Looking for other pro science people on here
Replies
-
lithezebra wrote: »summerkissed wrote: »Has science now gone too far? The World Health Organization has released that Red meat will now be listed at the same level as cigarettes, asbestos and arsenic on the cancer causing scale!!! So now red meat is as bad for you as smoking!
http://www.medicaldaily.com/red-meat-just-likely-give-you-cancer-cigarette-world-health-organization-says-358750
Can anyone find the research confirming this? And I mean confirming this like the research on cigarettes and asbestos!!!
They should have said that nitrates cause cancer. You can get bacon without nitrates. The smoking process also produces carcinogens. Oh well.
But, but:
http://chriskresser.com/the-nitrate-and-nitrite-myth-another-reason-not-to-fear-bacon/
Hell, they make nitrite supplements that supposedly improve your health.
Ohhhhh please tell me you are quoting Chris Kresser with sarcasm??? Please tell me so!!0 -
summerkissed wrote: »lithezebra wrote: »summerkissed wrote: »Has science now gone too far? The World Health Organization has released that Red meat will now be listed at the same level as cigarettes, asbestos and arsenic on the cancer causing scale!!! So now red meat is as bad for you as smoking!
http://www.medicaldaily.com/red-meat-just-likely-give-you-cancer-cigarette-world-health-organization-says-358750
Can anyone find the research confirming this? And I mean confirming this like the research on cigarettes and asbestos!!!
They should have said that nitrates cause cancer. You can get bacon without nitrates. The smoking process also produces carcinogens. Oh well.
But, but:
http://chriskresser.com/the-nitrate-and-nitrite-myth-another-reason-not-to-fear-bacon/
Hell, they make nitrite supplements that supposedly improve your health.
Ohhhhh please tell me you are quoting Chris Kresser with sarcasm??? Please tell me so!!
Ha, it was definitely a joke. As was the supplement (although sadly they are sold, and I met one of the researchers who developed them and he was a greasy used car salesman type guy).0 -
I spend a lot of my free time trying to combat pseudo-science and misinformation in another set of subjects, but rational thinking is something that should be applied to every day life. It's scary how willing people are to accept certain things without any evidence, and also ignore other facts despite mountains of evidence.0
-
summerkissed wrote: »lithezebra wrote: »summerkissed wrote: »Has science now gone too far? The World Health Organization has released that Red meat will now be listed at the same level as cigarettes, asbestos and arsenic on the cancer causing scale!!! So now red meat is as bad for you as smoking!
http://www.medicaldaily.com/red-meat-just-likely-give-you-cancer-cigarette-world-health-organization-says-358750
Can anyone find the research confirming this? And I mean confirming this like the research on cigarettes and asbestos!!!
They should have said that nitrates cause cancer. You can get bacon without nitrates. The smoking process also produces carcinogens. Oh well.
But, but:
http://chriskresser.com/the-nitrate-and-nitrite-myth-another-reason-not-to-fear-bacon/
Hell, they make nitrite supplements that supposedly improve your health.
Ohhhhh please tell me you are quoting Chris Kresser with sarcasm??? Please tell me so!!
Ha, it was definitely a joke. As was the supplement (although sadly they are sold, and I met one of the researchers who developed them and he was a greasy used car salesman type guy).
Feeewww lol I thought I could hear your sarcasm but I had to make sure.....you just never know on here0 -
summerkissed wrote: »Has this come about now though because of the LCHF movement where people are eating processed meats in massive amounts?? I'll still have my snags on the bbq, char grilled steak and bacon and eggs on Saturday mornings.....but I know heaps of people eating bacon, ham, sausages in huge amounts everyday with little to no carbs because they want to lose weight....Why does everything have to be to the extreme?
Unfortunately, sometimes extremes are necessary. I am currently eating a low carb, moderate protein diet because of a recent diabetes diagnosis. That inherently means I need a fairly high fat content in order to consume enough calories to provide my body with the fuel it needs to operate. But a growing body of research also supports using it to overcome obesity (see the link in the last sentence). I would not personally use it to overcome obesity if that was my only issue - but I have done enough research to be comfortable that it is effective and harmless, at least in the short term.
Prolonged exposure to moderately elevated blood glucose levels (in the range of 140 mg/dl) destroys the beta cells that are necessary for insulin production. Over time, the loss of these beta cells pushes more T2 diabetics, who began as merely insulin resistant, to require insulin supplementation. In addition, peripheral neuropathy also starts around that range. Despite this, the standard recommendation (the one my physician gave me 3 weeks ago) was to aim for my BG level below 180 by 2 hours after each meal. Given that the recommendation is snacking throughout the day, that pretty much means a blood glucose elevated above 140 most of the time. The target A1C (3 month average) they gave my mother was an average of 140 - likely meaning sustained periods of time above 140.
The routine diet prescribed for diabetics is 1/2 of your plate filled with low carb veggies & 1/4 with grains and other high carb items, for a total of around 100 (or more) grams of carbs a day. That sounds to me like a recipe for slow suicide - and I plan to stick around for another 40 years or so.
I'm just starting this journey, but my initial research, in real medical journals, strongly supports what is commonly known as LCHF as an effective way to manage diabetes, obesity and seizures, and potentially more neurological disorders. It has been proven highly effective to keep blood glucose levels in the normal range. Some of the research into whether it is sustainable and harmless to other aspects of health long term has been tainted/stalled by knee-jerk prejudice that such a diet has to be unhealthy
I prefer to think of it as LCMP (moderate protein), with the balance of calories filled out by healthy fats. My focus is on limiting my carb intake enough to keep my blood glucose level in the normal range, without overeating protein which is hard on kidneys and the liver. I have been limiting carb intake to below 50 grams net carb (less than half the standard recommendation) for approximately 3 weeks since diagnosis, with a protein target of around 63 g (calculated to sustain my lean body mass). My blood sugar has been above 140 only 3 times in that period, and the last 3 days it was normal (i.e. not in the diabetic range) on waking. My average blood sugar in this time frame is 110.7. (At diagnosis, my average for the preceding 3 months was 160 mg/dl.)
Just because it is extreme doesn't mean it is wrong. I run like the plague from people who say, just trust me - it works, but who can't give a science based explanation! But I also run like the plague from people who insist that new ideas have to be bad just because they are extreme or counter to the dominant understanding. I'm tired of being labeled an anti-science whack job because I am often ahead of the curve, not only on this issue, but other health matters for my family. I have a 3 decade long track record of anticipating where treatment is headed for the rare and uncommon conditions my family seems to collect, and being forced to have almost knock-down, drag-out fights with medical professionals providing care for us. Not because I reject science, but because I am willing (and competent enough) to do my own literature review and chart a path that is supported by at least some evidence and an articulable scientific theory, even though it is not yet the majority view.
And, oh yeah, I have 2 degrees in math and one in physics. Being anti-science is not in my vocabulary.
I hope you (and others who make blanket statements about LCHF) can keep an open mind to the cutting edge research that is being done with regard to the potential benefits this diet, summarized here.
0 -
summerkissed wrote: »Has this come about now though because of the LCHF movement where people are eating processed meats in massive amounts?? I'll still have my snags on the bbq, char grilled steak and bacon and eggs on Saturday mornings.....but I know heaps of people eating bacon, ham, sausages in huge amounts everyday with little to no carbs because they want to lose weight....Why does everything have to be to the extreme?
Unfortunately, sometimes extremes are necessary. I am currently eating a low carb, moderate protein diet because of a recent diabetes diagnosis. That inherently means I need a fairly high fat content in order to consume enough calories to provide my body with the fuel it needs to operate. But a growing body of research also supports using it to overcome obesity (see the link in the last sentence). I would not personally use it to overcome obesity if that was my only issue - but I have done enough research to be comfortable that it is effective and harmless, at least in the short term.
Prolonged exposure to moderately elevated blood glucose levels (in the range of 140 mg/dl) destroys the beta cells that are necessary for insulin production. Over time, the loss of these beta cells pushes more T2 diabetics, who began as merely insulin resistant, to require insulin supplementation. In addition, peripheral neuropathy also starts around that range. Despite this, the standard recommendation (the one my physician gave me 3 weeks ago) was to aim for my BG level below 180 by 2 hours after each meal. Given that the recommendation is snacking throughout the day, that pretty much means a blood glucose elevated above 140 most of the time. The target A1C (3 month average) they gave my mother was an average of 140 - likely meaning sustained periods of time above 140.
The routine diet prescribed for diabetics is 1/2 of your plate filled with low carb veggies & 1/4 with grains and other high carb items, for a total of around 100 (or more) grams of carbs a day. That sounds to me like a recipe for slow suicide - and I plan to stick around for another 40 years or so.
I'm just starting this journey, but my initial research, in real medical journals, strongly supports what is commonly known as LCHF as an effective way to manage diabetes, obesity and seizures, and potentially more neurological disorders. It has been proven highly effective to keep blood glucose levels in the normal range. Some of the research into whether it is sustainable and harmless to other aspects of health long term has been tainted/stalled by knee-jerk prejudice that such a diet has to be unhealthy
I prefer to think of it as LCMP (moderate protein), with the balance of calories filled out by healthy fats. My focus is on limiting my carb intake enough to keep my blood glucose level in the normal range, without overeating protein which is hard on kidneys and the liver. I have been limiting carb intake to below 50 grams net carb (less than half the standard recommendation) for approximately 3 weeks since diagnosis, with a protein target of around 63 g (calculated to sustain my lean body mass). My blood sugar has been above 140 only 3 times in that period, and the last 3 days it was normal (i.e. not in the diabetic range) on waking. My average blood sugar in this time frame is 110.7. (At diagnosis, my average for the preceding 3 months was 160 mg/dl.)
Just because it is extreme doesn't mean it is wrong. I run like the plague from people who say, just trust me - it works, but who can't give a science based explanation! But I also run like the plague from people who insist that new ideas have to be bad just because they are extreme or counter to the dominant understanding. I'm tired of being labeled an anti-science whack job because I am often ahead of the curve, not only on this issue, but other health matters for my family. I have a 3 decade long track record of anticipating where treatment is headed for the rare and uncommon conditions my family seems to collect, and being forced to have almost knock-down, drag-out fights with medical professionals providing care for us. Not because I reject science, but because I am willing (and competent enough) to do my own literature review and chart a path that is supported by at least some evidence and an articulable scientific theory, even though it is not yet the majority view.
And, oh yeah, I have 2 degrees in math and one in physics. Being anti-science is not in my vocabulary.
I hope you (and others who make blanket statements about LCHF) can keep an open mind to the cutting edge research that is being done with regard to the potential benefits this diet, summarized here.
I beg to disagree, you are on that diet for treatment of diabetes! You also stated that the long term use of these diets are not known, processed meats contain cancer causing substances as well as a huge amount of artery clogging saturated fats a diet high in these will increase your chances of cancer and attribute to high blood pressure which will not help type 2 diabetes!! The type of diabetes also comes into play here type 1 diabetes has no cure and has no known cause, type 1 depends on the use of insulin as the pancreas doesn't make it anymore and you can't modify your lifestyle to control or stop the condition......type 2 diabetes does have a known cause and can also be cured with diet and exercise! Type 2 lifestyle factors are the main trigger point high blood pressure, obesity, lack of physical exercise, bad diet these can be changed and it can be controlled with a Healthy Diet and exercise! The pancreas still makes insulin but not efficiently......85% of cases of diabetes diagnosed today are type 2 isn't that saying something for diets these days?? I've had a lot to do with both types of diabetes as well and I've also had 2 clients free themselves of this disease though diet and very very importantly exercise!! Both of which are used to control, blood pressure and reduce weight till the body can operate again normally! I trained for comp with a young man that has type 1 diabetes and my niece also has type 1 diabetes.
Your case doesn't mean LCHF is healthy at all!!! I have health issues but I'm not going to say that avoiding what I have too is because it's healthy....I do it out of necessity that's a different thing....do we say that peanuts are bad because some are allergic, and the science saying the fats in them aren't good?? No some have to avoid for a medical reason....doesn't mean that they are bad! You are on a LCHF diet for a medical condition doesn't change the fact they are dangerous for the vast majority of the population without specific requirements!0 -
summerkissed wrote: »lithezebra wrote: »lithezebra wrote: »summerkissed wrote: »Has science now gone too far? The World Health Organization has released that Red meat will now be listed at the same level as cigarettes, asbestos and arsenic on the cancer causing scale!!! So now red meat is as bad for you as smoking!
http://www.medicaldaily.com/red-meat-just-likely-give-you-cancer-cigarette-world-health-organization-says-358750
Can anyone find the research confirming this? And I mean confirming this like the research on cigarettes and asbestos!!!
They should have said that nitrates cause cancer. You can get bacon without nitrates. The smoking process also produces carcinogens. Oh well.
But, but:
http://chriskresser.com/the-nitrate-and-nitrite-myth-another-reason-not-to-fear-bacon/
Hell, they make nitrite supplements that supposedly improve your health.
I'll go with the stack of peer reviewed evidence on nitrates, nitrites, smoke, and browned meat. I wish that the WHO would be more specific about what it is in processed meats that contributes to cancer risk.
Has this come about now though because of the LCHF movement where people are eating processed meats in massive amounts?? I'll still have my snags on the bbq, char grilled steak and bacon and eggs on Saturday mornings.....but I know heaps of people eating bacon, ham, sausages in huge amounts everyday with little to no carbs because they want to lose weight....Why does everything have to be to the extreme?
There are probably political reasons to make a big statement now. It has been known for decades that nitrites, nitrates, and the browning and smoking of meat are all carcinogenic. Meat in general has health benefits, and some deficits, and a lot fewer deficits if you eat unprocessed meat, in large or small quantities, rather than large quantities of bacon, sausage and ham. Vegetarian and vegan diets have some benefits, but not as many as a diet that includes some meat.0 -
And might I add the guy that had type 1 that was training with me ate the same as any of us did he just had to check his blood glucose levels and he acted as his pancreas did and injected insulin as required!
Another thing is doctors use the low carb method for fast weight loss and in majority of type 2 diabetes this is needed as obesity is the main contributor! And a LCHF diet is still going to be better than the currelithezebra wrote: »summerkissed wrote: »lithezebra wrote: »lithezebra wrote: »summerkissed wrote: »Has science now gone too far? The World Health Organization has released that Red meat will now be listed at the same level as cigarettes, asbestos and arsenic on the cancer causing scale!!! So now red meat is as bad for you as smoking!
http://www.medicaldaily.com/red-meat-just-likely-give-you-cancer-cigarette-world-health-organization-says-358750
Can anyone find the research confirming this? And I mean confirming this like the research on cigarettes and asbestos!!!
They should have said that nitrates cause cancer. You can get bacon without nitrates. The smoking process also produces carcinogens. Oh well.
But, but:
http://chriskresser.com/the-nitrate-and-nitrite-myth-another-reason-not-to-fear-bacon/
Hell, they make nitrite supplements that supposedly improve your health.
I'll go with the stack of peer reviewed evidence on nitrates, nitrites, smoke, and browned meat. I wish that the WHO would be more specific about what it is in processed meats that contributes to cancer risk.
Has this come about now though because of the LCHF movement where people are eating processed meats in massive amounts?? I'll still have my snags on the bbq, char grilled steak and bacon and eggs on Saturday mornings.....but I know heaps of people eating bacon, ham, sausages in huge amounts everyday with little to no carbs because they want to lose weight....Why does everything have to be to the extreme?
There are probably political reasons to make a big statement now. It has been known for decades that nitrites, nitrates, and the browning and smoking of meat are all carcinogenic. Meat in general has health benefits, and some deficits, and a lot fewer deficits if you eat unprocessed meat, in large or small quantities, rather than large quantities of bacon, sausage and ham. Vegetarian and vegan diets have some benefits, but not as many as a diet that includes some meat.
Very true....in this age of extremes it's sad we need to keep issuing warnings about everything! Time for the diet industry to come under some very very strict laws! Especially here in Australia where any joe bob can call themselves a nutritionist or dietitian....we have no laws against it! You can do a $49 course on one of the discount site and bam your qualified!0 -
summerkissed wrote: »summerkissed wrote: »Has this come about now though because of the LCHF movement where people are eating processed meats in massive amounts?? I'll still have my snags on the bbq, char grilled steak and bacon and eggs on Saturday mornings.....but I know heaps of people eating bacon, ham, sausages in huge amounts everyday with little to no carbs because they want to lose weight....Why does everything have to be to the extreme?
Unfortunately, sometimes extremes are necessary. I am currently eating a low carb, moderate protein diet because of a recent diabetes diagnosis. That inherently means I need a fairly high fat content in order to consume enough calories to provide my body with the fuel it needs to operate. But a growing body of research also supports using it to overcome obesity (see the link in the last sentence). I would not personally use it to overcome obesity if that was my only issue - but I have done enough research to be comfortable that it is effective and harmless, at least in the short term.
. . .
Just because it is extreme doesn't mean it is wrong.
. . .
I hope you (and others who make blanket statements about LCHF) can keep an open mind to the cutting edge research that is being done with regard to the potential benefits this diet, summarized here.
I beg to disagree, you are on that diet for treatment of diabetes! You also stated that the long term use of these diets are not known, processed meats contain cancer causing substances as well as a huge amount of artery clogging saturated fats a diet high in these will increase your chances of cancer and attribute to high blood pressure which will not help type 2 diabetes!! . . . type 2 diabetes does have a known cause and can also be cured with diet and exercise! Type 2 lifestyle factors are the main trigger point high blood pressure, obesity, lack of physical exercise, bad diet these can be changed and it can be controlled with a Healthy Diet and exercise! The pancreas still makes insulin but not efficiently . . . You are on a LCHF diet for a medical condition doesn't change the fact they are dangerous for the vast majority of the population without specific requirements!
Set aside your biases and do some research. Aside from your gross generalizations about what a low carb, moderate protein diet consists of, you are also not accurately describing Type 2 diabetes. The cause of Type 2 diabetes is not fully understood. There is a strong genetic component, and it strikes people in "normal" weight ranges (like my mother, grandfather (skinny as a rail), uncle, and spouse (skinny as a rail)), as well as those who exercise regularly (like my mother and spouse). Many obese people (with or without exercise) never become diabetic. My mother and spouse both use heavy doses of medication to keep their numbers in the range that is called being under control - but both average in the range at which the blood glucose is continuously killing off beta cells, driving them both toward insulin dependence. My mother, whose numbers are worse, eats an extremely healthy diet, and has all her life. Her degree includes dietary training - and she has followed that training for at the least the 5+ decades I've paid any attention to it.
The problem with Type 2 diabetes is not inefficient production of insulin (at least not until later, once the sustained high blood glucose levels the medical industry calls "well-controlled" kills off enough beta cells that it impairs insulin production. The problem is insulin resistance. Sufficient insulin is being produced to transport the glucose from the bloodstream into the parts of the body that need it - but the insulin receptors are not working efficiently (insulin resistance) so it does not move them out quickly enough, leading to post-carb consumption spikes of blood glucose.
Read some of the research about low carb-high fat diets and lipids with an open mind. If you can manages to do that, you will probably be surprised. Here's a start:
"In recent years, restriction of carbohydrate intake for weight loss has become widespread. Our research group began studying physiological responses to very-low-carbohydrate ketogenic diets (VLCKDs) in the late 1990s because we felt there was a significant void in the literature and limited understanding of metabolic responses to VLCKDs. This launched us into a line of research examining the physiological effects of VLCKDs. In this paper, we briefly overview nine studies we have published on isoenergetic and hypoenergetic VLCKDs in men and women. These studies have focused on blood lipid responses to VLCKDs, but we have also addressed changes in body weight, body composition, and hormones. Compared with low-fat diets, short-term VLCKDs consistently result in improvements in fat loss, fasting and postprandial triacylglycerols, high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol, the distribution of low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol subclasses, and insulin resistance. These are the key metabolic abnormalities of metabolic syndrome, a problem of epidemic proportions in the United States. There is substantial variability in total cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol responses to VLCKD. The factors responsible for this variability are not known, and studies designed to identify methods to predict blood lipid responses to VLCKD and other dietary approaches represent critical areas for nutrition researchers. Further research is warranted to validate the physiological effects of VLCKD over longer periods of time, including studies that modify the quality of macronutrients (i.e., the type of fat and protein) and the interaction with other interventions (e.g., exercise, dietary supplements, drugs)." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15601959
"The KEMEPHY diet lead to weight reduction, improvements in cardiovascular risk markers, reduction in waist circumference and showed good compliance." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21992535
"Forty-nine (58.3%) participants completed the study. Both interventions led to improvements in hemoglobin A1c, fasting glucose, fasting insulin, and weight loss. The LCKD group had greater improvements in hemoglobin A1c (-1.5% vs. -0.5%, p = 0.03), body weight (-11.1 kg vs. -6.9 kg, p = 0.008), and high density lipoprotein cholesterol (+5.6 mg/dL vs. 0 mg/dL, p < 0.001) compared to the LGID group. Diabetes medications were reduced or eliminated in 95.2% of LCKD vs. 62% of LGID participants (p < 0.01)." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/190995890 -
summerkissed wrote: »And might I add the guy that had type 1 that was training with me ate the same as any of us did he just had to check his blood glucose levels and he acted as his pancreas did and injected insulin as required!
Another thing is doctors use the low carb method for fast weight loss and in majority of type 2 diabetes this is needed as obesity is the main contributor! And a LCHF diet is still going to be better than the curre
My blood glucose was under control in 3 days, before I lost a pound. The more direct and provable blood glucose link for T2D is to carb consumption, not obesity. My spouse and mother, both of whom have Type 2 diabetes are well within normal weight ranges and both exercise several times a week. Both follow the ADA guidelines for carb consumption of around 150 grams a day (my mother strictly, and my spouse loosely). Both take large doses of metformin. Their blood sugars average 154 ml/dl and 135 ml/dl. I am obese, and take the smallest dose of metformin. Mine has averaged 108 ml/dl since the first home test I did, 3 days after diagnosis. The continuous average (what I am quoting for my mother and spouse) is likely even lower because most of my 4+ tests a day have been done when I expected to test high. I am obese, and do little more than climb several flights a day to and from my office for exercise.
0 -
Diabetes necessitates low carb? Imma jus leave dis here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rm0MG_zYIdQ 0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »Look for people with jailbars over their avatar.
Bahahahaha0 -
Diabetes necessitates low carb?
Thanks - at least she is looking more in depth, beyond dumping medicine at the problem - and has revised her thinking on fats in accordance with the more recent research. Her comments on a ketogenic diet being pro-inflammatory do not match other research, and her timelines for breakdown are inconsistent with the research I've found on ketogenic diets, and she does not address the damage sustained high blood sugar does to the insulin production side of the equation. But I'll add it to the pile of things I am reviewing.
A quick check indicates at least her work is not peer-reviewed (she may be basing it on peer-reviewed work, but she doesn't (in this talk) cite it well enough to track down). Her website has the "trust me" feel I inherently distrust. But since she is talking about another piece of the equation that has not been addressed in most of the research I have reviewed, I'll see if I can dig out the underlying peer-reviewed (I hope) research she is referring to.
(BTW - your introductory phrase seems more like you are aiming to pick a fight with a zealous "anti-science whack job" than trying to provide additional information for someone who is actively researching (not to mention that Schwarzbein's first book advocated a slightly less healthy version of the diet I am currently following). Just sayin')0 -
Diabetes necessitates low carb?
Thanks - at least she is looking more in depth, beyond dumping medicine at the problem - and has revised her thinking on fats in accordance with the more recent research. Her comments on a ketogenic diet being pro-inflammatory do not match other research, and her timelines for breakdown are inconsistent with the research I've found on ketogenic diets, and she does not address the damage sustained high blood sugar does to the insulin production side of the equation. But I'll add it to the pile of things I am reviewing.
A quick check indicates at least her work is not peer-reviewed (she may be basing it on peer-reviewed work, but she doesn't (in this talk) cite it well enough to track down). Her website has the "trust me" feel I inherently distrust. But since she is talking about another piece of the equation that has not been addressed in most of the research I have reviewed, I'll see if I can dig out the underlying peer-reviewed (I hope) research she is referring to.
(BTW - your introductory phrase seems more like you are aiming to pick a fight with a zealous "anti-science whack job" than trying to provide additional information for someone who is actively researching (not to mention that Schwarzbein's first book advocated a slightly less healthy version of the diet I am currently following). Just sayin')
Her problem is that even though sugar may cause damage, it is minor next to the fact that dropping insulin reduces nitric oxide production in the cells - cells that are already underproducing it due to lost insulin sensitivity - which is important for vascular and cardiovascular health. People die far more often from cardiac events than diabetic neuropathy. I don't buy everything she hypothesizes, but at some point I intend to look more into the insulin nitric oxide relation.
And yes, my tone was in any way phrased to be persuasive.
And yes, Schwarzbein used to advocate low carb based diets for diabetes but has revised her thinking on the matter. Many people mistake obstinacy in for correctness or having principles. I believe principled people should change their understanding as new facts arise.0 -
I love that you added this and want to follow this thread! I'm a retired medical doctor.
One word of caution, though, is that the studies in this area are not reliable enough that they don't contradict one another very frequently. A quick look through the "Well" blogs on the NY Times will give you contradictory information about how much you need to exercise and what to eat to maximize weight loss or general fitness, all that information supported by scientific research. Also, consider how dietary recommendations have changed over the years (now it's that we didn't need to be drinking skim milk), although a lot of those recommendations were not based in hard enough science. So, I'd say common sense is still in order, and view anything new with skepticism until it is well replicated.
Another thought is that psychology is also a science, with more overlap with biology all the time as we learn more about neurotransmitters and brain activity as they affect behavior. Considering the factors that influence behavior can be a huge help in losing weight. Is that something that you want in in this thread, or should that be its own topic?
If Shadowfax_c11 is an animal trainer, maybe she can add her opinion here and a better explanation than I can give, but there has been a lot of old and well-documented research in the field of behavior. You probably all know Skinner and Pavlov, but look up Bob Bailey, the Brelands, and Dr. Susan Friedman, whose field is applied behavioral analysis, in Utah (behaviorworks.org).
I don't think that anyone here doubts the validity of CICO, the need for a nutritious diet, especially in the long term, and the benefits of exercise. However, despite our knowing that we were eating more than we should have been to maintain or lose weight, we did it anyway. Losing weight required a change in the behavior of eating. In animal training through positive reinforcement, it is beneficial to set the learner up for success by controlling the antecedents, that is, setting the stage so that the learner is more likely to be right. Controlling the antecedents can be hugely helpful in achieving weight loss. Examples would be (1) getting enough sleep, as there are studies showing that sleep deprivation is linked to weight gain and increased appetite - so, maybe turning off the laptop and turning in to bed will help (2) having healthy meals ready, so one is more likely to eat the right food than, driven by hunger, grab the wrong food or (3) finding a friend with whom to walk or exercise, so one is more likely to follow through, especially before exercise becomes a habit.
As much as I consider myself a scientist, I have not been happy with some of the discussions I have read in which a poster feels discouraged or explains how he/she gained weight, and the CICO crowd is disparaging and essentially says to man up. We don't want to just make excuses, but analyzing how we got to be overweight and then making the changes that will make us more likely to follow CI<CO is the key. That's science, too.
Scientists, weigh in (no pun intended) here, please!
As a Behavior Analyst/Therapist, I couldn't agree more. I am currently entertaining the idea of antecedent modification in my own life to create and link new habits/consequences with pre-existing behaviors. Also, I find it very interesting to read studies on the link between Sensory Processing Disorders and cravings/overeating and how proprioceptive sensory needs are subconsciously met in the process.
Feel free to ad me! Although I may post Bible verses and the like.
0 -
as has been said above, OP, it's calories in vs calories out. but you also need to be consistent. keep pushing yourself. even if you slip back to poor habits here and there, no matter what, keep pushing yourself. i myself am fighting to be more even keeled in my daily habits. my diet is just a part of my goal overall. best wishes!0
-
I'm pro-science! Add me?0
-
blankiefinder wrote: »I love that you added this and want to follow this thread! I'm a retired medical doctor.
One word of caution, though, is that the studies in this area are not reliable enough that they don't contradict one another very frequently. A quick look through the "Well" blogs on the NY Times will give you contradictory information about how much you need to exercise and what to eat to maximize weight loss or general fitness, all that information supported by scientific research. Also, consider how dietary recommendations have changed over the years (now it's that we didn't need to be drinking skim milk), although a lot of those recommendations were not based in hard enough science. So, I'd say common sense is still in order, and view anything new with skepticism until it is well replicated.
Another thought is that psychology is also a science, with more overlap with biology all the time as we learn more about neurotransmitters and brain activity as they affect behavior. Considering the factors that influence behavior can be a huge help in losing weight. Is that something that you want in in this thread, or should that be its own topic?
If Shadowfax_c11 is an animal trainer, maybe she can add her opinion here and a better explanation than I can give, but there has been a lot of old and well-documented research in the field of behavior. You probably all know Skinner and Pavlov, but look up Bob Bailey, the Brelands, and Dr. Susan Friedman, whose field is applied behavioral analysis, in Utah (behaviorworks.org).
I don't think that anyone here doubts the validity of CICO, the need for a nutritious diet, especially in the long term, and the benefits of exercise. However, despite our knowing that we were eating more than we should have been to maintain or lose weight, we did it anyway. Losing weight required a change in the behavior of eating. In animal training through positive reinforcement, it is beneficial to set the learner up for success by controlling the antecedents, that is, setting the stage so that the learner is more likely to be right. Controlling the antecedents can be hugely helpful in achieving weight loss. Examples would be (1) getting enough sleep, as there are studies showing that sleep deprivation is linked to weight gain and increased appetite - so, maybe turning off the laptop and turning in to bed will help (2) having healthy meals ready, so one is more likely to eat the right food than, driven by hunger, grab the wrong food or (3) finding a friend with whom to walk or exercise, so one is more likely to follow through, especially before exercise becomes a habit.
As much as I consider myself a scientist, I have not been happy with some of the discussions I have read in which a poster feels discouraged or explains how he/she gained weight, and the CICO crowd is disparaging and essentially says to man up. We don't want to just make excuses, but analyzing how we got to be overweight and then making the changes that will make us more likely to follow CI<CO is the key. That's science, too.
Scientists, weigh in (no pun intended) here, please
Blogs are not science. That would be like taking health advice from a magazine (who is just trying to sell their latest issue) or from Dr. Oz who is just trying to hawk the latest fad and get ad revenue.
Peer reviewed primary sources are science. And that disparaging CICO crowd? They (we) are usually the first to step up and try to help someone here.
Many articles cite current peer reviewed articles as the basis of the article or blog. I seriously doubt most people sit around with stacks of journal articles reading and cross referencing primary sources around here. Most articles are behind a pay wall anyways and articles written about articles help make that information more readily.
0
This discussion has been closed.
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
- 427 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