Turning wealth into health

Non-investing personal finance issues including insurance, credit, real estate, taxes, employment and legal issues such as trusts and wills

Re: Turning wealth into health

Postby CaliJim » Sun Feb 05, 2012 1:46 am

+1 on the water, but don't drown.

What one is aiming for is CRAN - Calorie Restricted with Adequate Nutrition. Foods, high starch and sugar, content are not micro nutrient dense, so, IMHO:

-1 on pretzels (83% starchy carbs), bananas (93% sugary carbs) , oats (70% starchy carbs). Apples - meh - carbs too and high fructose!

IMHO: get your carbs from the veggies - they are much more densely packed w/ fiber and nutrition. Lots of nutritional bang per calorie.

For me when I'm cutting, it's mostly veggies, eggs, beef, pork , chicken, fish, nuts, some dairy, spices, coconut oil, olive oil.

Oh.. and by the way.. fat burning is pretty much shut down when one has booze inside... so beer, wine, and hard liquor is off the menu when you are in body fat reduction mode.
Last edited by CaliJim on Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
CaliJim
 
Posts: 2082
Joined: 28 Feb 2010
Location: San Fran Bay Area

Re: Turning wealth into health

Postby CaliJim » Sun Feb 05, 2012 1:55 am

stoptothink wrote:Unfortunately good trainers are hard to find.


Sometimes you can stumble upon a misfit.

"She would of been a good woman, if it had been somebody there to shoot her every minute of her life."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Good_Man ... t_story%29
User avatar
CaliJim
 
Posts: 2082
Joined: 28 Feb 2010
Location: San Fran Bay Area

Re: Turning wealth into health

Postby Market345 » Sun Feb 05, 2012 6:48 am

Make exercise a social and regular affair: use www.meetup.com to find and join groups near you for walking, hiking, kayaking, biking, etc.

Also, get a dog - they'll make you become more active on a regular basis.
Market345
 
Posts: 32
Joined: 1 Oct 2008

Re: Turning wealth into health

Postby SPG8 » Sun Feb 05, 2012 10:11 am

Most importantly, don't believe anyone knows what they're talking about...especially me.

If you are comitted to health, you'll eventually find your way.

Pursue the recommendations that naturally appeal to you (seem to make sense) as a starting point. Like anything else, read and educate yourself. Don't eliminate entire schools of thought on predetermined biases. Be open minded.

Do it 'til it's done (and disregard this message).
SPG8
 
Posts: 357
Joined: 29 Mar 2011

Re: Turning wealth into health

Postby rayout » Sun Feb 05, 2012 11:24 am

Eat more fat: http://blog.massivehealth.com/post/1659 ... at-sources

Cut back or eliminate sugar and alcohol - they are particularly fattening: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

Minimize starchy carbohydrate consumption - regulating blood sugar levels is one of the keys to losing weight (lecture by Gary Taubes, author of Good Calories, Bad Calories and Why We Get Fat): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6vpFV6Wkl4

My take on counting calories is that it makes absolutely no sense. Biologically it misses so many critical concepts:

A calorie is a unit of energy obtained by combusting something. Some of what you eat is not digstested or combusted - if you believe that counting calories can accurately measure energy balance in the body you would have to put your poop in a bomb calorimeter each day and adjust your diet accordingly.

To assume that fat and protein have equal energy value per calorie in the body as carbohydrate is also foolish. Whether a macronutrient is truly used for fuel or re-purposed generates extremely disparate energy outputs in biology and chemistry. Your body does not typically burn protein - it is broken down to amino acids and used to re-build cells. Protein can be converted to glucose for fuel but this is an inefficient method and would not yield the true caloric value. Fat is also used to build cells walls (which is the reason why you want to increase saturated fat and decrease polyunsaturated fat, you want stable fats that hold together!), is excreted to keep your skin moist and can be converted to ketones for fuel in your body - not all of it is "burned". On low carb diets the blood is flooded with ketones and the excess is excrete through sweat and urine which again generates a caloric "loss" for a fat based diet.

Fructose, glucose and alcohol are the only substances that *MUST* be converted to energy in the body or stored as fat. Insulin regulates the storage of excess blood sugar (glucose) as fat - if you keep insulin levels down your body can begin to use your fat stores for energy. Keep insulin levels down by minimizing starchy carbohydrate intake and doing anaerobic exercise - sprints or resistance training. Cardio has little to do with weightloss as it is inefficient in depleting glycogen in muscles and thus making them more insulin sensitive.

Study after study has shown that calorie unrestricted low carbohydrate diets outperform calorie restricted high carb/low fat diets. Low carbers lose more weight and have better heart health markers. Why is that the case when "saturated fat" is so bad for you? Because saturated fat has never been scientifically proven to be bad for your heart. It is all based on fraudulent research from Ancel Keyes who linked saturated fat and cholesterol to heart disease by omitting 15 countries that bucked his trendline of higher fat intake versus heart disease rates. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20071648

*edited to fix Taubes lecture link
Last edited by rayout on Thu Feb 09, 2012 11:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
rayout
 
Posts: 310
Joined: 19 May 2009

Re: Turning wealth into health

Postby reggiesimpson » Sun Feb 05, 2012 5:10 pm

Lean towards becoming a vegetarian and start walking.
reggiesimpson
 
Posts: 1237
Joined: 19 Dec 2011

Re: Turning wealth into health

Postby ladders11 » Sun Feb 05, 2012 5:33 pm

Market345 wrote:Also, get a dog - they'll make you become more active on a regular basis.

+1 I don't think there is any way to pay someone to get you out of bed, make you go outside multiple times per day, and repeatedly annoy you to exercise. But these tasks are all accomplished by a dog.

Preferably a large, bouncy dog, who needs training and plenty of exercise. Maybe even one with a strong herding instinct to get you going.
User avatar
ladders11
 
Posts: 616
Joined: 14 Nov 2008

Re: Turning wealth into health

Postby cheese_breath » Sun Feb 05, 2012 11:18 pm

ladders11 wrote:
Market345 wrote:Also, get a dog - they'll make you become more active on a regular basis.

+1 I don't think there is any way to pay someone to get you out of bed, make you go outside multiple times per day, and repeatedly annoy you to exercise. But these tasks are all accomplished by a dog.

Preferably a large, bouncy dog, who needs training and plenty of exercise. Maybe even one with a strong herding instinct to get you going.

No offense intended to OP, but I wouldn’t suggest getting a dog or any other animal to anyone I didn’t know personally. Animals can be a lot of fun, but they also involve expenses (food, vet bills, etc.) and require a lot of attention and care (brushing, bathing, etc.). So if OP does decide to get a dog I would recommend he first consider the responsibilities that come with it. The pounds and streets are full of pets whose owners got tired of caring for them.
The surest way to know the future is when it's the past.
User avatar
cheese_breath
 
Posts: 2470
Joined: 14 Sep 2011

Re: Turning wealth into health

Postby Rodc » Tue Feb 07, 2012 9:22 pm

rayout wrote:Eat more fat: http://blog.massivehealth.com/post/1659 ... at-sources

Cut back or eliminate sugar and alcohol - they are particularly fattening: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

Minimize starchy carbohydrate consumption - regulating blood sugar levels is one of the keys to losing weight (lecture by Gary Taubes, author of Good Calories, Bad Calories and Why We Get Fat): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

My take on counting calories is that it makes absolutely no sense. Biologically it misses so many critical concepts:

A calorie is a unit of energy obtained by combusting something. Some of what you eat is not digstested or combusted - if you believe that counting calories can accurately measure energy balance in the body you would have to put your poop in a bomb calorimeter each day and adjust your diet accordingly.

To assume that fat and protein have equal energy value per calorie in the body as carbohydrate is also foolish. Whether a macronutrient is truly used for fuel or re-purposed generates extremely disparate energy outputs in biology and chemistry. Your body does not typically burn protein - it is broken down to amino acids and used to re-build cells. Protein can be converted to glucose for fuel but this is an inefficient method and would not yield the true caloric value. Fat is also used to build cells walls (which is the reason why you want to increase saturated fat and decrease polyunsaturated fat, you want stable fats that hold together!), is excreted to keep your skin moist and can be converted to ketones for fuel in your body - not all of it is "burned". On low carb diets the blood is flooded with ketones and the excess is excrete through sweat and urine which again generates a caloric "loss" for a fat based diet.

Fructose, glucose and alcohol are the only substances that *MUST* be converted to energy in the body or stored as fat. Insulin regulates the storage of excess blood sugar (glucose) as fat - if you keep insulin levels down your body can begin to use your fat stores for energy. Keep insulin levels down by minimizing starchy carbohydrate intake and doing anaerobic exercise - sprints or resistance training. Cardio has little to do with weightloss as it is inefficient in depleting glycogen in muscles and thus making them more insulin sensitive.

Study after study has shown that calorie unrestricted low carbohydrate diets outperform calorie restricted high carb/low fat diets. Low carbers lose more weight and have better heart health markers. Why is that the case when "saturated fat" is so bad for you? Because saturated fat has never been scientifically proven to be bad for your heart. It is all based on fraudulent research from Ancel Keyes who linked saturated fat and cholesterol to heart disease by omitting 15 countries that bucked his trendline of higher fat intake versus heart disease rates. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20071648


This is very enlightening. The link to Gary Taubes is incorrect, but once on you-tube just search and you can find his video. I watched one in three parts, about 90 minutes but there are shorter ones as well.

The simplest thing that struck me because after seeing it it is so obvious is that many of us know this equation:

energy stored = energy in - energy used, often interpreted as eat more than you burn and you get fat.

This is true, but this confuses correlation with causation. The way it is written it looks like you control the two variables on the right (independent variables) and the left side is then the depended variable that just has to follow. In particular you can write energy used = base metabolism + exercise. Base metabolism is assumed mostly fixed and you can pump up exercise.

But you can rewrite this trivially as

energy stored + energy used = energy in.

Suppose you eat 100 Cal. The body can choose (perhaps) any values of energy stored and energy used to make the equation work.

A body might choose to store no energy and burn all 100 Cal. Or it might choose to store 90 Cal and burn 10 Cal. It might choose to store -10 Cal and burn 110 Cal (burn stored fat). Any such choice of values is consistent with this basic equation of thermodynamics.

What might control which of those sets of variables in fact takes place in your body? The answer is insulin. What controls insulin? Carbs, and more over sugar and most of all fructose. Since sucrose (table sugar) is half glucose and half fructose, and high fructose corn syrup is also half and half the two really are indistinguishable. Problem with HFCS is simply that it is cheap and added to everything that comes out of a food factory.

Unfortunately insulin is so good at making fat, it will simply steal calories from a starving person to make more fat rather than build muscle or provide energy for work. So restricting calories or increasing exercise won't work if someone has too much insulin.

The dr in the first link goes through the biochemistry in some detail, and there are more bad things with fructose than driving up insulin, that drives heart disease, type 2 diabetes, etc.

So both these guys in the links do say that a Calorie is a Calorie as far as energy. But that is not nearly the whole story because different calories are metabolized differently, and thus trigger the body to use the energy in different ways.

One issue I have is that experts often sound like they know what they are talking about. The original experts saying reduce % of fat in your diet (which automatically if implicitly means increase carbs since you don't want protein to get too high) sounded good too. So what to do?

Seems clear that most issues with food come from processed food: too much salt, too much sugar, too little fiber, too many chemicals not found in nature. Just like being a 90-95 percentile investor is not rocket science - live below your means, broadly diversify investments, keep costs low, stick to your plan, it seems like being a 90-95 percentile eater is simple too: eat little if any factory made food, make as much as possible from ingredients as mother nature made them, don't load up on any one food (even if high fat low carbs is "right" or if low fat high carbs is "right" if you just eat a good balance of both you won't be too far off, sure "tilt away from the market portfolio" of food if you want, just don't go overboard because in 5 years we might decide our tilt was wrong! :) ) Get a fair amount of exercise of your choice. Then you at least have a good shot at the "Live long and prosper" thing.

Thanks for the links, very interesting. Will be interesting to see how the wind blow in the future.
We live a world with knowledge of the future markets has less than one significant figure. And people will still and always demand answers to three significant digits.
Rodc
 
Posts: 9448
Joined: 26 Jun 2007

Re: Turning wealth into health

Postby snyder66 » Tue Feb 07, 2012 9:27 pm

I would start with your diet. Most people overlook this, but, If you eat crap, all the exercise in the world will not matter. Start by cutting out as much processed food as you can. Then start mixing in some exercise.
snyder66
 
Posts: 1002
Joined: 2 Feb 2010

Follow Taubes

Postby VictoriaF » Wed Feb 08, 2012 8:44 am

I endorse comments by CaliJim and rayout and particularly, their explicit references to Gary Taubes' research. By the way, Taubes was a guest on Russ Roberts' econtalk podcast on 21 November 2011. Here is a link to the references, transcript, and the audio.

If you read or listen to Taubes you will realize that hiring a nutritional consultant can be as harmful as hiring a financial adviser. If a nutritionist follows a low-fat/high-carbohydrate diet, he may provide recommendations opposite to one's well-being.

In my opinion:
1) weight loss is not equivalent to better health, but it is definitely an important component of a good health;
2) weight loss depends primarily on one's food (I use the word "food" instead of the word "diet" here, because of another meaning of diet as a contrived regime);
3) exercise contributes to weight loss, but its main value is in improving one's health; see (1) about weight and loss not being equivalent;
4) money can help losing weight by buying higher quality unprocessed food and particularly meat and fish (if you believe in the Taubes' research)
5) money can help improving health by buying better food, e.g., organic produce and berries; by paying for time to exercise; by taking specialized classes that are difficult to master on one's own (e.g., Pilates, Tai Chi)
6) other necessary components of good health are good sleep and low stress, both of which require educating oneself rather than paying for.

Victoria
Every joke has a bit of a joke. ... The rest is the truth. (Marat F)
User avatar
VictoriaF
 
Posts: 11038
Joined: 27 Feb 2007
Location: Black Swan Lake

Re: Turning wealth into health

Postby buckstar » Wed Feb 08, 2012 1:17 pm

Lots of good advice - one thing that helps me is to have an exercise buddy. There are going to be lots of days when you don't feel like exercising, but if there's someone else waiting for you/expecting you to be there it can be a strong motivator to continue exercising.
User avatar
buckstar
 
Posts: 135
Joined: 6 Jul 2011

Re: Turning wealth into health

Postby brianH » Wed Feb 08, 2012 1:28 pm

I always laugh at the calories in - calories out, as it is a gross simplification of far more variables:

CIN - BMR - TEF - CPA - Excretion = Calories Stored

CIN=Calories (kcals) in: food energy measured by a calorimeter
BMR= Basal Metabolic Rate: varies by individual
TEF=Thermic Effect of Food: Protein only provides about 75% of its 4kcal/g due to body processing. Celery is probably negative from digestion, etc.
CPA=Conscious physical activity (i.e. exercise above BMR activity)
Excretion=Breath, urine, feces

Without knowing the synergies between variables, how can one use this equation to figure out anything.
brianH
 
Posts: 143
Joined: 12 Aug 2009

Re: Turning wealth into health

Postby XtremeSki2001 » Wed Feb 08, 2012 1:43 pm

IMHO, people make losing weight into this complicated equation and "right" and "wrong" ways to lose weight, but it's really quite simple as I see it:

1 - Diet
2 - Exercise

That's it! I've tried a lot of different diets and they all worked, but at the end of the day that's all they were - a diet. For the majority of people, we need something that's simple, realistic, practical, and sustainable.

Weight Watchers has one of the better practical/sustainable programs for the average person that I've seen. For the average person, this program works because it's simple, realistic, and sustainable. For the most part, it draws attention to portions and making better decisions (if you watch Biggest Loser you'll see they do something similar to sustain their weight loss going forward after the show). Sure you can have that cheesecake, but that's your points for the day and then what ... you start looking for snacks that fill you up, but are low calorie? I've found that it teaches people to make better choices and portion control - this is far more practical then eating a low-carb/south beach/you name it diet because most people aren't going to do this for years.

Add the above to some moderate exercise (something that keeps your heart rate around ~65% of your max hear rate) for 30-45 minutes 3 or 4 times a week and after 6 months you'll see the weight shed consistently. Of course as you lose weight you obviously need to adjust how much you eat and adjust your workout as your body grows accustomed to your workouts.

As CaliJim mentioned, eating junk like candy, fast food, and alcohol will absolutely set you back so these should be minimized (which weight watchers would assist with by assigning points to these items).

That
A box of rain will ease the pain and love will see you through
User avatar
XtremeSki2001
 
Posts: 1362
Joined: 9 Mar 2007
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Follow Taubes

Postby GregLee » Wed Feb 08, 2012 1:46 pm

VictoriaF wrote:If you read or listen to Taubes you will realize that hiring a nutritional consultant can be as harmful as hiring a financial adviser.

That's only if you believe Taubes. His ideas about healthy diet are not exactly established science (he is, after all, a journalist). There's no doubt that Atkins-type diets can help people lose weight in the short term, but it doesn't follow that they are healthy in the long term. That's the point that that guy was trying to make with his Twinky diet, I imagine.
Greg, retired 8/10.
User avatar
GregLee
 
Posts: 1748
Joined: 27 Oct 2010
Location: Waimanalo, HI

Re: Follow Taubes

Postby stoptothink » Wed Feb 08, 2012 2:12 pm

GregLee wrote:
VictoriaF wrote:If you read or listen to Taubes you will realize that hiring a nutritional consultant can be as harmful as hiring a financial adviser.

His ideas about healthy diet are not exactly established science (he is, after all, a journalist). There's no doubt that Atkins-type diets can help people lose weight in the short term, but it doesn't follow that they are healthy in the long term.

Well, at leat we do know the long term results of the high carbohydrate, primarily grain-based, diet prescribed by our USDA nutritional guidelines and what is taught to our RDs..we have 40 years of reseach proving it makes us fat and insulin resistant.
stoptothink
 
Posts: 1122
Joined: 31 Dec 2010

Re: Turning wealth into health

Postby mind_boggled » Wed Feb 08, 2012 2:19 pm

I just tried out the Bodylastics system recently. It's basically a set of resistance bands that come packed with some door anchors, handles, etc that are all interchangeable. So as long as you have a door you can accomplish tons of exercises from various points on the door, or holding them under your feet. What's even better is they have a sister site at liveexercise.com where they do completely new live (and archived) exercise videos using their bands (though you could do them with any brand of bands) throughout the week. I'm pretty impressed with the system so far. It's a pretty small up front investment, and free ongoing classes, and the bands are pretty space efficient compared to any other exercise machine you could buy.
mind_boggled
 
Posts: 28
Joined: 16 Jul 2011

Re: Follow Taubes

Postby CaliJim » Wed Feb 08, 2012 10:29 pm

GregLee wrote:That's only if you believe Taubes. His ideas about healthy diet are not exactly established science (he is, after all, a journalist).


What is the finding - something like 50% of all scientific papers are later refuted in whole or in part. Did I read that some country use to put lead in their drinking water because they though it was good for you? So I am skeptical in general, and I assume that there is more to be discovered about how human metabolism works than is known today.

You are correct that Taubes is a journalist. But what he does is tell a reasonable story by pitting one scientist's findings against anothers findings, showing where the science conflicts, pointing out obvious errors in scientific research, calling 'bs' when scientists confuse correlation with causation, pointing out the politics behind the 'science', and weaving a story that makes more sense than the conventional nutritional wisdom.

I'm sure Taubes has made mistakes, but I think that in general his work is headed in the right direction. His writings are well supported by more recent scientific work. For example - fructose if finally coming under deserved criticism. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magaz ... wanted=all. And here is a 2002 study examining a high protein diet that is in line with Taube's work: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11874925. There is tons of research out there that supports Taubes line of thinking.

One problem is that scientists looking for funding that 'goes against the grain' have a hard time getting it. There are many people in industry, government and academia who risk losing face, reputation, and profits, and so the 'whole grains and low fat' mythical message persists. But the truth is out there, and this situation is slowly changing.

tl;dr: Taubes is a journalist who calls 'bs' on bad science. He may have made small errors, but it is incorrect to say that his POV is 'not established'. There is a lot of established scientific research that supports his point of view.
User avatar
CaliJim
 
Posts: 2082
Joined: 28 Feb 2010
Location: San Fran Bay Area

Re: Follow Taubes

Postby GregLee » Thu Feb 09, 2012 12:17 pm

CaliJim wrote:You are correct that Taubes is a journalist. But what he does is tell a reasonable story by pitting one scientist's findings against anothers findings, showing where the science conflicts, pointing out obvious errors in scientific research, calling 'bs' when scientists confuse correlation with causation, pointing out the politics behind the 'science', and weaving a story that makes more sense than the conventional nutritional wisdom.

Yes, he does tell a good story. It's good journalism -- very gripping. But it's not science. Do we really need journalists as the final arbiters of which scientists are doing it right and which ones aren't? I don't think so.

I see some similarity between what Taubes does and what Linus Pauling did in his little book "Vitamin C and the Common Cold", which I found totally convincing, back in the day when I first read it. He reviewed the studies that had been done to evaluate possible beneficial effects of vitamin C, and found those with negative results to be methodogically deficient, and waxed enthusiastic about those which agreed with his own view that vitamin C did cure the common cold. He didn't do any research in this area himself, but being a Nobel prizewinner, he had a tremendous reputation in science. He had a wonderfully persuasive narrative about how our close evolutionary relatives consumed lots of vegetation with lots of vitamin C in it, so their ability to synthesize it naturally evolved away, then when the ancestors of humans turned from a predominantly green vegetable diet to one based on meat, and later grains, they couldn't get the vitamin C their bodies needed. Pauling also put this on a quantitative basis, estimating our requirement for intake of vitamin C from the feeding habits of gorillas.

It made a lot of sense. But, somehow, scientists in the field of human nutrition just seemed to be old fuddy-duddies, and were totally unconvinced. They didn't like Pauling's evaluation of past studies, and they didn't see him doing experimental science (in human nutrition, though of course Pauling had done plenty of real science in biochemistry).

Now, years later, we know how Pauling's affair with vitamin C turned out. Due to Pauling's reputation, a number of further experimental studies were done, very carefully -- to avoid the methodological criticisms Pauling had made of the previous studies. Results? Negative. Pauling was just wrong.

After this discouraging experience with faddist science, I became much more suspicious of popular scientific ideas which seem persuasive to people outside the field, but which specialists have not accepted.
Greg, retired 8/10.
User avatar
GregLee
 
Posts: 1748
Joined: 27 Oct 2010
Location: Waimanalo, HI

Re: Turning wealth into health

Postby nimo956 » Thu Feb 09, 2012 2:33 pm

If you really want to turn wealth into health, start your own side business that's labor-intensive, that way people pay you to work out!
25% S&P 500/ 25% 30 year US Treasury Bond/ 25% Gold/ 25% Cash
nimo956
 
Posts: 456
Joined: 15 Feb 2010

Re: Follow Taubes

Postby KyleAAA » Thu Feb 09, 2012 3:09 pm

GregLee wrote:After this discouraging experience with faddist science, I became much more suspicious of popular scientific ideas which seem persuasive to people outside the field, but which specialists have not accepted.


Would you say it's accurate to say specialists haven't accepted the paleo-ish diet as a valid and healthy alternative? Many medical doctors and general nutritionists haven't but then, they aren't the ones doing the actual research. Doctors in general have very little training in nutrition so I'm not sure why one would ask them to begin with. General nutritionists know a lot about nutrition in general but they have no knowledge of the cutting edge research. I think it's a mistake to say specialists haven't accepted this form of diet. Most of them have, at least partially.
KyleAAA
 
Posts: 5187
Joined: 1 Jul 2009

Re: Follow Taubes

Postby The_J » Thu Feb 09, 2012 3:20 pm

CaliJim wrote:
GregLee wrote:That's only if you believe Taubes. His ideas about healthy diet are not exactly established science (he is, after all, a journalist).

I'm sure Taubes has made mistakes, but I think that in general his work is headed in the right direction. His writings are well supported by more recent scientific work. For example - fructose if finally coming under deserved criticism. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magaz ... wanted=all. And here is a 2002 study examining a high protein diet that is in line with Taube's work: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11874925. There is tons of research out there that supports Taubes line of thinking.


I would note that linking to an article he wrote to show that his position is "supported by more recent scientific work" is an example of selection bias. Of course Taubes is going to pick things that support his position.

OP -- the reality is that you just have to figure out what works for you. With regard to exercise, some people find they won't workout if they don't go to the gym. Some people find they won't go to the gym. Some people like running outdoors. Other people hate running. Some people prefer group activities. Some people prefer never interacting with another human being. You have to figure out what will work for you, and then do that (whether it's free or something you have to pay for).

With regard to diet, there is a TON of research and articles and viewpoints out there. It's pretty much information overload and, just like with investing, you can suffer from analysis paralysis. Once again, you have to find something that works for you.

I've tried most things over the course of my life -- weight watchers, low-carb, low-fat, 33/33/33 protein/fat/carbs, 40/30/30, restrictive calorie counting, etc... What ended up happening is either I didn't have particularly great results or it was something I couldn't stick with long-term. Every single time I ended up putting on a lot more weight than I lost. What finally worked was reading a book by Mark Bittman (the NYT journalist) where he talked about how he basically went "vegan until dinner" and then ate whatever he wanted at and after dinner, which resulted in his losing about 30 pounds. I did that and the weight started melting off (note: I did not pair it with exercise because I was just too lazy). I lost about 70 pounds that way. And that included lots of fruits, vegetables and starches (including lots of beans and rice, pasta dishes, etc...). I've lost another 20 by tracking calories and have kept it off (nowadays I estimate calories). Like exercise, you have to figure out what works for you.

The one thing I absolutely do agree with is that you should weigh yourself daily and track it.
The_J
 
Posts: 7
Joined: 8 Feb 2012

Re: Follow Taubes

Postby CaliJim » Thu Feb 09, 2012 3:27 pm

GregLee wrote: Do we really need journalists as the final arbiters of which scientists are doing it right and which ones aren't?.....
I see some similarity between what Taubes does and what Linus Pauling did in his little book "Vitamin C and the Common Cold",


You make some interesting and thoughtful points Greg. Thanks.

I agree we don't need journalists as the final arbiters - but I think freedom of the press, and good journalism adds significantly to the 'great debate' that defines progressive society.

What do you make of Taubes criticism of Ancel Keyes Seven Country Study? Good journalism or bad?

I agree there are stylistic parallels between Taubes and Pauling, but I'm not sure that leads to the conclusion that Taubes is misdirected.

As another poster said before, I think the 40+ year SAD (standard american diet) experiment (high grain, low fat) has failed and we need something else.

[edit: PS. For those who haven't read it - Taubes book is not a diet book - it doesn't include meal plans as such. And even if you find what he says objectionable, you will get something good out of reading it - if nothing more than a jumping off place for your own additional research on the topic of nutrition.]
Last edited by CaliJim on Thu Feb 09, 2012 3:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
CaliJim
 
Posts: 2082
Joined: 28 Feb 2010
Location: San Fran Bay Area

Re: Turning wealth into health

Postby FrugalInvestor » Thu Feb 09, 2012 3:36 pm

I would recommend reading the original South Beach Diet book. What I particularly like about it is that the first half explains how to eat right and why (how the body processes various foods). It's much easier to do something well if you understand why you're doing it. The second half contains lots of good, healthy and relatively easy to prepare recipes. With the help of the book my wife and I lost considerable weight a few years ago and have largely kept it off (we need little diet "tune ups" every now and then when we begin to slide).

http://www.amazon.com/South-Beach-Diet- ... 113&sr=8-1

The other half of the equation is exercise. For us it works best to have the equipment at home that we like to use because then there's no excuse not to use it. As we got bored with one piece of equipment we added another and now we have a treadmill, elliptical and weight machine that we alternate using along with floor exercises to avoid boredom.

This formula has worked for us but of course YMMV. Good luck in your quest for better health!
Last edited by FrugalInvestor on Fri Feb 10, 2012 12:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"All generalizations are false, including this one." | -Mark Twain
User avatar
FrugalInvestor
 
Posts: 3203
Joined: 7 Nov 2008

Re: Follow Taubes

Postby CaliJim » Thu Feb 09, 2012 3:37 pm

The_J wrote:I would note that linking to an article he wrote to show that his position is "supported by more recent scientific work" is an example of selection bias.


Not selection bias...I was just using an example to prove a point - that Taubes does not occupy some extreme point of view.

Albert Einstein wrote:No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.


The_J - your point about finding out what works for you is a good one. Good job on your own weight loss. People differ, genetically and by how they have adapted to their own lifestyle. There are underlying truths (ie. eating lead is bad, eating only sugar won't work either) but there is lots of room for different strategies that work.

:wink:
User avatar
CaliJim
 
Posts: 2082
Joined: 28 Feb 2010
Location: San Fran Bay Area

Re: Follow Taubes

Postby The_J » Thu Feb 09, 2012 4:15 pm

CaliJim wrote:Not selection bias...I was just using an example to prove a point - that Taubes does not occupy some extreme point of view.


I'm not saying selection bias on your part. I'm saying that the article itself doesn't support your point because the article will be rife with selection bias. If your point is that he's published in the NYT, I would submit that doesn't actually provide any insight into the accuracy of his views (I'm not saying that I necessarily disagree with his views, FWIW).
The_J
 
Posts: 7
Joined: 8 Feb 2012

Re: Follow Taubes

Postby stoptothink » Thu Feb 09, 2012 4:25 pm

[quote="CaliJim
What do you make of Taubes criticism of Ancel Keyes Seven Country Study? Good journalism or bad?[/quote]

In all reality, Keyes isn't really the bad guy in the fat/cholesterol taboo. Interesting read http://rawfoodsos.com/2011/12/22/the-tr ... #more-1778
stoptothink
 
Posts: 1122
Joined: 31 Dec 2010

Re: Follow Taubes

Postby CaliJim » Thu Feb 09, 2012 10:05 pm



Fascinating analysis. Thanks for posting.

Anyway - we got way off topic - sorry about that.

So yeah- keys to health : eat better, be physically active, have lots of friends, wear your seat belt, don't drink and drive!
User avatar
CaliJim
 
Posts: 2082
Joined: 28 Feb 2010
Location: San Fran Bay Area

Re: Follow Taubes

Postby stoptothink » Thu Feb 09, 2012 10:14 pm

CaliJim wrote:


Fascinating analysis. Thanks for posting.


I'm slowly putting together the historical foundation for my doctoral dissertation which involves the lipid theory and its influence on contemporary treatment for insulin resistance. Minger put together the best Cliff Notes for the whole Keyes/cholesterol connection; and nothing more than a young journalist, she has embarassed her share of well known doctors(Collin Campbell to be precise) in scientific debates.
stoptothink
 
Posts: 1122
Joined: 31 Dec 2010

Re: Follow Taubes

Postby CaliJim » Thu Feb 09, 2012 10:35 pm

stoptothink wrote:
CaliJim wrote:


Fascinating analysis. Thanks for posting.


I'm slowly putting together the historical foundation for my doctoral dissertation which involves the lipid theory and its influence on contemporary treatment for insulin resistance. Minger put together the best Cliff Notes for the whole Keyes/cholesterol connection; and nothing more than a young journalist, she has embarassed her share of well known doctors(Collin Campbell to be precise) in scientific debates.


:D OK - hard to stay on topic - but since were here - I just started reading another of Minger's posts re: "Forks Over Knives" - and I absolutely love this line

minger wrote:But I also believe this type of diet (unprocessed plant foods) achieves some of its success by accident, and that the perks of eliminating processed junk are inaccurately attributed to eliminating all animal foods.
User avatar
CaliJim
 
Posts: 2082
Joined: 28 Feb 2010
Location: San Fran Bay Area

Re: Follow Taubes

Postby GregLee » Thu Feb 09, 2012 11:26 pm

CaliJim wrote:What do you make of Taubes criticism of Ancel Keyes Seven Country Study? Good journalism or bad?

I don't know anything about it. I've been interested to read some of the subsequent comments on, and references to Keyes' work. Speaking generally, I'd rather know the science on this than the journalism on it.
Greg, retired 8/10.
User avatar
GregLee
 
Posts: 1748
Joined: 27 Oct 2010
Location: Waimanalo, HI

Re: Follow Taubes

Postby rayout » Thu Feb 09, 2012 11:41 pm

GregLee wrote:
CaliJim wrote:What do you make of Taubes criticism of Ancel Keyes Seven Country Study? Good journalism or bad?

I don't know anything about it. I've been interested to read some of the subsequent comments on, and references to Keyes' work. Speaking generally, I'd rather know the science on this than the journalism on it.


The problem with epidemiologic studies is the lack of science!
rayout
 
Posts: 310
Joined: 19 May 2009

Re: Follow Taubes

Postby VictoriaF » Fri Feb 10, 2012 12:24 am

rayout wrote:
GregLee wrote:
CaliJim wrote:What do you make of Taubes criticism of Ancel Keyes Seven Country Study? Good journalism or bad?

I don't know anything about it. I've been interested to read some of the subsequent comments on, and references to Keyes' work. Speaking generally, I'd rather know the science on this than the journalism on it.


The problem with epidemiologic studies is the lack of science!


For the record, Taubes wants to have studies, but nobody seems interested in conducting them. Here is an excerpt from the transcript of his interview with Russ Roberts:

Roberts: You know, he said he lost 40 pounds giving up white rice; and I should do it. And I tried it; and you lose weight effortlessly. You are not hungry. Anyway, the question is you don't know if you are going to kill yourself. You don't know about the longer run. And that's what you need the clinical trials, just to have this faith that while you are sitting there eating your eggs and bacon in the morning you are not indeed clogging your arteries. Or doing something else. You are losing weight but there's an unintended consequence, which is what happens. And you just never know.
...
Taubes: And then my theory is: Okay, you are in perfect health, you go to your grandkid's third birthday when you are 75, you have one ice-cream cone and your heart blows up. Because you are not inured to these things. And then everyone blames it on your low carb diet that you've been eating until then. But you still have to do a randomized, controlled trial.


Victoria
Every joke has a bit of a joke. ... The rest is the truth. (Marat F)
User avatar
VictoriaF
 
Posts: 11038
Joined: 27 Feb 2007
Location: Black Swan Lake

Re: Follow Taubes

Postby XtremeSki2001 » Fri Feb 10, 2012 9:00 am

CaliJim wrote:


Fascinating analysis. Thanks for posting.

Anyway - we got way off topic - sorry about that.

So yeah- keys to health : eat better, be physically active, have lots of friends, wear your seat belt, don't drink and drive!


I'm curious what your meals look like on any given day? And assuming you go to lunch/dinner with friends on occasion, what do you do when you dine out?
A box of rain will ease the pain and love will see you through
User avatar
XtremeSki2001
 
Posts: 1362
Joined: 9 Mar 2007
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Follow Taubes

Postby SPG8 » Fri Feb 10, 2012 10:05 am


Thanks for the link, will poke around in there.

Lot of energry wasted in debate over diet. Believe in the end that there will be many benefits from a vegetarian and "paleo" diet which are shared.

Vegetarian - removes a rich source of calories (animals)
Paleo - removes a rich source of calories (grains)

In both diets, the missing calories can be replaced with vegetables.
SPG8
 
Posts: 357
Joined: 29 Mar 2011

Re: Turning wealth into health

Postby 4stripes » Fri Feb 10, 2012 11:17 am

  • Buying a treadmill - tacky living room eyesore that'll just collect dust after a month. You can walk anywhere.
  • Gym membership - most people, if they even bother going, don't know how to properly train for very good results. Just because you can do a machine, does that mean you should? Many don't even bother with this consideration, but it is huge!
  • Coach - This. Paying someone that expects you to be somewhere on time is a great way to break the psychological barriers that prevent people from just showing up. I recommend you find a real coach that knows about strength training, not a personal trainer that is going to have you doing pushups on bozo balls.
  • Weight-loss camp - how much weight do you need to lose??
  • Go on a 30-day trek... - one that is considering a weight-loss camp is probably not in condition for a 30-day trek.
Where are you now in terms of your physical condition, age, weight, location? Your post needs to include more information for useful advice.

For those who ask why one would need to spend money to get results? Past behavior is the best predictor of future results.

You can also try scare tactics, which I find to be effective. Approach these with an open mind--I am not a vegetarian, but they have informed how I eat and what is healthy. You say you are a vegetarian and eat similar to these philosophies--based on that, and my own experimentation with it, it is virtually impossible to not lose weight eating this way.

Fat, Sick, and Nearly Dead
Forks Over Knives
Engine 2 Kitchen Rescue
Food Matters
Food, Inc.
Eat to Live
The China Study
Last edited by 4stripes on Fri Feb 10, 2012 12:57 pm, edited 7 times in total.
4stripes
 
Posts: 108
Joined: 15 Feb 2011
Location: New York

Re: Turning wealth into health

Postby stoptothink » Fri Feb 10, 2012 11:36 am

[quote="4stripes
[*]Coach - This. Paying someone that expects you to be somewhere on time is a great way to break the psychological barriers that prevent people from just showing up. I recommend you find a real coach that knows about strength training, not a personal trainer that is going to have you doing pushups on bozo balls.[/quote]

I brought this up earlier, but if you are the type of person that needs someone to be accountable to in order to exercise, do not just go to a commercial gym and get a personal trainer. The overwhelming majority of personal trainers have no business training anybody; they are like financial planners, most have no more qualifications or knowledge than anybody off the street. As a professional strength and conditioning coach myself(aka a trainer who actually knows what he is talking about) do not hand your credit card to anybody who does not have at bare minimum a BS in exercise phys/kinesiology, and is CSCS, CES, and PES certified. You are very unlikely to find a single credentialed trainer at a 24hr Fitness or Gold's Gym.
Last edited by stoptothink on Fri Feb 10, 2012 11:45 am, edited 1 time in total.
stoptothink
 
Posts: 1122
Joined: 31 Dec 2010

Re: Turning wealth into health

Postby norookie » Fri Feb 10, 2012 11:43 am

stoptothink wrote:
I brought this up earlier, but if you are the type of person that needs someone to be accountable to in order to exercise, do not just go to a commercial gym and get a personal trainer. The overwhelming majority of personal trainers have no business training anybody; they are like financial planners, most have no more qualifications or knowledge than anybody off the street. As a professional strength and conditioning coach myself(aka a trainer who actually knows what he is talking about) do not hand your credit card to anybody who has at bare minimum a BS in exercise phys/kinesiology, and is CSCS, CES, and PES certified. You are very unlikely to find a single credentialed trainer at a 24hr Fitness or Gold's Gym.
+1M :mrgreen: :peace
" Wealth usually leads to excess " Cicero 55 b.c
User avatar
norookie
 
Posts: 3016
Joined: 7 Jul 2009

Re: Turning wealth into health

Postby FrugalInvestor » Thu May 31, 2012 3:39 pm

Deleted Post
Last edited by FrugalInvestor on Fri Jun 01, 2012 10:29 am, edited 2 times in total.
"All generalizations are false, including this one." | -Mark Twain
User avatar
FrugalInvestor
 
Posts: 3203
Joined: 7 Nov 2008

Re: Turning wealth into health

Postby Prudence » Thu May 31, 2012 4:15 pm

Going to the gym for cardio and weights and watching calories works great. If this is no good for you, I have a friend who has tried it all and then joined LA Boxing and she is now in fabulous shape and condition and loves going.
Prudence
 
Posts: 75
Joined: 9 Mar 2012

Re: Turning wealth into health

Postby rdmayo21 » Thu May 31, 2012 4:17 pm

IMO, Mark Sisson is the health equivalent of a Boglehead: http://www.marksdailyapple.com//welcome ... z1wTcF76xn
User avatar
rdmayo21
 
Posts: 71
Joined: 30 Sep 2011

Re: Turning wealth into health

Postby reggiesimpson » Thu May 31, 2012 4:22 pm

Quit eating crap.
Join a gym.....and go regularly to workout.
Find an activity you like that burns calories and just do it!
reggiesimpson
 
Posts: 1237
Joined: 19 Dec 2011

Re: Turning wealth into health

Postby climber2020 » Thu May 31, 2012 7:55 pm

jenny345 wrote:I have been watching shows on the Netflix instant queue on weight loss and diet for ideas and motivation, and one interesting thing I noticed about the doctors and health experts on the panel discussions is that about half of them are fat. It is really bizarre. Either they do not practice what they preach or what they preach is wrong. It is weird that they and the shows' producers do not see the irony in that. One guy was talking about how a patient of his lost fifty pounds following his diet and exercise recommendations, yet the expert giving the advice was easily 50 pounds overweight himself.


Agreed. It's tough taking weight loss advice from someone huge. Anecdotally, most of my doctor friends who are obese do preach the right thing - they just don't practice their own advice.

reggiesimpson wrote:Join a gym.....and go regularly to workout.


I think this is subjective. I got and stayed in the best shape of my life once I completely gave up the gym and started working out solo either in my own home or on the side of a mountain. For me, it was tougher to make excuses not to lift weights once the weights were a mere 15 feet away from my couch. As an added bonus, I don't have to ever again interact with grunting meatheads starving for attention and slapping each other on the rear :beer
User avatar
climber2020
 
Posts: 281
Joined: 25 Mar 2012

Re: Turning wealth into health

Postby ge1 » Thu May 31, 2012 8:31 pm

I'm using a personal coach for about a year now. Not cheap but very, very effective to improve your fitness.

Doesn't do much though in my view about weight loss, so I would echo those who say weigh loss is primarily about diet. I follow the Paleo diet (lots of meat, fish, veggies and fruits, very little / no bread, pasta, rice etc) to some extent and have been very impressed with the results. Not just the fact that you lose the weight easily, you actually feel much better. Generally more energy, don't have the typical sugar low after meals any more etc. Actually eye-opening. And I'm not even religious in following it.
ge1
 
Posts: 96
Joined: 28 Apr 2012

Re: Turning wealth into health

Postby downshiftme » Thu May 31, 2012 8:49 pm

Agreed. It's tough taking weight loss advice from someone huge. Anecdotally, most of my doctor friends who are obese do preach the right thing - they just don't practice their own advice.


If they find it that hard to follow the advice, then perhaps that alone disqualifies it from being the "right" advice.

It is one thing to say if you do this you will lose weight, because if it is difficult to follow then whether it is "right" or not doesn't matter so much. On the other hand, advice which may not be as effective or as technically "right", but which people will follow and have success with, is probably much better advice.
downshiftme
 
Posts: 613
Joined: 11 Mar 2007

Re: Turning wealth into health

Postby shmidds » Thu May 31, 2012 9:10 pm

Go on a 30 day trek...

You might not lose much weight as you build muscle, but it will be a life changing event.
User avatar
shmidds
 
Posts: 100
Joined: 12 Jun 2009

Re: Turning wealth into health

Postby climber2020 » Thu May 31, 2012 10:25 pm

downshiftme wrote:
Agreed. It's tough taking weight loss advice from someone huge. Anecdotally, most of my doctor friends who are obese do preach the right thing - they just don't practice their own advice.


If they find it that hard to follow the advice, then perhaps that alone disqualifies it from being the "right" advice.

It is one thing to say if you do this you will lose weight, because if it is difficult to follow then whether it is "right" or not doesn't matter so much. On the other hand, advice which may not be as effective or as technically "right", but which people will follow and have success with, is probably much better advice.


The problem is that people want a nice, easy solution. It doesn't exist. It's just hard, consistent work, and most aren't disciplined enough to actually follow through.

shmidds wrote:Go on a 30 day trek...

You might not lose much weight as you build muscle, but it will be a life changing event.


This actually isn't a bad idea if you have the time and flexibility. Years back, I spent 2 straight months climbing the rocky mountains (2-3 mountains a week) and it's amazing how fast the weight comes off. It makes no difference what you eat when you're burning 8,000 calories a day. The hard part is controlling your diet once you get back to civilization so you don't gain all the weight back.
User avatar
climber2020
 
Posts: 281
Joined: 25 Mar 2012

Re: Turning wealth into health

Postby downshiftme » Thu May 31, 2012 11:09 pm

The problem is that people want a nice, easy solution. It doesn't exist. It's just hard, consistent work, and most aren't disciplined enough to actually follow through.


The supposedly "right" advice that doctors gave but were unable to follow themselves isn't specified, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was something like that. This obviously does not work for many people. Further, different people seem to have different responses to different foods, situations and different types of exercises. I agree there is no "easy" advice that will enable everyone to lose as much weight as they want without effort (despite many people wishing that was so). But that doesn't mean that the only effective advice is consistent hard work with discipline. Especially since many people don't seem to be successful after getting that advice.
downshiftme
 
Posts: 613
Joined: 11 Mar 2007

Re: Turning wealth into health

Postby reggiesimpson » Fri Jun 01, 2012 7:40 am

climber2020 wrote:
jenny345 wrote:I have been watching shows on the Netflix instant queue on weight loss and diet for ideas and motivation, and one interesting thing I noticed about the doctors and health experts on the panel discussions is that about half of them are fat. It is really bizarre. Either they do not practice what they preach or what they preach is wrong. It is weird that they and the shows' producers do not see the irony in that. One guy was talking about how a patient of his lost fifty pounds following his diet and exercise recommendations, yet the expert giving the advice was easily 50 pounds overweight himself.


Agreed. It's tough taking weight loss advice from someone huge. Anecdotally, most of my doctor friends who are obese do preach the right thing - they just don't practice their own advice.

reggiesimpson wrote:Join a gym.....and go regularly to workout.


I think this is subjective. I got and stayed in the best shape of my life once I completely gave up the gym and started working out solo either in my own home or on the side of a mountain. For me, it was tougher to make excuses not to lift weights once the weights were a mere 15 feet away from my couch. As an added bonus, I don't have to ever again interact with grunting meatheads starving for attention and slapping each other on the rear :beer

I kept it vague on purpose. Choice of gym is very important and it is of course subjective. But getting out of the house and going to a gym tends to more effective than doing the workouts only at home (for most). I also recommended finding an activity with a broad stroke because again you need to find what works for you. Swimming, hiking etc. Something that burns calories but is more of a fun "sport" if you will. As far as the diet comment "quit eating crap". I plagiarized that from a favorite book of mine "Younger Next Year". The vast majority of diets fail. Folks generally know by now what is good food and what is crap........stop eating the crap.
reggiesimpson
 
Posts: 1237
Joined: 19 Dec 2011

Re: Turning wealth into health

Postby stoptothink » Fri Jun 01, 2012 8:19 am

reggiesimpson wrote:As far as the diet comment "quit eating crap". I plagiarized that from a favorite book of mine "Younger Next Year". The vast majority of diets fail. Folks generally know by now what is good food and what is crap........stop eating the crap.


Most diets fail because you need a lifestyle change, not a temporary solution. Same thing with exercise; it does not have to be extreme but some physical activity has to become a regular part of your life. You didn't get out of shape overnight or gain all the weight overnight, it is an accumulation of small things over a long period of time.
stoptothink
 
Posts: 1122
Joined: 31 Dec 2010

PreviousNext

Return to Personal Finance (Not Investing)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: alinna, FNK, heyyou, hmw, HopeToGolf, mrpotatoheadsays, Yahoo [Bot] and 48 guests