Please explain low carbs and it's magical proprieties
Replies
-
WIth your edit, I don't disagree. I don't have a diet of "highly restrictive limitations". I did (for the most part) eliminate a few items (ingredients) about 12 years ago. Those ingredients include HFCS, enriched, bleached white flour, and beer. For ME (ymmv) that was not highly restrictive. For ME it made it easier to eat at a deficit (because my blood sugars were more stable perhaps. All I know is I didn't have rampant cravings for starchy carbs and what not). I didn't follow a diet "plan". I just made a few changes and looked at what I ate. I didn't count. I've never weighed or measured my serving. I guess I just believe there's more than one way up this mountain. Hell, there's even more than one Low carb diet. I honestly believe, given my lifestyle 12 years ago, if someone had said: weigh and measure everything and count your calories, and watch you macros, I wouldn't have lost the weight and kept it off. Someone did suggest limiting or eliminating HFCS, enriched, bleached white flour and beer (and rice, and potatoes, which I just switched to brown rice and yams). I did that and watched what went into my mouth. Instead of focusing on counting, I focused on fueling my body. On consciously eating more vegetables, lean meats, dairy, and true whole grains. On eating filling snacks like nuts and cheese. Dunno. It worked for me.
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.
And, interestingly, a while later, after I had lost my weight, the south beach diet was published. I'd say even now my eating looks a lot like south beach phase 2/3. Folks probably consider the south beach diet restrictive (even without the optional phase 1). Dunno.
Eating SLOW carb (not low carb) worked for me. The principles of slow carb and low carb don't seem all that different. (or different from how many folks with PCOS successfully lose weight either).
But again, no, I don't disagree that most restrictive complicated diets fail.0 -
A diet that said "no cauliflower!" would not be restrictive for me, because I hate it.
A diet that says "no bread or beer!" would be extremely restrictive for me, because I love those things.
There is lots of room for YMMV inside the tent named "Caloric Deficit".0 -
there's a lot of sciency mumbo jumbo that a science person might answer but my simple understanding after having done it with roaring success, is that you can only eat so much everything else and so naturally one will be consuming fewer calories because carbs tend to be high cal foods and then you will likely fall into a cal deficit and lose weight.
Fat has about twice the calories per gram that protein and carbs have. However, a lot of people feel more satisfied after having fat and protein, and eat less overall because of it. At least that's how I explain why I'm happy to eat less if I'm eating more fat and protein.0 -
Absolutely. I don't disagree there! It seems lots of folks need their way to be THE way, however. That's my only complaint.A diet that said "no cauliflower!" would not be restrictive for me, because I hate it.
A diet that says "no bread or beer!" would be extremely restrictive for me, because I love those things.
There is lots of room for YMMV inside the tent named "Caloric Deficit".
ps: I adore cauliflower. I had no idea that I did until I shifted my focus to eating a whole plant based diet.
pps: I find weighing and measuring everything too restrictive. :-)0 -
pps: I find weighing and measuring everything too restrictive. :-)
Well, truth be told, it *is* restrictive!
I do it because it's a great tool for me, but I'm not going to kid myself about how obsessive it is... :drinker:0 -
I get it. Like I said, more than one way up the mountain! And really, each of us needs something different. I wasn't a huge over eater in the quantity sense. I'm not one of those: OMG do you know how small a portion of X is???" people. I was more of an "I don't know how to eat" person.pps: I find weighing and measuring everything too restrictive. :-)
Well, truth be told, it *is* restrictive!
I do it because it's a great tool for me, but I'm not going to kid myself about how obsessive it is... :drinker: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 ... ^_^
Bravo! Well put better than I put it anyways! 0 -
+1Nothing 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 ... ^_^
Bravo! Well put better than I put it anyways!
And that's been my experience with eating as well.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.
This!
I eat high fat/moderate protein/low carb.
The fat and protein satisfy me, so I can trust by bodies hunger response.0 -
This documentary goes into all kinds of scientific information about the diet. Including whether its the fat or the protein that keeps you full longer.
http://youtu.be/B9w7CV8RjgY 0 -
Do you actually think this was a well devised study? Adding fat to a carb rich meal and saying it does nothing to promote satiety? We already know that... hello donuts, ice cream and pizza! Nothing can possibly be determined from that "study".This documentary goes into all kinds of scientific information about the diet. Including whether its the fat or the protein that keeps you full longer.http://youtu.be/B9w7CV8RjgY
When I bother to log my food, it's accurate and I eat a moderate amount of protein -- much less then when I wasn't eating a low carb diet -- and yet my appetite is normal now. Protein may be satiating but it is not the reason people spontaneously eat less on a low carb diet.
Here's the transcript of that section of the broadcast:
NARRATOR: This may be the secret to the Atkins diet. It works by controlling appetite. But what is it about the diet that kills hunger? Dr Atkins believed that it was due to cutting carbohydrates, but as yet evidence for this theory is so far inconclusive. There may be another reason. The Atkins diet is famous for its fat. Dr Atkins said you could eat as much of it as you like. Is it possible that fat could be suppressing appetite? To find out Susan Jebb and her team decided to run an experiment. All the meals in the study looked exactly the same, but there was a big difference. Half the food had liberal quantities of fat secretly added to it.
Dr SUSAN JEBB: We used things like spaghetti bolognaise or mousses so that you could because easily disguise the fat content of the food.
NARRATOR: None of the volunteers knew which type of food they were getting. But half of them were eating low fat meals, and half were eating high fat meals.
Dr SUSAN JEBB: What we told them is they could eat as much or as little as they wanted and they simply just had to ask when they wanted more food.
NARRATOR: If fat was the magic ingredient that switches appetite off, then the men eating the high fat food would fewer calories than normal to feel full. After four hundred and eighty six meals the results were clear. The fat was having the exact opposite effect. The men on the high fat food needed more calories to satisfy their appetite. They were actually overeating.
Dr SUSAN JEBB: What we conclude from that is that fat doesn't make people feel full. It doesn't trigger the sense of fullness and satiety that we believe is fundamental to appetite control.
NARRATOR: So fat wasn't the reason for the Atkins diet success. This just added to the mystery. There had to be another to explain why the Atkins diet made people eat less. The answer may have come from Denmark. This supermarket in Copenhagen is like no other in the world. It was built by Arne Astrup, a professor in human nutrition.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2004/atkinstrans.shtml0 -
there's a lot of sciency mumbo jumbo that a science person might answer but my simple understanding after having done it with roaring success, is that you can only eat so much everything else and so naturally one will be consuming fewer calories because carbs tend to be high cal foods and then you will likely fall into a cal deficit and lose weight.
sciency mumbo jumbo FTW
You can't lose weight without it!0 -
Not going to bother..... do your own research and TRY it if you are so inclined.
Translation: You have no clue0 -
It might not be effective for everyone. Just those with carb issues .. Diabetes/Pcos etc.
I have both! I can only make myself cut down to about 69g per day and get to feeling
sick. So to have my success carb allotment, I strive to stay under 100g! I go over sometimes
but my avg is about 80g per day.
I know those that eat paleo diets can get by in very little. I admire them for their will power
and ability to create menus that work with so little carb!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.
sarah, sarah, sarah.
Do you have a(n) SO? I have 2 unmarried sons. I want you to have mah grandbabies. :flowerforyou: :flowerforyou: :flowerforyou:
edited because it depends. LOL0 -
I know those that eat paleo diets can get by in very little. I admire them for their will power
and ability to create menus that work with so little carb!
Paleo is not necessarily low carb.0 -
Agreed. It's low on GRAINS but not really by definition low on carbs.I know those that eat paleo diets can get by in very little. I admire them for their will power
and ability to create menus that work with so little carb!
Paleo is not necessarily low carb.0 -
If you can, go watch the documentary "The Perfect Human Diet"--it'll give you a better idea of how our bodies use our food, particularly how it deals with sugars (& carbohydrates which convert into sugars) FIRST in its energy breakdown process because it is a much easier chemically to break down than proteins and fats. When you get all of your energy from the breakdown of sugar, the fats and protein are stored for later use. The basic premise of eating low carb is that you're depriving your body of the "easy" energy source and making it work harder by breaking down more complex chemical compounds. (This is why low carb diets such as Atkins allow limited "complex carbohydrates" as they take much longer to break down.)
The documentary delves into blood sugar/insulin spikes and how that makes us hungry more often, too, but it's been a while since I've watched it so I'm not going to reiterate science that I can't fully remember.
All that said... Some people can eat low carb and not have to watch their calories & still lose weight. That is NOT the case for me. I have to keep a close eye on my calorie intake and still maintain a deficit. I enjoy eating low carb because I feel a lot more energetic and healthy since it curbs my hypoglycemia. It's not "magic" by any means, just another path you can take on your weightloss journey
Spot on. I'm like this too. I have insulin resistant. I have to watch calories and carbs.0 -
This is the fallacy if inertia. Well, it is what it is and I am not going to change until I see proof otherwise.
Well, the proof is in the tremendous increase in obesity out there.
Someother points:
When it comes to diet, humans should be more like animals. And we would be, if it weren't for the idiotic commercials and social pressures associated with massive consumption.
Most cultures skipped breakfast. And the hypothesis is that if you let you and your brain function in the fasting state that your hunger urges will change to where over time you will lose weight down to a normal level. Remember, hunger is not your body telling you it NEEDS food, it is the stomach telling you that it is empty. It is your maladapted brain that tells you to respond by immediately eating, or getting anxious when the stomach is empty.
The studies supporting eating breakfast are all bunk. Every one of them has flaws. And the breakfast food companies know it.
Cite me a study and let's talk.
Steve, out of curiosity I checked out the Hagan book you're so consumed by. His "pilot study" is a collection of case studies involving a poorly enforced intervention on free-living people, and I'm willing to bet not every case study performed was published. In addition, *none* of these stories are indicative that his hypothesis is correct. So telling me that all of the peer-reviewed, published work out there is "flawed" and then adamantly supporting this book is (quite frankly) a joke.
Here's an excerpt from Hagan, about one of his case studies, Terry:
Note the sentence I have highlighted in red. Terry knows basic biology and was CALORIE RESTRICTING. These "success stories" say nothing about the validity of the "skipping breakfast" theory. Nothing.0 -
Most cultures skipped breakfast. And the hypothesis is that if you let you and your brain function in the fasting state that your hunger urges will change to where over time you will lose weight down to a normal level. Remember, hunger is not your body telling you it NEEDS food, it is the stomach telling you that it is empty. It is your maladapted brain that tells you to respond by immediately eating, or getting anxious when the stomach is empty.
:sad: 'Cause I have a maladaptive brain!
<---Seriously Stevo, the abs of a person who eats breakfast. Let's write a book and make TONS of money!0 -
Most cultures skipped breakfast. And the hypothesis is that if you let you and your brain function in the fasting state that your hunger urges will change to where over time you will lose weight down to a normal level. Remember, hunger is not your body telling you it NEEDS food, it is the stomach telling you that it is empty. It is your maladapted brain that tells you to respond by immediately eating, or getting anxious when the stomach is empty.
:sad: 'Cause I have a maladaptive brain!
<---Seriously Stevo, the abs of a person who eats breakfast. Let's write a book and make TONS of money!
my whole life is maladapted0 -
Thumbs up 0
-
from my understanding and research and doing low carb for all of 2012 and a majority of this year before turning vegetarian the reason low carb is so effective is because your body goes into a state of ketosis where it will use dietary and body fat for fuel in replacement of carbs and fat is very filling so you become full quite fast0
-
Most cultures skipped breakfast. And the hypothesis is that if you let you and your brain function in the fasting state that your hunger urges will change to where over time you will lose weight down to a normal level. Remember, hunger is not your body telling you it NEEDS food, it is the stomach telling you that it is empty. It is your maladapted brain that tells you to respond by immediately eating, or getting anxious when the stomach is empty.
:sad: 'Cause I have a maladaptive brain!
<---Seriously Stevo, the abs of a person who eats breakfast. Let's write a book and make TONS of money!
my whole life is maladapted
One central lesson is that the human body is in a constant state of change. All the time, the constituents of the body's tissue is being broken down and re-synthesized- but the time frame differs.
For fat, a complete turnover of all your fat happens over the course of a month or so.
So you can't look at yourself and shrug and say "Well, I've had this fat all my life and it's never going to go away."
The correct statement is "This is all new fat that my body has made over the past month."
The same goes for neural networks- the basis for how we think and act. They will change depending on what stimuli they are exposed to. They are in a constant state of renewal and reformation.
If you keep on doing the same stuff, they will get reinforced.
If you change what you do, the neural networks will change, depending on the stimuli.
That is how we learn and adapt.
Bottom line is that while you may be maladaptive in whatever sense you want it to be, you can change by changing behavior. Just like you lose weight by changing your eating patterns and behavior.
Nobody has to accept who they are.
The human body is marvelous like that.
Are you saying that my abdominals are maladaptive? You're losing me here Steve...(as usual)0 -
For fat, a complete turnover of all your fat happens over the course of a month or so.
That is physically impossible for any except (possibly) the absolute leanest of bodies (and probably not even then).
Estimates for adipoycte turnover in humans range from 10% to 60% per year. All far far far far slower than the (physically impossible) 100% per month claimed above.0 -
For fat, a complete turnover of all your fat happens over the course of a month or so.
The correct statement is "For fat, a complete turnover of all your fat happens over the course of a month or so - said no licensed medical professional ever."
FIFY0 -
Did you read the book? Or just setting up a straw man to shoot down?
Why would you be so hostile to a benefit from skipping breakfast?
If you read her story, she reports that after skipping breakfast, she physically couldn't eat as much as she could before. And after a few days, the hunger sensations went away.
But that's the problem with this approach. The last thing that fitness trainers and diet food gurus wants, to say nothing of breakfast food companies, is for an easy, natural, and FREE way for some poor overweight soul to lose weight and get a handle on their lives.
I'm not spending money to read more than 10 pages of that book -- there's nothing to be learned from it. The best case studies in medicine are used to describe rare phenomena or risky treatments, and even then we hesitate to draw conclusions from them; in other contexts we would call it anecdotal evidence. It's the kind of thing we see all over MFP that's virtually meaningless from a scientific standpoint. "I didn't eat breakfast and lost a few pounds, and that means breakfast hinders weight loss." Come on, Steve.
The ONLY study design that would definitively support Hagan's hypothesis is a CONTROLLED intervention study comparing:
A. An experimental group that does not eat breakfast
B. A control group that does eat breakfast but has an equivalent daily nutritional intake to A
C. A control group that skips a meal other than breakfast but otherwise has an equivalent daily nutritional intake to A
I'm not hostile to a benefit from skipping breakfast - if someone does the above study and finds that to be the case, I'm all for it. However, Hagan did not do any kind of reliable research and instead published some half-assed case studies to make a few dollars. I am a little hostile about that. I want data, trends, statistics, sound physiological explanations...and as a "science guy," you should want that too.
I'm honestly very surprised about the quality of his book, and even more surprised that anyone would find it so convincing...
ETA: As far as your comparison of neuroplasticity to fat turnover....:noway:0 -
I have to admit to not reading through all the responses - they made my brain hurt! So apologies if this has been covered already.
OP, the reason the low carb is often successful is that it allows individuals to obtain adequate amounts of fat for optimal hormonal function etc, as well as adequate protein for the essential amino acids (particularly important for those folks continually breaking down muscle fibres).
If you get adequate nutrients from these two macros, it is difficult on a caloric deficit to get a tonne of carbs into your diet - therefore low carb is often successful. I would posit that it is not so much the low carb diet itself that works, but the caloric restriction and adequate intake of essential macros (Protein & Fat) that make it successful most of the time.
The information above does not account for the 'carbs are the devil' factor, or the fact that apparently 98.4% of all people are either carb sensitive of gluten intolerant. Science! :laugh:0 -
This is the fallacy if inertia. Well, it is what it is and I am not going to change until I see proof otherwise.
Well, the proof is in the tremendous increase in obesity out there.
Someother points:
When it comes to diet, humans should be more like animals. And we would be, if it weren't for the idiotic commercials and social pressures associated with massive consumption.
Most cultures skipped breakfast. And the hypothesis is that if you let you and your brain function in the fasting state that your hunger urges will change to where over time you will lose weight down to a normal level. Remember, hunger is not your body telling you it NEEDS food, it is the stomach telling you that it is empty. It is your maladapted brain that tells you to respond by immediately eating, or getting anxious when the stomach is empty.
The studies supporting eating breakfast are all bunk. Every one of them has flaws. And the breakfast food companies know it.
Cite me a study and let's talk.
Steve, out of curiosity I checked out the Hagan book you're so consumed by. His "pilot study" is a collection of case studies involving a poorly enforced intervention on free-living people, and I'm willing to bet not every case study performed was published. In addition, *none* of these stories are indicative that his hypothesis is correct. So telling me that all of the peer-reviewed, published work out there is "flawed" and then adamantly supporting this book is (quite frankly) a joke.
Here's an excerpt from Hagan, about one of his case studies, Terry:
Note the sentence I have highlighted in red. Terry knows basic biology and was CALORIE RESTRICTING. These "success stories" say nothing about the validity of the "skipping breakfast" theory. Nothing.
Did you read the book? Or just setting up a straw man to shoot down?
Why would you be so hostile to a benefit from skipping breakfast?
If you read her story, she reports that after skipping breakfast, she physically couldn't eat as much as she could before. And after a few days, the hunger sensations went away.
But that's the problem with this approach. The last thing that fitness trainers and diet food gurus wants, to say nothing of breakfast food companies, is for an easy, natural, and FREE way for some poor overweight soul to lose weight and get a handle on their lives.
Again, YOU AREN'T COVERING ANY GROUND THAT ISNT ALREADY WELL KNOWN. The Warrior Diet. Eat, Stop, Eat. Leangains. All fasting protocols. All well known, and have been around far longer than this idiotic book you keep thumping like it's your friggin' holy grail.
Get a grip, dude. You have no idea what you are talking about, and you just dig yourself deeper with every single post you make, in every single thread where you insist on mentioning this book.0 -
"I'm honestly very surprised about the quality of his book, and even more surprised that anyone would find it so convincing..."
"I'm not spending money to read more than 10 pages of that book -- there's nothing to be learned from it."
LOL. Based on the first ten pages?
What are you afraid of? Are you from the fitness or diet camp?
I hope the people who read these threads who sincerely want to loss weight see through this.
All the science is in Guyton's Textbook of Physiology.
Very straightforward.
Adipose tissue turnover is a well-described phenomenon. Turns over in about three weeks.
The plasticity of neural networks is accepted.
The physiology is basic.
Again, what are you afraid of, and what are you protecting?
The first ten pages are all I need, because that's where he puts all his "research" results.
You say that you and Hagan are working against breakfast companies making money by spreading misinformation, but that sounds like exactly what you're doing. If Hagan believes so strongly in his idea, why not offer his book for free instead of pushing it through his LLC? If he believes so strongly that his research is credible, why not accept solid peer review instead of a "proofread by Mary Jackson" on the title page?
And I AM one of the people who reads these threads and sincerely wants to lose weight. I also sincerely want others to realize how many scientifically unsound perspectives you've been sharing on this forum.
And yes, fat turnover and neuroplasticity exist...that doesn't mean your argument makes any more sense. Maybe your understanding of complex physiology is a little too basic, and I would encourage you to actually read Guyton (Vander's is a better pick for your level, but both would probably help you out a lot..)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
- 232.5K 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