Apparently we are all doing it wrong
Options
PatrickB_87
Posts: 738 Member
This article was posted in the main forms so apologies if its a repeat for some of you but I thought you would get a kick out of it.
"Always Hungry, Here's Why" - http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/18/opinion/sunday/always-hungry-heres-why.html?_r=0
I'm not posting the article because I agree with it but I thought some of you might find it interesting since it overlaps everything we are all going and some of the discussions we have, from willpower to carbs. I think it's important to point out that this is their hypothesis and they have not demonstrated that its accurate, nor do they seem to really have any data to back it up. I don't even necessarily have an issue with their idea that obesity causes an increase in hunger due to the distribution of energy in calories (though I still find it questionable as they haven't demonstrated that their are fewer calories available to fuel our metabolism, if i'm eating 3,500 calories then i'm clearly taking in an excess but still plenty to cover BMI and daily exertion plus some wich is where the fat comes from).
My frustration with the article is the seemly narrow definition of calorie counting as a weight loss routine. One, their seems to be the assumption that people dieting and calorie counting are eating whatever they want since all calories are equal and that they are just eating them in moderation. The second is that every diet is apparently based on some approach of low fat or low carb. I don't know about you but my "diet" isn't based on either of those things. I try to keep my macronutrients in balance and at my calorie limit. The two classic "dieting" approach they describe seem to give the impression that this is the only way people try to lose weight. We all know to stay away from refined or processed carbohydrates, or perhaps more importantly to stay away from refined and processed foods in general, in part due to the amounts of refined carbs, sugars, and fats in those foods. It's the approach we have already take in our apparently doomed calorie counting practice. No where in the article do I see any mention of the possibility that people like us may be maintaining a calorie deficit while eating healthy diets that limit our intake or processed foods and refined carbohydrates (since cutting out refined carbohydrates, eating whole grains and in general reducing your carbohydrate consumption, is not a new idea). Besides it is going to take some will power and financial resources to accomplish their ideal reduction in refined carbohydrates in the first place. So maybe being fat makes us hungry and thus fatter, but its still going to take control and decision making (if you have the money for it) to make the cut, the cut most of us are already making.
"Always Hungry, Here's Why" - http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/18/opinion/sunday/always-hungry-heres-why.html?_r=0
I'm not posting the article because I agree with it but I thought some of you might find it interesting since it overlaps everything we are all going and some of the discussions we have, from willpower to carbs. I think it's important to point out that this is their hypothesis and they have not demonstrated that its accurate, nor do they seem to really have any data to back it up. I don't even necessarily have an issue with their idea that obesity causes an increase in hunger due to the distribution of energy in calories (though I still find it questionable as they haven't demonstrated that their are fewer calories available to fuel our metabolism, if i'm eating 3,500 calories then i'm clearly taking in an excess but still plenty to cover BMI and daily exertion plus some wich is where the fat comes from).
My frustration with the article is the seemly narrow definition of calorie counting as a weight loss routine. One, their seems to be the assumption that people dieting and calorie counting are eating whatever they want since all calories are equal and that they are just eating them in moderation. The second is that every diet is apparently based on some approach of low fat or low carb. I don't know about you but my "diet" isn't based on either of those things. I try to keep my macronutrients in balance and at my calorie limit. The two classic "dieting" approach they describe seem to give the impression that this is the only way people try to lose weight. We all know to stay away from refined or processed carbohydrates, or perhaps more importantly to stay away from refined and processed foods in general, in part due to the amounts of refined carbs, sugars, and fats in those foods. It's the approach we have already take in our apparently doomed calorie counting practice. No where in the article do I see any mention of the possibility that people like us may be maintaining a calorie deficit while eating healthy diets that limit our intake or processed foods and refined carbohydrates (since cutting out refined carbohydrates, eating whole grains and in general reducing your carbohydrate consumption, is not a new idea). Besides it is going to take some will power and financial resources to accomplish their ideal reduction in refined carbohydrates in the first place. So maybe being fat makes us hungry and thus fatter, but its still going to take control and decision making (if you have the money for it) to make the cut, the cut most of us are already making.
0
Replies
-
Great read! I'm totally into the a calorie is not a calorie theory, and I love the explanation of how high glycemic foods equals overproduction of insulin equals fat storage. It certainly helps explain our diabetes and obesity epidemics. Also fascinating that low carb diets led to greater weight loss than low fat (which, if you've done Atkins, makes total sense because of ketosis).
I don't see this article as against calorie counting. Rather , I see it as an attempt to better understand why calorie counting has such a poor success rate.0 -
I don't see this article as against calorie counting. Rather , I see it as an attempt to better understand why calorie counting has such a poor success rate.
I agree that they are trying to explain why calorie counting has such a poor success rate I just feel they do a bad job at it in the article and rather oversimplify simplifying how people approach their calorie counting.
The other frustration I have is here is more publicly published dieting information without their being the research to backup their claims. I idea sounds good, but right now its just their idea that they haven't conclusively demonstrated. Especially since the research they present in the article for contrasting low fat vs low carb can't be used as evidence for one against another since the low fat trials were a wash.
I just dislike this yo-yoing of information.
"Addressing the underlying biological drive to overeat may make for a far more practical and effective solution to obesity than counting calories." I guess i'm just saying that most of us are addressing those issues with calorie counting, especially if your doing it in some informed way. None of wich is new information.0 -
Oh, I need to run out the door, but this is the EXCITING research to me. It's related to the flip in eating disorder theory that used to be based on the premise that every obese person ate for emotional reasons rather than addictive theory which is based on the premise that there is an underlying biological compulsion that is as strong as an addict's compulsion to use heroin or alcohol.
This is EXCITING to me because I rarely eat my feelings and because if I stay under 20 grams of carbs, I can eat 2000 calories of bacon and steak and cheese and cream and still lose weight, but once I add in carbs (Good carbs, like fruit and whole grains), I need to stay under 1400 to lose weight. Why? What is happening in my body? Why does my body want to hoard and store carbs but burn protein and fats? The unproven theory in the article is that this is related to insulin production, which makes sense. I'm not diabetic. .. I'm not even pre-diabetic, a miracle at my weight, but if I eat a heavy carb meal, I feel narcoleptic, like I could drop into a coma sleep. Or it's related to fat cells needing to be fed and stealing nutrients away from the body's metabolic cells.
What a wonderful time to be alive--what we are learning about metabolic and immunological functioning right now is astounding! If I could afford to wait five years without getting bariatric surgery , I would, because I expect we will see the end of obesity and type 2 diabetes very, very soon with, if not the magical" fat pill," something very close to it.0
