restored tonight.
Anyhow, sorry for the interruption. Carry on.)
0 -
(I am nominating Sarahnade42x for "MFP's most reasonable, intelligent, and well-spoken member" in the 19 and under category. My hope for humanity's future has been slightly restored tonight.
Anyhow, sorry for the interruption. Carry on.)
I second this nomination.0 -
The main reason it woks is because protein keeps you feeling full longer. And sugar and sugar in some carbs cause cravings. The high protein part is the thing that can be hard on the kidneys.
eat carbs = raised blood sugar = insulin release = body fat production = low blood sugar = cravings = eat carbs = raised blood sugar = insulin release = body fat production = low blood sugar = cravings = eat carbs...
That is the idea. I will never say it is for everyone. But there are that it works for.0 -
I need it explained in simple terms from those who swear by it. I feel like a moron but I really do not understand how you can lose faster than just a calories deficit
Me too!
Weight loss comes from a calorie deficit. Your body doesn't think "Right, I need some energy - I'll have a bit of carbs, a bit of protein and ill top it off with a spoonful of fat". Doesn't work like that. Energy is energy.
We'll have to agree to disagree. Lots of emerging research to the contrary, but I'm here to talk about exercise, beer, and internet cats, not write dissertations.0 -
I'm sad about the case too, don't want to see GMO continuing to pick up the pace. But, Seralini really screwed it up. Had rats feeding on tested substrates ad libidum, not well tracked, and test subjects euthanized to comply with ethics regulations, which screwed up the mortality data. I'm disappointed about this, a lot of time was spent, and a poorly designed pilot fell apart.
Don't forget the small sample sizes, poor choice of animal model and poor use of statistics! :frown: I guess I just worry that a trend will develop of sweeping all anti-GMO publications under the rug...lots of people have lots of reasons to make that happen. I still think the implications are serious enough that studies need to be done ASAP in case there was something to Seralini's claim...that would mean at least two more years of widely distributing a carcinogen until another chronic feeding study is completed (not to mention the even more meticulous analysis & peer review it'll have to go through).IMO the reasons Seralini is being retracted are anything but minor, and his published results border on the deceitful.
But that's a discussion for another thread.
I would love to hear your thoughts on it! I might take a peek at the thread on here and see what people are thinking. It's very possible that there are aspects I missed - like I said, I have mixed feelings about the whole ordeal and my perspective has changed a couple times as I've read more about it.
Thank you! :flowerforyou: Maybe someday I'll make it in the 19 and above category..(I am nominating Sarahnade42x for "MFP's most reasonable, intelligent, and well-spoken member" in the 19 and under category. My hope for humanity's future has been slightly restored tonight.
Anyhow, sorry for the interruption. Carry on.)
My opinion is you are already there !0 -
The magic low carb fairy burns your fat away in her cauldron:
0 -
For the same calories, you should have the same weight effects.
For me, though, when I eat carbs, I tend to crave more carbs, and then I crave even more carbs after that, and I end up eating a lot more. So for me, the point is not that it's low carb, but that it's high protein and fat. With protein and fat, I stay full, I don't get cravings, and I stay on my caloric target better.
^^he stole my speech :sad: seriously it's the same for me. I tried everything and once I figured out I was addicted to carbs (sweets, breads, the bad stuff) I dropped weight fast. I'm full. I don't eat all day. I don't crave bad stuff. I feel in control over my eating. It's how I've been able to lose 72 lbs and continue to lose after almost 3 yrs.0 -
The main reason it woks is because protein keeps you feeling full longer. And sugar and sugar in some carbs cause cravings. The high protein part is the thing that can be hard on the kidneys.
eat carbs = raised blood sugar = insulin release = body fat production = low blood sugar = cravings = eat carbs = raised blood sugar = insulin release = body fat production = low blood sugar = cravings = eat carbs...
That is the idea. I will never say it is for everyone. But there are that it works for.
There are a couple of holes in your simplified theory. First, how would body fat be stored(not produced) over a 24 hour period for a person in calorie deficit. Second, you seem to be implicating insulin in the body fat storage. If so, and on a low carb diet, you eat lot's of protein, how do you account for the fact that protein is also highly insulinogenic? I get the whole high and crash of a largely carb diet on the blood sugar side but insulin release does not = fat storage without an energy (calorie) surplus over time. In the short term, our bodies are storing and burning fat all day as needed.0 -
I'm sad about the case too, don't want to see GMO continuing to pick up the pace. But, Seralini really screwed it up. Had rats feeding on tested substrates ad libidum, not well tracked, and test subjects euthanized to comply with ethics regulations, which screwed up the mortality data. I'm disappointed about this, a lot of time was spent, and a poorly designed pilot fell apart.
Don't forget the small sample sizes, poor choice of animal model and poor use of statistics! :frown: I guess I just worry that a trend will develop of sweeping all anti-GMO publications under the rug...lots of people have lots of reasons to make that happen. I still think the implications are serious enough that studies need to be done ASAP in case there was something to Seralini's claim...that would mean at least two more years of widely distributing a carcinogen until another chronic feeding study is completed (not to mention the even more meticulous analysis & peer review it'll have to go through).IMO the reasons Seralini is being retracted are anything but minor, and his published results border on the deceitful.
But that's a discussion for another thread.
I would love to hear your thoughts on it! I might take a peek at the thread on here and see what people are thinking. It's very possible that there are aspects I missed - like I said, I have mixed feelings about the whole ordeal and my perspective has changed a couple times as I've read more about it.
Thank you! :flowerforyou: Maybe someday I'll make it in the 19 and above category..(I am nominating Sarahnade42x for "MFP's most reasonable, intelligent, and well-spoken member" in the 19 and under category. My hope for humanity's future has been slightly restored tonight.
Anyhow, sorry for the interruption. Carry on.)
My opinion is you are already there !
Agreed! This lady is going to have some kind of impact with her life!! :flowerforyou:0 -
I just started a ketonic diet 2 days ago, I lost 10 lbs, yeah it's water but it's 10 lbs. Been down this road here is my take.
I heard about this diet 20 years ago, passed around as the Mayo clinic diet, after failing from eating fat free cheese, skinless chicken, and fat free milk, maybe had something to do with my beer drinking pizza eating lifestyle. I tried it and I lost some weight, read up on, Atkins, Lyle McDonald, and Dan Duchain,, (same time Lyle McDonald was doing it). Everyone was skeptical including me as the diet is not low carb it strives for zero carb. Calories derived from 70% fat 30% protein. The diet is easy for me because it's a bacon and egg, steak, and cheese short of thing. Did I mention I was male? After eliminating carbs I would get into ketosis, I would feel Lethargic, almost head cold like for a couple of days, I contributed this to the changing of my fuel source, it soon passed and everything back to normal. Sticking to the diet was easy, the beer part was tough, however whiskey was ok because no carbs, just calories.
I was able to lose 100 lbs, problem couldn't keep it off over the past 10 years, beer and pizza. During that time my sister in law ran the lab at the local hospital, I had complete blood work down every other week. My numbers were good nothing alarming and my cholesterol DROPPED 100 points. I have a friend who is a PHD BIoChemist I asked him about the diet when I first started, he said this diet will and does work, so do others the main thing is to be faithful to the diet your on.
Wish me luck0 -
You say you're a science guy, but you're completely stuck on this one book like it's gospel. Fasting isn't a new concept, it's not even something Hagan came up with. Brad Pilon and Martin Berkhan (Eat, Stop, Eat and Leangains, respectively) have been pushing fasting for several years now, long before Hagan's book. The Warrior Diet also far predates Hagan. Fasting works by creating a calorie deficit, not because you skipped breakfast. You would get the exact same results if you ate breakfast and lunch and skipped dinner. Or if you only ate a huge breakfast and then skipped lunch and dinner. The health benefits to fasting are under dispute. Not because breakfast cereal companies are trying to hide them, but because the studies that have been done haven't been conclusive. Most studies that show benefits have very limited sample sizes and durations. Larger studies tend to show no real health benefits beyond what normal weight loss shows.
Excellent background.
I am not sure if I have crossed swords with you before- maybe on that ridiculous glycogen hydration thread.
You should take a look a Hagan's pilot study as he reports it in "Breakfast is the least important meal of the day". Its the kindle version, but the first ten pages are free.
Basically, he found great benefits to the fasting state produced by skipping breakfast, even though people had no eating restriction for the ten hour period following that started at noon.
People's perception of hunger changed, they felt less stress, slept better. And they lost weight.
Even more intriguing, a weight-lifter found his was GAINING strength, with an improved recovery time.
As you know, in the fasting, or stress reaction, state, you not only get cortisol and epinephrine, but growth hormone and glucogon as well.
I think the daily growth hormone burst explains a lot of the benefits.
As well as simple learned behavior.
For anyone pursuing a higher degree in those fields, I think it would make the basis of a great study- a study that would actually MEAN something in the grand scheme of things.
Hi Steve, I usually stay away from the "science" threads on MFP, but I guess I got pulled into this one. That Hagan study sounds interesting, but I wonder whether or not the benefits were specific to skipping breakfast (i.e. does the time of fasting matter?). There are many many many fascinating studies about intermittent fasting & caloric restriction out there. In fact, I took a year-long course on the biology of aging and learned that dietary restriction is considered the *only scientifically proven method to slow aging (edit#2: technically this should be "increase lifespan")* in addition to having several other health benefits. (If anyone wants to argue with me about that, I have lots and LOTS of literature to share...). The resulting stress response via SOD/sir2/IGF pathways is profound, and worth reading about if you have a biochem background and are interested in this sort of topic!
(edit:typo)
According to Hagan, it really has to be breakfast, for several reasons.
-the fat-burning process is not interrupted, assuming that it begins about 8 hours after the last meal at evening. Eating in the morning would shift the dominant process back to burning carbs, and maybe making fat, hagan didn;t want that.
-there is the physiological factor of compliance...you get up, shower up, and go to work, and don;t eat until noon. If it is tough, fantasize about what you WILL eat once the noon bell sounds.
-the purpose of the approach is to build a routine that people can use for the rest of their lives. Hagan found in his small number of people that even though the weight loss was slow, people kept on skipping breakfast because they liked how they felt otherwise. And, of course, weight loss should be slow... that is the best kind.
-Hagan found that even though there were no limits on the "eat" period, people reported that they could not eat as much as before, even though the period of enforced fasting was during the morning. Their report of hunger pangs and urges were similar to those who fast completely- i.e. the hunger pangs go away after a few days. So there is real change in the stomach due to this daily fast.
These are hardly surprising results, given that eating a hearty breakfast is almost totally an invention of modern western civilization.
Throughout recorded history, health and longevity is associated with those who eat lightly or fast.
Ascetics in all civilizations, while maybe not stating it directly, feel that eating is a corruption.
One group in Egypt only ate at night and not during the day. They did not want God to see them eat!
So check out Hagan, and if you are someone out to make your mark, clinical research along these lines could prove to be very fruitful.
be forewarned that the breakfast food companies, and all the diet food and exercise folks will be lined up against you, as they probably are for hagan!!!
-
Interesting. I'll look into his pilot study when I get the chance (I'm assuming it's not published anywhere but in his book?). I don't know how convinced I'll be, but any research that has the potential to affect big businesses is worth looking into more critically. It's a shame how frequently good solid science is being pushed aside for that reason (the Seralini affair/Monsanto comes to mind).
I'm curious, is there a reason why you're so interested in Hagan and this topic in particular? Have you tried following his recommendations?
I am a science guy and stumbled across his stuff.
And I am an angry guy over all the crap we see in the media about food in general, and breakfast in particular.
And all the diet food garbage, and the friggin' prime time TV shows where poor people are virtually whipped and humiliated into exercising to lose weight.
Do people have any self-respect at all?
I can foresee a future, and it might not be far off, when ads pushing breakfast will have to have disclaimers on them. When government agencies will run ads saying that it is OK to skip breakfast, and the NIH recommends it.
It is the obese who are victims of a culture that is driven by food consumption. All these breakfast food companies have real contempt for their customers.
What is the message that the current approaches to weight loss send to the obese? You have to work hard and sweat TO GET YOUR BODY DOWN TO A NORMAL WEIGHT. You have to RESIST WHAT YOUR BRAIN TELLS YOU IT WANTS TO EAT in order to get down to a normal weight.
The body is the enemy. Your body is betraying you. You must fight against it.
How psychologically healthy is that?
Is there any other animal species out there tht does pointless physical activity in order to burn off calories?
Of course not.
Lions will gorge themselves, but then they will lay around for days until they need to eat again.
But according the the "skip breakfast" theory, all you have to do is to force yourself to fast in the morning, and everything else will fall into place.
The human body is amazing like that.
But what is the usual response from those experts?
Breakfast is the most important meal of the day blah blah blah......got to get the metabolic machinery going blah blah blah.....got to maintain your glucose blah blah blah.....got to eat now or later you will REALLY be hungry and gorge yourself blah blah blah.....
Well, I am ranting here on an early Sunday morning (in Hawaii, though).
But Hagan and others will have a tough row to hoe, as will you if attempt to validate what little has been done in this area.
You can bet that EVERY commercial enterprise connected with dieting will not support you, or challenge you. And every breakfast food company will throw roadblocks in your way.
The obese who are sincerely trying to lose weight should be insulted....any angry!
end of rant.
Good night!
Fasting is an option, not a miracle. It's just another way of creating a calorie deficit. It really makes me wonder if you're getting kickbacks by trying to get people to buy this book, or maybe you just really aren't that much of a "science guy," since you seem completely oblivious to the fact that you're peddling old news that isn't revolutionary or different at all.0 -
I was able to lose 100 lbs, problem couldn't keep it off over the past 10 years, beer and pizza. During that time my sister in law ran the lab at the local hospital, I had complete blood work down every other week. My numbers were good nothing alarming and my cholesterol DROPPED 100 points. I have a friend who is a PHD BIoChemist I asked him about the diet when I first started, he said this diet will and does work, so do others the main thing is to be faithful to the diet your on.
Wish me luck
Well in a way, (please do not take this as a personal attack) you are the poster child for why the long term statistics are poor for LCD. Instead of learning to moderate your intake to healthy levels and enjoy what you like, in your case pizza and beer, you use the diet to lose weight. Then you go back to eating the way you prefer.
Why not learn how to work what you like into a sustainable plan to lose the excess weight and then maintain at a healthy weight eating the food you like in smaller doses?0 -
You say you're a science guy, but you're completely stuck on this one book like it's gospel. Fasting isn't a new concept, it's not even something Hagan came up with. Brad Pilon and Martin Berkhan (Eat, Stop, Eat and Leangains, respectively) have been pushing fasting for several years now, long before Hagan's book. The Warrior Diet also far predates Hagan. Fasting works by creating a calorie deficit, not because you skipped breakfast. You would get the exact same results if you ate breakfast and lunch and skipped dinner. Or if you only ate a huge breakfast and then skipped lunch and dinner. The health benefits to fasting are under dispute. Not because breakfast cereal companies are trying to hide them, but because the studies that have been done haven't been conclusive. Most studies that show benefits have very limited sample sizes and durations. Larger studies tend to show no real health benefits beyond what normal weight loss shows.
I am a science guy and stumbled across his stuff.
And I am an angry guy over all the crap we see in the media about food in general, and breakfast in particular.
And all the diet food garbage, and the friggin' prime time TV shows where poor people are virtually whipped and humiliated into exercising to lose weight.
Do people have any self-respect at all?
I can foresee a future, and it might not be far off, when ads pushing breakfast will have to have disclaimers on them. When government agencies will run ads saying that it is OK to skip breakfast, and the NIH recommends it.
It is the obese who are victims of a culture that is driven by food consumption. All these breakfast food companies have real contempt for their customers.
What is the message that the current approaches to weight loss send to the obese? You have to work hard and sweat TO GET YOUR BODY DOWN TO A NORMAL WEIGHT. You have to RESIST WHAT YOUR BRAIN TELLS YOU IT WANTS TO EAT in order to get down to a normal weight.
The body is the enemy. Your body is betraying you. You must fight against it.
How psychologically healthy is that?
Is there any other animal species out there tht does pointless physical activity in order to burn off calories?
Of course not.
Lions will gorge themselves, but then they will lay around for days until they need to eat again.
But according the the "skip breakfast" theory, all you have to do is to force yourself to fast in the morning, and everything else will fall into place.
The human body is amazing like that.
But what is the usual response from those experts?
Breakfast is the most important meal of the day blah blah blah......got to get the metabolic machinery going blah blah blah.....got to maintain your glucose blah blah blah.....got to eat now or later you will REALLY be hungry and gorge yourself blah blah blah.....
Well, I am ranting here on an early Sunday morning (in Hawaii, though).
But Hagan and others will have a tough row to hoe, as will you if attempt to validate what little has been done in this area.
You can bet that EVERY commercial enterprise connected with dieting will not support you, or challenge you. And every breakfast food company will throw roadblocks in your way.
The obese who are sincerely trying to lose weight should be insulted....any angry!
end of rant.
Good night!
Fasting is an option, not a miracle. It's just another way of creating a calorie deficit. It really makes me wonder if you're getting kickbacks by trying to get people to buy this book, or maybe you just really aren't that much of a "science guy," since you seem completely oblivious to the fact that you're peddling old news that isn't revolutionary or different at all.
+1 QFT
(edited to remove long quote tree)0 -
The long term statistics for most dieting (yes, counting and weighing is dieting) are poor.
I was able to lose 100 lbs, problem couldn't keep it off over the past 10 years, beer and pizza. During that time my sister in law ran the lab at the local hospital, I had complete blood work down every other week. My numbers were good nothing alarming and my cholesterol DROPPED 100 points. I have a friend who is a PHD BIoChemist I asked him about the diet when I first started, he said this diet will and does work, so do others the main thing is to be faithful to the diet your on.
Wish me luck
Well in a way, (please do not take this as a personal attack) you are the poster child for why the long term statistics are poor for LCD. Instead of learning to moderate your intake to healthy levels and enjoy what you like, in your case pizza and beer, you use the diet to lose weight. Then you go back to eating the way you prefer.
Why not learn how to work what you like into a sustainable plan to lose the excess weight and then maintain at a healthy weight eating the food you like in smaller doses?
Aren't they?0 -
The long term statistics for most dieting (yes, counting and weighing is dieting) are poor.
I was able to lose 100 lbs, problem couldn't keep it off over the past 10 years, beer and pizza. During that time my sister in law ran the lab at the local hospital, I had complete blood work down every other week. My numbers were good nothing alarming and my cholesterol DROPPED 100 points. I have a friend who is a PHD BIoChemist I asked him about the diet when I first started, he said this diet will and does work, so do others the main thing is to be faithful to the diet your on.
Wish me luck
Well in a way, (please do not take this as a personal attack) you are the poster child for why the long term statistics are poor for LCD. Instead of learning to moderate your intake to healthy levels and enjoy what you like, in your case pizza and beer, you use the diet to lose weight. Then you go back to eating the way you prefer.
Why not learn how to work what you like into a sustainable plan to lose the excess weight and then maintain at a healthy weight eating the food you like in smaller doses?
Aren't they?
Yes, that's true. But exceptionally poor for Low Carb. Above the norm. I'll see if I can find the stats and post them.
Edited to add: This is just my personal opinion that follows and if there is data that substantiates it, I don't know of it. But I believe retraining yourself for awareness and portion size maximizes the longer term likelihood of success. I don't believe that "diet plans" that involve radically altering behavioral patterns and introducing highly restrictive limitations have good long term success. All diets are a change from the norm for the individual and restrictive in some sense. Minimizing the amount of change maximizes the probability of long term success. Again this is just my opinion and philosophical approach.
So, the above post I commented on could be the poster child for any number of "diet" plans that involve radical change and restriction. LCD is only one but it is a very common one and there has been no indicator of a metabolic advantage in the research to date. There is also a dearth of well designed, long term, well controlled studies on this subject. But in what exists, there is no indication of an advantage of the long term.0 -
The only reason low-carb diets work is because people EAT FEWER CALORIES on them. Protein keeps you full longer, making it easier to eat less. There is also the effect of simple carbs spiking blood sugar, and then when it crashes down again you will fill hungry and want to eat immediately, that response happens far worse for some people than it does for others, complex carbs don't have that effect. When I tried low-carb, I eventually got so tired of looking at meat, that sometimes I chose not to eat anything simply because it didn't appeal to me.
Now I don't worry about carbs too much, I do however focus on getting enough protein, which helps keep my appetite under control. Most of my carbs do come from fruit and vegetables, but that is because I like the taste of those things more than I like the taste of bread and grains, not because I actively avoid grains.
The main problem with low carb diets is that they are hard, if not impossible, to maintain for life. Eventually, you decide that you really WANT that piece of fruit, or dinner roll, or slice of pie. The other problem is how they restrict fruit and even some vegetables, if you aren't careful, you can end up deficient in certain vitamins.0 -
I feel like a moron but I really do not understand how you can lose faster than just a calories deficit and I am not talking about glycogen or water weight.
There isn't anything to understand - you can't.
For once I agree with you.0 -
I am a science guy and stumbled across his stuff.
And I am an angry guy over all the crap we see in the media about food in general, and breakfast in particular.
And all the diet food garbage, and the friggin' prime time TV shows where poor people are virtually whipped and humiliated into exercising to lose weight.
Do people have any self-respect at all?
I can foresee a future, and it might not be far off, when ads pushing breakfast will have to have disclaimers on them. When government agencies will run ads saying that it is OK to skip breakfast, and the NIH recommends it.
It is the obese who are victims of a culture that is driven by food consumption. All these breakfast food companies have real contempt for their customers.
What is the message that the current approaches to weight loss send to the obese? You have to work hard and sweat TO GET YOUR BODY DOWN TO A NORMAL WEIGHT. You have to RESIST WHAT YOUR BRAIN TELLS YOU IT WANTS TO EAT in order to get down to a normal weight.
The body is the enemy. Your body is betraying you. You must fight against it.
How psychologically healthy is that?
Is there any other animal species out there tht does pointless physical activity in order to burn off calories?
Of course not.
Lions will gorge themselves, but then they will lay around for days until they need to eat again.
But according the the "skip breakfast" theory, all you have to do is to force yourself to fast in the morning, and everything else will fall into place.
The human body is amazing like that.
But what is the usual response from those experts?
Breakfast is the most important meal of the day blah blah blah......got to get the metabolic machinery going blah blah blah.....got to maintain your glucose blah blah blah.....got to eat now or later you will REALLY be hungry and gorge yourself blah blah blah.....
Well, I am ranting here on an early Sunday morning (in Hawaii, though).
But Hagan and others will have a tough row to hoe, as will you if attempt to validate what little has been done in this area.
You can bet that EVERY commercial enterprise connected with dieting will not support you, or challenge you. And every breakfast food company will throw roadblocks in your way.
The obese who are sincerely trying to lose weight should be insulted....any angry!
end of rant.
Good night!
Some things that jump out at me:
"What is the message that the current approaches to weight loss send to the obese? You have to work hard and sweat TO GET YOUR BODY DOWN TO A NORMAL WEIGHT. You have to RESIST WHAT YOUR BRAIN TELLS YOU IT WANTS TO EAT in order to get down to a normal weight."
then:
"But according the the "skip breakfast" theory, all you have to do is to force yourself to fast in the morning, and everything else will fall into place."
Sounds like it still involves resisting what your brain tells you to eat... And even if Hagan is onto something about skipping breakfast, exercise and proper daily nutrient/calorie intake would not be any less important. A calorie deficit is still necessary, regardless.
The body is the enemy. Your body is betraying you. You must fight against it.
What weight loss program gives that mentality? Health and fitness is all about discovering your body and empowering it.
"Is there any other animal species out there tht does pointless physical activity in order to burn off calories?"
In general, animal behavior is mediated by proximate causation -- that is, responses to immediate environmental or physiological factors (for example: running to catch food). Human behavior tends to take the big picture into account; we're able to plan ahead and make decisions that don't necessarily have an immediate reward. We understand ultimate causes. Perhaps if animals knew that physical activity would make their bodies and minds stronger (and that it is absolutely not "pointless"), they would do more of it too.
It is the obese who are victims of a culture that is driven by food consumption. All these breakfast food companies have real contempt for their customers.
I agree with the first sentence 100%, but I'm not convinced that breakfast food companies are the ones to blame. There are many studies that have found a positive correlation between eating breakfast and being at a healthy weight, especially for children/adolescents, and virtually none I can find that have said the opposite (except Hagan, of course, and I'm curious to read his pilot study's methods). At least one solid intervention found that breakfast slows the decline of attention and memory throughout the day, which could help weight loss efforts (but that one was probably funded by General Mills, right?
) I must say I would like to see more intervention studies about this in the future (there aren't very many) and I'm glad you brought it up, even though I think much more research needs to be done before leaning so strongly either way. 0 -
I said that ketogenic diets result in an initial drop, as shown in that study and others. I also said that the results aren't consistent over the long term, which you'll also find in the literature. An 8 week study only shows the first half of that trend.
Like.
Again, consistent with the findings of McDonald and Krieger. Almost all the available data when viewed long term shows greater up front "weight" loss (water and glycogen included) and no metabolic advantage over time.
I was agreeing. I don't see a point to Keto.
Edit * Especially in those who are considered healthy with no known medical condidtions0 -
I said that ketogenic diets result in an initial drop, as shown in that study and others. I also said that the results aren't consistent over the long term, which you'll also find in the literature. An 8 week study only shows the first half of that trend.
Like.
Again, consistent with the findings of McDonald and Krieger. Almost all the available data when viewed long term shows greater up front "weight" loss (water and glycogen included) and no metabolic advantage over time.
I was agreeing. I don't see a point to Keto.
Edit * Especially in those who are considered healthy with no known medical condidtions
Yup, I realize that. You and I are pretty much on the same page.0 -
I eat a low carb diet and I eat far less protein than before because I was always hungry and everyone said it fills you up. Most days you eat double the amount of protein that I eat, some days almost triple. While I'm sure some people have been very successful eating a low carb/high protein diet -- or any other macro combination for that matter -- the appetite suppression that low carbs diets are known for doesn't come from the protein component of the diet, or at least not solely.The only reason low-carb diets work is because people EAT FEWER CALORIES on them. Protein keeps you full longer, making it easier to eat less. There is also the effect of simple carbs spiking blood sugar, and then when it crashes down again you will fill hungry and want to eat immediately, that response happens far worse for some people than it does for others, complex carbs don't have that effect. When I tried low-carb, I eventually got so tired of looking at meat, that sometimes I chose not to eat anything simply because it didn't appeal to me.
Now I don't worry about carbs too much, I do however focus on getting enough protein, which helps keep my appetite under control. Most of my carbs do come from fruit and vegetables, but that is because I like the taste of those things more than I like the taste of bread and grains, not because I actively avoid grains.
The main problem with low carb diets is that they are hard, if not impossible, to maintain for life. Eventually, you decide that you really WANT that piece of fruit, or dinner roll, or slice of pie. The other problem is how they restrict fruit and even some vegetables, if you aren't careful, you can end up deficient in certain vitamins.
The problems you listed are only problems if you make them problems -- they're not inherently part of eating low carb. I've been eating this way for over a year and have no plans of changing that. I eat plenty of fruits and vegetables and I'm happy to limit my indulgences to holidays and special occasions.
Low carb isn't for everyone, of course, but all of these "problems" people always list for the diet are not universal problems with a low carb diet itself but how the person goes about implementing it.0 -
I am a science guy and stumbled across his stuff.
And I am an angry guy over all the crap we see in the media about food in general, and breakfast in particular.
And all the diet food garbage, and the friggin' prime time TV shows where poor people are virtually whipped and humiliated into exercising to lose weight.
Do people have any self-respect at all?
I can foresee a future, and it might not be far off, when ads pushing breakfast will have to have disclaimers on them. When government agencies will run ads saying that it is OK to skip breakfast, and the NIH recommends it.
It is the obese who are victims of a culture that is driven by food consumption. All these breakfast food companies have real contempt for their customers.
What is the message that the current approaches to weight loss send to the obese? You have to work hard and sweat TO GET YOUR BODY DOWN TO A NORMAL WEIGHT. You have to RESIST WHAT YOUR BRAIN TELLS YOU IT WANTS TO EAT in order to get down to a normal weight.
The body is the enemy. Your body is betraying you. You must fight against it.
How psychologically healthy is that?
Is there any other animal species out there tht does pointless physical activity in order to burn off calories?
Of course not.
Lions will gorge themselves, but then they will lay around for days until they need to eat again.
But according the the "skip breakfast" theory, all you have to do is to force yourself to fast in the morning, and everything else will fall into place.
The human body is amazing like that.
But what is the usual response from those experts?
Breakfast is the most important meal of the day blah blah blah......got to get the metabolic machinery going blah blah blah.....got to maintain your glucose blah blah blah.....got to eat now or later you will REALLY be hungry and gorge yourself blah blah blah.....
Well, I am ranting here on an early Sunday morning (in Hawaii, though).
But Hagan and others will have a tough row to hoe, as will you if attempt to validate what little has been done in this area.
You can bet that EVERY commercial enterprise connected with dieting will not support you, or challenge you. And every breakfast food company will throw roadblocks in your way.
The obese who are sincerely trying to lose weight should be insulted....any angry!
end of rant.
Good night!
You say you are a science guy, yet you continually misinterpret scientific studies, and when asked about your credentials you demure.
As far as FORCING ourselves to eat breakfast? My body pretty much demands it. But I have always been of the mindset that one should eat when hungry. This is something you seem to have a great deal of trouble with, since you have spend many threads trying to explain why hunger is a false signal.
As far as comparing us to lions? :noway:0 -
Oh come on, don't call him out for trying to compare the behavior of completely different species with wholly different biological processes and physiologies, HE'S A SCIENCE GUY! I mean, come on, don't you know humans sleep 20 hours a day to conserve energy? Oh, wait...0
-
Oh come on, don't call him out for trying to compare the behavior of completely different species with wholly different biological processes and physiologies, HE'S A SCIENCE GUY! I mean, come on, don't you know humans sleep 20 hours a day to conserve energy? Oh, wait...
I'm thinking Hagan must be his special bestie. Science guy by proxy, you know...
This is assuming that Hagan is real and an actual scientist.
I see he is an MD with a book to sell. That makes me giggle.0 -
Of course, that's the book Steve keeps thumping as his Bible of everything in it must be 100% right damn the facts, I'll argue until I'm blue in the face even though I have no idea what I'm talking about and have apparently never read anything else about nutrition before.0
-
More from Alan Aragon
5) Keto, most efficient way of cutting – this is rather an extension of the first question, but deserving of its own response due to the ongoing debates over the superiority (or inferiority) of Keto for cutting. Is it any more effective at burning fat than other diets? Or does eating under maintenance prevail as the winner regardless of the methods used? We know carbohydrates retain water, and proteins are diuretics. Can the initial effects of Keto be understood through the non-existent intake of the former and higher intake of the latter? (appearance of being leaner, with long-term Keto effects stabilizing on par with other diets) Or is Keto really the most optimal?
Alan: There’s nothing inherently special about keto in terms of fat-loss benefits. This has been shown repeatedly in long-term research that’s reasonably controlled (as opposed to the ad-libitum or free-living research) . It’s important to realize that the current research is not sufficient grounds to be dogmatic about low-carbing in the first place. Studies often do not match protein intakes between diets. Adequate protein intakes have multiple advantages (ie, LBM support, satiety, thermic effect), and they simply end up being compared to inadequate protein intakes. Thus, it’s not lower carb intake per se that imparts any advantage, it’s the higher protein intake.
Once you match protein intake between diets, the one with more carbs is actually the one with the potential for a slight metabolic advantage. In any case, there’s a large middle ground here that tends to get ignored by folks who believe in a ‘metabolic advantage’ of keto/low-carb. It’s always either-or for them, when in fact, individual carbohydrate demands vary widely depending upon personal tolerance & preference, not to mention individual goals. For some folks, low-carb is warranted. For others, it isn’t. It always amazes me how hard that concept is to grasp for keto absolutists.0 -
Not going to bother..... do your own research and TRY it if you are so inclined.
Yet you spent your precious time responding at all?0 -
BBC documentary on Atkins and low carb diets will help you understand
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vex4iFkTPww 0 -
BBC documentary on Atkins and low carb diets will help you understandhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vex4iFkTPww 0
-
Nothing magical. I have reactive hypo, so I can explain it from my standpoint.
High simple sugar, low fat, low protein meal --> huge surge of glucose into the system --> glucose rises quickly --> pancreas overcompensates and dumps huge amount of insulin into the system --> liver (I believe) responds late to the huge surge of insulin, causes low blood sugar --> body panics because of low blood sugar and releases it's hormone to eat more ... --> I feel like crap. This high/low causes me to chase the rabbit and eat more. Excess calorie consumption leads to weight gain.
Higher protein, moderate fat, moderate low-gi, high fiber meal --> delayed emptying of glucose into the system --> glucoses rises moderately --> pancreas responds appropriately --> liver responds appropriately --> body doesn't panic --> happy camper ... ^_^0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions