Fat Head is an awesome documentary.
Replies
-
It's always good to view documentaries with some objectivity, but I did enjoy Fat Head. The idea that I don't have to order a super size meal (or fries, or a coke for that matter!) just because the person taking my order asks me to. It's a personal responsibility thing.
This absolutely. One of the first things I changed in my diet was what I ordered at fast food places. Instead of a large big mac meal, I would get a regular hamburger and small fries. As I do this longer, I hardly eat fast food because I want to really be able to enjoy those cheats. I'll always make room for a slice of pizza.0 -
It's always good to view documentaries with some objectivity, but I did enjoy Fat Head. The idea that I don't have to order a super size meal (or fries, or a coke for that matter!) just because the person taking my order asks me to. It's a personal responsibility thing.
I do not mean to be facetious so please forgive me if that is how my question sounds but, did you not already know this? When someone in a position to sell you something offers you something more than what you asked for as a 'bargin", they are not really doing it for your benefit are they? They are upselling. I've never been a big fast food eater but when I have, I ordered what I had chosen and declined the upsell. I didn't want to spend more and I didn't want to eat more. I think it's dangerous territory when we start blaming people who's mission it is to sell us stuff for the fact that we buy it. (not that you are doing that) It is all about our own intentional and, theoretically, informed choices.0 -
Did you ever take the time to consider that both docs are equally crappy?
Supersize Me- Eat in a surplus, gain weight
FatHead - Eat in a deficit, lose weight
Woah!
Yep.
Moreover, both had nutrient deficient diets. It's not "just" about the numbers but overall health too. I have a profound dislike for sensationalism one way or the other.0 -
It's always good to view documentaries with some objectivity, but I did enjoy Fat Head. The idea that I don't have to order a super size meal (or fries, or a coke for that matter!) just because the person taking my order asks me to. It's a personal responsibility thing.
I do not mean to be facetious so please forgive me if that is how my question sounds but, did you not already know this? When someone in a position to sell you something offers you something more than what you asked for as a 'bargin", they are not really doing it for your benefit are they? They are upselling. I've never been a big fast food eater but when I have, I ordered what I had chosen and declined the upsell. I didn't want to spend more and I didn't want to eat more. I think it's dangerous territory when we start blaming people who's mission it is to sell us stuff for the fact that we buy it. (not that you are doing that) It is all about our own intentional and, theoretically, informed choices.
I'm pretty sure she's talking about people in general taking responsibility for personal choices instead of having some political figure head ban certain sizes of sodas in their "fight of obesity."0 -
It's always good to view documentaries with some objectivity, but I did enjoy Fat Head. The idea that I don't have to order a super size meal (or fries, or a coke for that matter!) just because the person taking my order asks me to. It's a personal responsibility thing.
I do not mean to be facetious so please forgive me if that is how my question sounds but, did you not already know this? When someone in a position to sell you something offers you something more than what you asked for as a 'bargin", they are not really doing it for your benefit are they? They are upselling. I've never been a big fast food eater but when I have, I ordered what I had chosen and declined the upsell. I didn't want to spend more and I didn't want to eat more. I think it's dangerous territory when we start blaming people who's mission it is to sell us stuff for the fact that we buy it. (not that you are doing that) It is all about our own intentional and, theoretically, informed choices.
I'm pretty sure she's talking about people in general taking responsibility for personal choices instead of having some political figure head ban certain sizes of sodas in their "fight of obesity."
Yup, I got that. So am I.0 -
Low carb high fat is not new. It is actually what endocrinologist recommend for type 2 diabetics. I know this because my niece developed gestational diabetes that progressed to type 2. After 6 months of <100g per day and high fat she is no longer clinically diabetic.
I was prediabetic. But not anymore. The only way to stay that way is to maintain low carbs.
We are all different and have different needs.
I found what works for me without feeling weak. I have plenty of energy to workout even if I go to the gym 5 hours after my last food of any kind. But as I get closer to my goal weight and my "stored energy supply" is reduced, that will happen less frequently. Sometimes I am in the pool just a hour after eating. All depends on my schedule for the day.0 -
I think the documentary raises an interesting question that no one ever really addresses: Do insulin spikes matter in a calorie deficit?
As you can see from this thread, there are those who think that if calories and protein are held constant, insulin spikes are inconsequential. On the other hand, low carb advocates believe that they have a significant impact on body composition, by preventing the body from accessing fat stores.
It seems to me to depend on whether insulin spikes can outlast calories. Assume, for instance, that a person wakes up and has a large glass of concentrated grape juice and a giant bagel -- not a completely outlandish hypothetical. Is it likely that this person's insulin will remain elevated longer than the calories from that food will be available for energy? If so, during this gap in time, is access to fat stores completely cut off? If it is, low carb advocates would seem to have an argument. If not, it's quite a bit about nothing.
Protein is insulinogenic, better go low carb and low protein to minimize insulin spikes0 -
I think the documentary raises an interesting question that no one ever really addresses: Do insulin spikes matter in a calorie deficit?
As you can see from this thread, there are those who think that if calories and protein are held constant, insulin spikes are inconsequential. On the other hand, low carb advocates believe that they have a significant impact on body composition, by preventing the body from accessing fat stores.
It seems to me to depend on whether insulin spikes can outlast calories. Assume, for instance, that a person wakes up and has a large glass of concentrated grape juice and a giant bagel -- not a completely outlandish hypothetical. Is it likely that this person's insulin will remain elevated longer than the calories from that food will be available for energy? If so, during this gap in time, is access to fat stores completely cut off? If it is, low carb advocates would seem to have an argument. If not, it's quite a bit about nothing.
Protein is insulinogenic, better go low carb and low protein to minimize insulin spikes
The tracker is helpful in working toward my targets. I still need to up the fat intake and lower protein some more. Carbs are generally below my max target. I know when my protein is getting high because I get *kitten* breath :bigsmile:0 -
I'm gonna have to check it out...0
-
Bumping for later. Interesting. I'm eating pasta as we speak. Still under calorie goal. Oops.0
-
I thought Super High Me was better than both mentioned.
Sooo much better.0 -
I think the documentary raises an interesting question that no one ever really addresses: Do insulin spikes matter in a calorie deficit?
As you can see from this thread, there are those who think that if calories and protein are held constant, insulin spikes are inconsequential. On the other hand, low carb advocates believe that they have a significant impact on body composition, by preventing the body from accessing fat stores.
It seems to me to depend on whether insulin spikes can outlast calories. Assume, for instance, that a person wakes up and has a large glass of concentrated grape juice and a giant bagel -- not a completely outlandish hypothetical. Is it likely that this person's insulin will remain elevated longer than the calories from that food will be available for energy? If so, during this gap in time, is access to fat stores completely cut off? If it is, low carb advocates would seem to have an argument. If not, it's quite a bit about nothing.
Protein is insulinogenic, better go low carb and low protein to minimize insulin spikes
Everything is relative, to belabor the obvious. Stop by for dinner one night. I'll eat the steak. You can have the white bread.
I get 35% of my calories from carbohydrates, but I'm not foolish enough to dismiss the possibility that carbohydrates can significantly blunt lipolysis, even in a calorie deficit.0 -
I think the documentary raises an interesting question that no one ever really addresses: Do insulin spikes matter in a calorie deficit?
As you can see from this thread, there are those who think that if calories and protein are held constant, insulin spikes are inconsequential. On the other hand, low carb advocates believe that they have a significant impact on body composition, by preventing the body from accessing fat stores.
It seems to me to depend on whether insulin spikes can outlast calories. Assume, for instance, that a person wakes up and has a large glass of concentrated grape juice and a giant bagel -- not a completely outlandish hypothetical. Is it likely that this person's insulin will remain elevated longer than the calories from that food will be available for energy? If so, during this gap in time, is access to fat stores completely cut off? If it is, low carb advocates would seem to have an argument. If not, it's quite a bit about nothing.
Protein is insulinogenic, better go low carb and low protein to minimize insulin spikes
Everything is relative, to belabor the obvious.
Hey! Don't take away everyone's fun of arguing their points in absolutes.0 -
It seems to me to depend on whether insulin spikes can outlast calories. Assume, for instance, that a person wakes up and has a large glass of concentrated grape juice and a giant bagel -- not a completely outlandish hypothetical. Is it likely that this person's insulin will remain elevated longer than the calories from that food will be available for energy? If so, during this gap in time, is access to fat stores completely cut off? If it is, low carb advocates would seem to have an argument. If not, it's quite a bit about nothing.
As far as I understand it, food with a high glycemic index, like that bagel and grape juice, are going to cause sharp spikes in blood sugar that rise and drop rapidly, prompting a similarly strong but brief insulin response. Food with a low glycemic index is going to gradually raise blood sugar levels, which will taper off, which the insulin response will reflect. So it's all relative and shouldn't significantly impact body composition.0 -
It seems to me to depend on whether insulin spikes can outlast calories. Assume, for instance, that a person wakes up and has a large glass of concentrated grape juice and a giant bagel -- not a completely outlandish hypothetical. Is it likely that this person's insulin will remain elevated longer than the calories from that food will be available for energy? If so, during this gap in time, is access to fat stores completely cut off? If it is, low carb advocates would seem to have an argument. If not, it's quite a bit about nothing.
As far as I understand it, food with a high glycemic index, like that bagel and grape juice, are going to cause sharp spikes in blood sugar that rise and drop rapidly, prompting a similarly strong but brief insulin response. Food with a low glycemic index is going to gradually raise blood sugar levels, which will taper off, which the insulin response will reflect. So it's all relative and shouldn't significantly impact body composition.
Thanks, Sarah. That's really the important context. If insulin can't outlast the calories that prompted the response, it shouldn't make a difference. I've heard people generally comment that insulin can stay elevated for up to 5 hours, but there was never any context, so I have no idea.0 -
I think the documentary raises an interesting question that no one ever really addresses: Do insulin spikes matter in a calorie deficit?
As you can see from this thread, there are those who think that if calories and protein are held constant, insulin spikes are inconsequential. On the other hand, low carb advocates believe that they have a significant impact on body composition, by preventing the body from accessing fat stores.
It seems to me to depend on whether insulin spikes can outlast calories. Assume, for instance, that a person wakes up and has a large glass of concentrated grape juice and a giant bagel -- not a completely outlandish hypothetical. Is it likely that this person's insulin will remain elevated longer than the calories from that food will be available for energy? If so, during this gap in time, is access to fat stores completely cut off? If it is, low carb advocates would seem to have an argument. If not, it's quite a bit about nothing.
Protein is insulinogenic, better go low carb and low protein to minimize insulin spikes
Everything is relative, to belabor the obvious.
Hey! Don't take away everyone's fun of arguing their points in absolutes.
Yes. Loads of nuance around here.0 -
I think the documentary raises an interesting question that no one ever really addresses: Do insulin spikes matter in a calorie deficit?
As you can see from this thread, there are those who think that if calories and protein are held constant, insulin spikes are inconsequential. On the other hand, low carb advocates believe that they have a significant impact on body composition, by preventing the body from accessing fat stores.
It seems to me to depend on whether insulin spikes can outlast calories. Assume, for instance, that a person wakes up and has a large glass of concentrated grape juice and a giant bagel -- not a completely outlandish hypothetical. Is it likely that this person's insulin will remain elevated longer than the calories from that food will be available for energy? If so, during this gap in time, is access to fat stores completely cut off? If it is, low carb advocates would seem to have an argument. If not, it's quite a bit about nothing.
Protein is insulinogenic, better go low carb and low protein to minimize insulin spikes
Everything is relative, to belabor the obvious. Stop by for dinner one night. I'll eat the steak. You can have the white bread.
I get 35% of my calories from carbohydrates, but I'm not foolish enough to dismiss the possibility that carbohydrates can significantly blunt lipolysis, even in a calorie deficit.
You may find this interesting. It may not be as obvious as you are suggesting.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/66/5/1264.full.pdf+html0 -
Beyond the affect on blood sugar, which one makes you full longer? A bowl of life cereal and some skim milk will fill me up for all of 15 minutes. A protein shake or 3 eggs with a little cheese (all approx the same calories) will keep me full for 3-4 hours. Simple carbs and low fat meals make me hungry quickly, protein and fat keep me full and satisfied. Veggies, except white potatoes, and most fruits are great. I don't limit them at all.
I would suggest trying low carb, high fat for a week or two. If it doesn't work for you, move on.0 -
I think the documentary raises an interesting question that no one ever really addresses: Do insulin spikes matter in a calorie deficit?
As you can see from this thread, there are those who think that if calories and protein are held constant, insulin spikes are inconsequential. On the other hand, low carb advocates believe that they have a significant impact on body composition, by preventing the body from accessing fat stores.
It seems to me to depend on whether insulin spikes can outlast calories. Assume, for instance, that a person wakes up and has a large glass of concentrated grape juice and a giant bagel -- not a completely outlandish hypothetical. Is it likely that this person's insulin will remain elevated longer than the calories from that food will be available for energy? If so, during this gap in time, is access to fat stores completely cut off? If it is, low carb advocates would seem to have an argument. If not, it's quite a bit about nothing.
Protein is insulinogenic, better go low carb and low protein to minimize insulin spikes
Everything is relative, to belabor the obvious. Stop by for dinner one night. I'll eat the steak. You can have the white bread.
I get 35% of my calories from carbohydrates, but I'm not foolish enough to dismiss the possibility that carbohydrates can significantly blunt lipolysis, even in a calorie deficit.
Then we should expect lower carb diets to result in greater fat loss, correct?0 -
I think the documentary raises an interesting question that no one ever really addresses: Do insulin spikes matter in a calorie deficit?
As you can see from this thread, there are those who think that if calories and protein are held constant, insulin spikes are inconsequential. On the other hand, low carb advocates believe that they have a significant impact on body composition, by preventing the body from accessing fat stores.
It seems to me to depend on whether insulin spikes can outlast calories. Assume, for instance, that a person wakes up and has a large glass of concentrated grape juice and a giant bagel -- not a completely outlandish hypothetical. Is it likely that this person's insulin will remain elevated longer than the calories from that food will be available for energy? If so, during this gap in time, is access to fat stores completely cut off? If it is, low carb advocates would seem to have an argument. If not, it's quite a bit about nothing.
Protein is insulinogenic, better go low carb and low protein to minimize insulin spikes
Everything is relative, to belabor the obvious. Stop by for dinner one night. I'll eat the steak. You can have the white bread.
I get 35% of my calories from carbohydrates, but I'm not foolish enough to dismiss the possibility that carbohydrates can significantly blunt lipolysis, even in a calorie deficit.
Then we should expect lower carb diets to result in greater fat loss, correct?
Only if elevated insulin levels can outlast the calories from the food(s) that caused the spike. If so, it still seems patently obvious that the results of any study on the issue could vary wildly, depending on the subjects and methodology. By way of example, the results may be different for highly trained athletes versus obese subjects. Another consideration would be whether food intake was self-reported or controlled.0 -
I thought Super High Me was better than both mentioned.
Love that comedian!0 -
Hey! Don't take away everyone's fun of arguing their points in absolutes.
I'm always open to learn and listen to others. I pass on information that I believe relevant to the conversation. There are always exceptions and I would hope that is understood when discussing any type of diet. A low carb diet is obviously better for a diabetic but someone who trains hard might want to carb load. They have different goals then the average dieter, which is a good portion of the people here and the general rule of "calories in, calories out" is the very first adjustment for weight loss.0 -
I approve of this message and will wear my 'Wheat Is Murder' t-shirt today in celebration.
I love the bits where he asks his wife to comment on their sex life and the bit where he's faking feeling bad during the night.
Spurlock is an idiot.
Check out the 'Science For Dummies' lecture on YouTube if you like Tom Naughton's stuff.0 -
I'm always open to learn and listen to others. I pass on information that I believe relevant to the conversation. There are always exceptions and I would hope that is understood when discussing any type of diet. A low carb diet is obviously better for a diabetic but someone who trains hard might want to carb load. They have different goals then the average dieter, which is a good portion of the people here and the general rule of "calories in, calories out" is the very first adjustment for weight loss.
I would say that 'average dieter' has been overloaded with refined carbohydrate and is likely in bad metabolic shape as a result of following the whole 'low fat, restrict your calories, eat 300g carbs a day' (a.k.a torture) thing repeatedly.
For me, for anyone looking to lose weight:
Step 1: Fix the metabolism (Stop food cravings, get off the blood sugar rollercoaster, get in touch with REAL hunger and get efficient at being a fat-burner primarily, as we have evolved to be)
Step 2: Then worry about the calories in/out
Calories count in the end but doesn't it make sense to control them without be a slave incessant hunger and deprivation?
Yes, if you are doing intense activity you will need more decent sources of carbohydrate but I prefer to be a fat-burning sloth.0 -
In the absence of excess carbs to stash away the insulin response to protein isn't a big deal - the blood glucose is slightly lower as glucagon is released too - otherwise eating a steak would drop you on the floor in a hypoglycaemic coma.Protein is insulinogenic, better go low carb and low protein to minimize insulin spikes
Protein only responses (no carbs) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18167171 :-
Mixtures of various protein and carbs at 0.2g/kg body weight all gave a reduction from baseline in glucose (area under curve) over 2 hours whereas the CHO only option (same amount of CHO) gave an increase in glucose. Similarly all of the protein/CHO mixtures produce a higher insulin and glucagon response over 2 hours with the CHO only option giving a net reduction of glucagon.
So you don't need to avoid protein on the basis that it creates an insulin response as it comes with an offsetting glucagon response, unlike carbohydrate alone which depresses glucagon and elevates blood glucose over 2 hours post eating.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/178514620 -
In the absence of excess carbs to stash away the insulin response to protein isn't a big deal - the blood glucose is slightly lower as glucagon is released too - otherwise eating a steak would drop you on the floor in a hypoglycaemic coma.Protein is insulinogenic, better go low carb and low protein to minimize insulin spikes
Protein only responses (no carbs) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18167171 :-
Mixtures of various protein and carbs at 0.2g/kg body weight all gave a reduction from baseline in glucose (area under curve) over 2 hours whereas the CHO only option (same amount of CHO) gave an increase in glucose. Similarly all of the protein/CHO mixtures produce a higher insulin and glucagon response over 2 hours with the CHO only option giving a net reduction of glucagon.
So you don't need to avoid protein on the basis that it creates an insulin response as it comes with an offsetting glucagon response, unlike carbohydrate alone which depresses glucagon and elevates blood glucose over 2 hours post eating.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17851462
Agree with all you posted yarwell. So, then is the culprit insulin?0 -
My understanding is that Protein necessarily elevates insulin in order to store what the body needs from it.
But the magnitude is considerably less than Carbohydrate and hence will not cause insulin resistance over time and all the follows.
I believe I said early on somewhere on here that protein does not do this, I was clearly wrong.
Insulin aside, the benefits of not having repeatedly high blood sugar/insulin go far beyond just losing some unwanted blubber.0 -
In the absence of excess carbs to stash away the insulin response to protein isn't a big deal - the blood glucose is slightly lower as glucagon is released too - otherwise eating a steak would drop you on the floor in a hypoglycaemic coma.Protein is insulinogenic, better go low carb and low protein to minimize insulin spikes
Protein only responses (no carbs) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18167171 :-
Mixtures of various protein and carbs at 0.2g/kg body weight all gave a reduction from baseline in glucose (area under curve) over 2 hours whereas the CHO only option (same amount of CHO) gave an increase in glucose. Similarly all of the protein/CHO mixtures produce a higher insulin and glucagon response over 2 hours with the CHO only option giving a net reduction of glucagon.
So you don't need to avoid protein on the basis that it creates an insulin response as it comes with an offsetting glucagon response, unlike carbohydrate alone which depresses glucagon and elevates blood glucose over 2 hours post eating.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17851462
And what does glucagon effect and what does it not effect?0 -
For which crime ? Insulin + excess carbs --> fat storage, so it's implicated in obesity but the excess energy is probably the "culprit" in getting obese the first time round. I don't know what would happen if someone drank over their TDEE of cream which has a very low insulin response - I guess the fat release mechanisms would respond to the elevated levels of fatty acids in the blood and shut down and ultimately store the excess fat from the cream - hard to blame insulin for that one.So, then is the culprit insulin?
Insulin is part of the energy balancing system, if you eat something you can use that as fuel and insulin can shut off the fat release from storage as it isn't needed. If you get to be obese and become insulin resistant then elevated levels of insulin are going to inhibit fat loss so insulin is perhaps a culprit when it comes to preventing weight loss. Similarly a drip feed of carbs through the day can't be good for fat loss.
I'm not convinced low carb eating would prevent obesity but I do think it facilitates weight loss.
Diabulimia does provide some insulin-specific evidence - by taking less insulin Type 1 diabetics can influence their weight gain / loss ( with serious health risks - don't try this at home folks )0 -
It's always good to view documentaries with some objectivity, but I did enjoy Fat Head. The idea that I don't have to order a super size meal (or fries, or a coke for that matter!) just because the person taking my order asks me to. It's a personal responsibility thing.
I do not mean to be facetious so please forgive me if that is how my question sounds but, did you not already know this? When someone in a position to sell you something offers you something more than what you asked for as a 'bargin", they are not really doing it for your benefit are they? They are upselling. I've never been a big fast food eater but when I have, I ordered what I had chosen and declined the upsell. I didn't want to spend more and I didn't want to eat more. I think it's dangerous territory when we start blaming people who's mission it is to sell us stuff for the fact that we buy it. (not that you are doing that) It is all about our own intentional and, theoretically, informed choices.
I'm pretty sure she's talking about people in general taking responsibility for personal choices instead of having some political figure head ban certain sizes of sodas in their "fight of obesity."
Yup, I got that. So am I.
Fat Head is a response to Super Size Me. One of the basics of Super Size Me was that Spurlock always said yes when he was asked to "Super Size" a meal. He also made it a point to order every item (and meal) on the menu at least once- even when it was so much food that he couldn't keep it all down. The premise dismisses the idea that we have a choice in what we order.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K 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
- 426 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