Fat, Sick, and Nearly Dead

Questions on how we spend our money and our time - consumer goods and services, home and vehicle, leisure and recreational activities
User avatar
Topic Author
TxAg
Posts: 1564
Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2009 11:09 am

Fat, Sick, and Nearly Dead

Post by TxAg » Mon Jan 02, 2012 10:47 pm

Has anyone watched this? Has anyone tried this?

There's no way I'd be able to do a juice fast for any length of time, but I do think it would be beneficial to substitute a meal (or two) a day with solely fruits/veggies.

I'm curious what the masses think...

HuggieBear
Posts: 64
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2011 7:06 am

Re: Fat, Sick, and Nearly Dead

Post by HuggieBear » Mon Jan 02, 2012 10:55 pm

Haven't seen it, but his approach doesn't sound sustainable.


The actual secret to fitness and good health is out there....gotta get back to our evolutionary roots. See marksdailyapple.com or http://www.amazon.com/Why-We-Get-Fat-Ab ... 0307272702


I'm convinced the gubbmint knows this but suppresses it either a) to protect the farm (wheat & corn) industry, b) the packaged food industry, or c) because there isn't enough decent meat to sustain a large population on an evolutionarily correct diet.

In any case, the secret is out there for those willing to open their eyes.

User avatar
daytona084
Posts: 863
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2010 10:47 pm

Re: Fat, Sick, and Nearly Dead

Post by daytona084 » Mon Jan 02, 2012 11:21 pm

I just watched the film yesterday on Hulu.com.... Very inspirational, interesting and entertaining.

He (Joe Cross) does not claim the method (juice fast) is "sustainable". In his case he targeted 60 days. For others, it could be less than that. Whatever works or helps.

Regarding the method of the juice fast... there is no magic bullet but it worked for the people in the movie. Hard to argue with that. One guy went from about 420 lbs to about 220 IIRC. Basically saved his life.

It's actually better to consume the whole fruit / vegetable rather than just the juice... (in other words, make green smoothies) but for a short-term "kick-start" I would not quibble with the details.

supertreat
Posts: 328
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 11:57 pm

Re: Fat, Sick, and Nearly Dead

Post by supertreat » Mon Jan 02, 2012 11:23 pm

Just follow Dean Ornish's spectrum lifestyle. It's backed by science and the very strictest version has been shown to reverse heart disease and early stage prostate cancer.

http://www.ornishspectrum.com
Assets - Liabilities = Equity + (Income - Expenses)

User avatar
daytona084
Posts: 863
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2010 10:47 pm

Re: Fat, Sick, and Nearly Dead

Post by daytona084 » Mon Jan 02, 2012 11:24 pm

bridenour wrote:Haven't seen it, but his approach doesn't sound sustainable.


The actual secret to fitness and good health is out there....gotta get back to our evolutionary roots. See marksdailyapple.com or http://www.amazon.com/Why-We-Get-Fat-Ab ... 0307272702


I'm convinced the gubbmint knows this but suppresses it either a) to protect the farm (wheat & corn) industry, b) the packaged food industry, or c) because there isn't enough decent meat to sustain a large population on an evolutionarily correct diet.

In any case, the secret is out there for those willing to open their eyes.
I have not read "Why we Get Fat" by Gary Taubes but I have read "Good Calories, Bad Calories" also by Gary Taubes and I do agree, we have been led astray down the "low fat" path by the medical establishment AND the various government agencies.

HuggieBear
Posts: 64
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2011 7:06 am

Re: Fat, Sick, and Nearly Dead

Post by HuggieBear » Mon Jan 02, 2012 11:30 pm

Reading good calories, bad calories right now....I'm only a couple chapters in, but it is already eye opening in a sort of way that I have rarely experienced in my life.

rayout
Posts: 368
Joined: Tue May 19, 2009 11:30 am

Re: Fat, Sick, and Nearly Dead

Post by rayout » Mon Jan 02, 2012 11:53 pm

I second bridnour's book recommendation, it changed my life. Taubes goes into the biology of how fat is regulated in our bodies and how the modern medical institutions have been so blinded and continue to advocate ridiculous dietary policy (grain based, high carb, low fat diets) in the face of substantial evidence for a high fat/low carb diets. I've lost over 30 lbs of fat in the past 9 months, and am no longer pre-diabetic or pre-hypertensive.

The documentary that led me to the book is called Fat Head - a mockumentary against Supersize Me. This guy goes around eating fast food (without the soda or bun) and loses ~10lbs at the end of the month.

I am not a big fan of the Ornish diet...much better than the Standard Ameican Diet but the fact that you leave out saturated fat and animal products that your body actually needs to maintain good health is a big ding against him. The fact that real food (with the exception of the whole grains nonsense) are emphasized in the Ornish diet is a plus though.

I am shocked with how my peers have turned out...I've gone back this previous year to make contact with a few friends from college and everyone has put on 30 to 40 lbs. Weird that I used to be the tubby guy compared to them and now its the other way around. I'm only 25...amazing what 3 to 4 years of stressful office work and poor diet can do.

inv321
Posts: 68
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2009 1:10 pm

Re: Fat, Sick, and Nearly Dead

Post by inv321 » Tue Jan 03, 2012 12:01 am

Losing weight is very simple, just make calories in less than calories out. Eat a balanced diet and exercise. Billions and billions are made every year making this seem more complex or espousing the "secret" to weight loss. I see many many similarities to the world of investing and finance.

User avatar
Topic Author
TxAg
Posts: 1564
Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2009 11:09 am

Re: Fat, Sick, and Nearly Dead

Post by TxAg » Tue Jan 03, 2012 12:08 am

Before this takes a wrong turn,.....I'm looking for thoughts on juicing your fruits and veggies.

rayout
Posts: 368
Joined: Tue May 19, 2009 11:30 am

Re: Fat, Sick, and Nearly Dead

Post by rayout » Tue Jan 03, 2012 12:45 am

inv321 wrote:Losing weight is very simple, just make calories in less than calories out. Eat a balanced diet and exercise. Billions and billions are made every year making this seem more complex or espousing the "secret" to weight loss. I see many many similarities to the world of investing and finance.
Calories in calories out is a statement of what is happening but does not explain the underlying bio-chemistry at all. This gross mis-characterization of obesity is part of the reason people are so obese in the western world.

Realize that obesity is a problem in developing nations with average caloric intake well below 2000 calories a day. Calories in calories out does not explain the fact that there are obese mothers taking their malnourished kids to health clinics in these countries. The underlying mechanism for fat storage goes beyond calories.
Last edited by rayout on Tue Jan 03, 2012 12:49 am, edited 1 time in total.

rayout
Posts: 368
Joined: Tue May 19, 2009 11:30 am

Re: Fat, Sick, and Nearly Dead

Post by rayout » Tue Jan 03, 2012 12:48 am

TxAg wrote:Before this takes a wrong turn,.....I'm looking for thoughts on juicing your fruits and veggies.
If you are looking for liquid veggies I recommend googling for green smoothies - you get to keep the fiber and more nutrients this way. I prefer to eat my vegetables whole though so I can't make any recommendations :P

User avatar
CaliJim
Posts: 3050
Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2010 8:47 pm
Location: California, near the beach

Re: Fat, Sick, and Nearly Dead

Post by CaliJim » Tue Jan 03, 2012 1:00 am

TxAg wrote:Before this takes a wrong turn,.....I'm looking for thoughts on juicing your fruits and veggies.
I watched the movie a while ago. It was somewhat inspiring - but it isn't the full story on health and nutrition.

Juicing is a form of calorie restricted diet with adequate nutrition (CRAN).

CRAN diets have been associated with increased longevity, decreased heart disease, decreased diabetes. You certainly are increasing your vitamin and mineral intake when you juice.

OTOH - Anthony Bourdain talks about how all his raw food friends in the restaurant business were always getting sick with parasites from eating so much uncooked food. So... wash and rinse before you juice.

I value my muscle strength and hormone production - so I would never go on a protein restricted diet.

HelenaJustina
Posts: 91
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2011 9:10 am

Re: Fat, Sick, and Nearly Dead

Post by HelenaJustina » Tue Jan 03, 2012 7:16 am

TxAg wrote:Before this takes a wrong turn,.....I'm looking for thoughts on juicing your fruits and veggies.
If you're seriously considering trying it, I'd get a week or two worth of smoothies from a warehouse store before investing in any special equipment. Liquid replacement diets can get difficult to stick to quickly, and a decent blender or juicer can run into the hundreds of dollars. Costco sells individual Naked smoothies and Bolthouse juices where I live. They also have great deals on organic spinach, carrots and Blendtec Blenders.

Blending is superior to juicing from a strictly nutritional standpoint, but all that fibery goodness will increase the calories involved.

User avatar
englishgirl
Posts: 2476
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 5:34 pm
Location: FL

Re: Fat, Sick, and Nearly Dead

Post by englishgirl » Tue Jan 03, 2012 7:28 am

I've seen the movie, and it's an intriguing idea. The idea of a "reboot" with just fruits and veggies could be very powerful to help change your eating habits in the long term, although I think by the end of the movie Joe had gained some of the weight back.

I might give it a go for a few days or even up to a week, but it's not something I'd try (or they even recommend) long term. Then again, I've toyed with the idea of juicing for breakfast, and haven't done that yet either.
Sarah

User avatar
dm200
Posts: 22904
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 2:21 pm
Location: Washington DC area

Re: Fat, Sick, and Nearly Dead

Post by dm200 » Tue Jan 03, 2012 9:38 am

TxAg wrote:Before this takes a wrong turn,.....I'm looking for thoughts on juicing your fruits and veggies.
IMO, that is backwards. Almost all of us need MORE fiber and extracting and consuming just the juice eliminates the parts of the fruits and vegetables we may need the most.

greensky
Posts: 118
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 9:55 pm

Re: Fat, Sick, and Nearly Dead

Post by greensky » Tue Jan 03, 2012 11:37 am

dm200 wrote:IMO, that is backwards. Almost all of us need MORE fiber and extracting and consuming just the juice eliminates the parts of the fruits and vegetables we may need the most.
I think the idea was because the two main people in the movie had an auto-immune disorder. One theory on what causes them is that bad diet can trigger conditions that cause a leaky gut. Supposedly having a diet that's easier to digest can help the gut heal. I don't know if there are any actual studies to back that up, but in general I'll agree with you about people needing more, not less fiber.

sunspotzsz
Posts: 230
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 9:35 am

Re: Fat, Sick, and Nearly Dead

Post by sunspotzsz » Tue Jan 03, 2012 11:44 am

I watched the documentary and was inspired by it.

I did not fully adopt their approach since I am from a culture where moderation is key to everything. But, I did buy a juicer and started consuming a lot more vegetables and fruits than before.

In past 3 month, I lost 20lbs and feel much better.
Stay the course! | | Californians can save energy, reduce emission and get paid by signing up with ohm. | | https://ohm.co/sunspotzsz

brianH
Posts: 328
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 12:21 pm

Re: Fat, Sick, and Nearly Dead

Post by brianH » Tue Jan 03, 2012 11:45 am

On juice fasts: assuming a bunch of fruit, you're looking at a good deal of sugar. I don't think it's all that healthy to spike blood glucose with sugar water many times a day. Fruit is meant to be consumed whole so that the fiber slows the sugar absorption (and naturally limits you to a piece or two.)

I did a comment on another board where I researched what was in the 'juice' consumed in this movie. I think I worked it out to be less than 1000kcal a day. For the size of the guys in the movie, that's a huge (>1500kcal) deficit. There's little doubt that one will lose weight, but it's not sustainable or healthy. The whole idea of juice fasts reminds me a bit too much of 'colon cleansing', a.k.a. woo woo nonsense.

Also, GCBC is excellent. A must read. If you want an easier version, he later wrote 'Why We Get Fat and What to Do About It', which isn't as science-nerdy.

leo383
Posts: 478
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 9:36 pm
Location: Durham, NC

Re: Fat, Sick, and Nearly Dead

Post by leo383 » Tue Jan 03, 2012 11:51 am

bridenour wrote:Haven't seen it, but his approach doesn't sound sustainable.


c) because there isn't enough decent meat to sustain a large population on an evolutionarily correct diet.

In any case, the secret is out there for those willing to open their eyes.
I think C is correct. There are now 7 billion people on Earth. Not enough meat especially to provide anywhere near 7 billion people with a meat/veggies/fruit/nuts diet.

User avatar
joha31
Posts: 43
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 7:10 am

Re: Fat, Sick, and Nearly Dead

Post by joha31 » Tue Jan 03, 2012 12:19 pm

inv321 wrote:Losing weight is very simple, just make calories in less than calories out. Eat a balanced diet and exercise. Billions and billions are made every year making this seem more complex or espousing the "secret" to weight loss. I see many many similarities to the world of investing and finance.
Losing weight IS very simple but the complexity arises when trying to accomplish a specific goal as well as keeping yourself healthy throughout the cycle. For instance, manipulating your macronutrient amounts for fat loss, muscle gain, bulking, general maintenance, etc. Each one of these cycles has a different approach concerning mealtime macros, daily macros, meal timing, supplementation.

So yes, it can be as simple as calories in calories out if the scale is your only concern but for those who have specific goals in mind then it can become as infinitely complex as the individual is willing to take it.
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take. -Wayne Gretzky" -Michael Scott

SPG8
Posts: 357
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2011 10:27 am

Re: Fat, Sick, and Nearly Dead

Post by SPG8 » Tue Jan 03, 2012 12:27 pm

TxAg wrote:There's no way I'd be able to do a juice fast for any length of time, but I do think it would be beneficial to substitute a meal (or two) a day with solely fruits/veggies.
You'd be surprised what your body can adapt to.

If you're obese, that's enough of a medical emergency that I'd say go for it. There are two obvious hurdles, though;

1. You have to be able to execute the plan (which you are skeptical of)
2. You have to be able to transition into a lifestyle that keeps the weight off - probably very unlikely.

As far as juicing in general, I don't practice it, but would support it to augment balanced nutrition;

1. I eat relatively low-carb and take in massive amounts of vegetables (no corn/legumes, occasional sweet-potato, very seldom potato/rice). I don't need any nutritional boost, and juicing vegetables would eliminate the majority of my solid food.
2. Rarely eat fruit.

Practice intermittent-fasting, which for me is a fancy way of saying I skip breakfast. No hunger, and have hiked 10+ miles after an 18 hour fast without any lack of energy (focus becomes mildly diminished). Closing in on median BMI of 147 lbs (5'9") with decent strength/weight at 30+ pull-ups spaced over four sets. Two year journey back from borderline obese, with gradually decreasing carbs. Now I like to be able to transiently dip into Atkins-like principles to boost weight-loss, say intermittent ketosis, without resorting to a tricked-up meat-laden diet.

Good luck.

User avatar
3CT_Paddler
Posts: 3273
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 5:28 pm
Location: Marietta, GA

Re: Fat, Sick, and Nearly Dead

Post by 3CT_Paddler » Tue Jan 03, 2012 2:36 pm

rayout wrote:
inv321 wrote:Losing weight is very simple, just make calories in less than calories out. Eat a balanced diet and exercise. Billions and billions are made every year making this seem more complex or espousing the "secret" to weight loss. I see many many similarities to the world of investing and finance.
Calories in calories out is a statement of what is happening but does not explain the underlying bio-chemistry at all. This gross mis-characterization of obesity is part of the reason people are so obese in the western world.

Realize that obesity is a problem in developing nations with average caloric intake well below 2000 calories a day. Calories in calories out does not explain the fact that there are obese mothers taking their malnourished kids to health clinics in these countries. The underlying mechanism for fat storage goes beyond calories.
I doubt that the reason people are obese in the Western world is primarily a false understanding of diet. Most obese people could probably describe to you an ideal diet... that doesn't mean they have the will/desire/motivation to be at a healthier weight.

The "Twinkie" diet (a test by a K-State nutrition professor) was primarily comprised of processed sugary foods with a limited caloric intake (less than 2000 Calories). The subject lost around 25 lbs over two months eating the "worst" kind of food (and his other health markers were improved). His diet was not a recommended diet, but to demonstrate that a healthy body weight is tied first and foremost to Calories.

Here are two example diets (assuming activity is the same)...
Diet 1 - 2000 calories/day. Primarily junk food. Multivitamin and minimum amount of fruit/vegetables to meet recomended daily intake of vitamins.
Diet 2 - 3500 calories/day. Whatever awesome fad diet you can come up with.

Would you argue that Diet 2 will produce quicker and higher total weight loss?

InfamousAngel
Posts: 25
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 7:14 am

Re: Fat, Sick, and Nearly Dead

Post by InfamousAngel » Tue Jan 03, 2012 3:22 pm

I have followed a raw food with lots of raw juice diet several times. I never felt better but it is hard to stay on it - especially when eating out. I was working as a mover (in college) and would eat raw tuna and a lot of avocados to keep my weight up.

KyleAAA
Posts: 7751
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 5:35 pm
Contact:

Re: Fat, Sick, and Nearly Dead

Post by KyleAAA » Tue Jan 03, 2012 3:30 pm

I prefer eating actual fruits and veggies to juicing them. Much more tasty and satisfying.

Rick_29T9W
Posts: 153
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 1:15 am

Re: Fat, Sick, and Nearly Dead

Post by Rick_29T9W » Tue Jan 03, 2012 3:40 pm

I gradually lost 70 pounds over about the last 7 years, without feeling hungry, by changing how I eat and getting more daily exercise. In the past, I would always steadily gain weight while eating portion sizes that were just large enough to satisfy my appetite. In my case, the types of food did make a difference in satisfying my appetite.

I now include far more vegetables with my lunch and dinner. I did that by filling myself up on a variety of bulky low calorie vegetables (not potatoes and corn). They also give me far more mico-nutrients per calorie.

For breakfast every morning, I switched from boxed cereals to making hot barley cereal with some pieces of frozen fruit and berries added. I chose barley because the beta-glucan soluble fiber in barley slows down the absorption of carbohydrates and fat, thereby lowering the glycemic index. I only eat about 1 slice per day of bread and rarely eat sweets (other than fruit). I still eat a few pieces of fruit per day.

During the first couple of years, I initially included modest portions of fish, chicken, and grass-fed buffalo meat, then later on decreased that to very small 2 oz. portions. I replaced the missing meat and fish with beans instead which are high in protein and have a low glycemic index value. This last year, I have totally left out the meat and fish on most days. Reducing the amount of meat and fish did not have affect my continuing weight loss either way. On my vegan days, I have been taking vitamin B-12.

For the last 7 years, I have been walking one hour per day while raising and lowering my heavyhands weights from my hips to forehead level with each step. For about 1/3 of the walk I do a double ski poling motion to also gives my back some exercise.

I am 58 years old, and am no longer on high blood pressure medicine and still do not need cholesterol lowering medicine. My "bad" cholesterol is quite low and my glucose and triglycerides have dropped down to ideal levels.
Last edited by Rick_29T9W on Tue Jan 03, 2012 4:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

imagardener
Posts: 666
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 9:39 am
Location: south of Sarasota FL

Re: Fat, Sick, and Nearly Dead

Post by imagardener » Tue Jan 03, 2012 4:04 pm

Fasting is surprisingly energizing. I never thought I could go without solid food for 12 hours but drinking water is the key. I did it as an experiment and now know what my body is capable of even though I love food. I am not overweight at all but have changed my diet to eliminate grains, gluten, most dairy, most carbohydrates, limited fruit and most starch including starchy veggies because I have a digestive disorder. Diet modification gave me a better life that Rx meds could not although my GI doctor will not support it at all. Pills are what doctors prescribe for better health through chemistry and if they don't work then on to surgery.

It is quite difficult to change from the Standard American Diet to the Paleo Diet (basically the one I use as stated above) because cheap carbo, fat and grain concoctions fill the grocery aisles. Have to change the way you think of meals and food but it is a healthy way to eat. My DH has no health issues and loves the new menu which fit into his gym goals of lower body fat and more muscle.

Tonight it's bison burger, fresh green beans and a small potato split between us, once a week we have potato/starch. We also eat a lot of nuts which a recent article I read maintained could reduce diabetes tremendously if people switched just a few of their carbohydrates to nuts. Carbohydrates are cheaper though.

User avatar
Topic Author
TxAg
Posts: 1564
Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2009 11:09 am

Re: Fat, Sick, and Nearly Dead

Post by TxAg » Tue Jan 03, 2012 4:10 pm

sunspotzsz wrote:I watched the documentary and was inspired by it.

I did not fully adopt their approach since I am from a culture where moderation is key to everything. But, I did buy a juicer and started consuming a lot more vegetables and fruits than before.

In past 3 month, I lost 20lbs and feel much better.

Sounds reasonable and about what I'm shooting for.

I'm not obese...actually I'm in pretty good shape, but I need to eat better. This seems like a way to lose 5-10 pounds, eat better, and feel better without drastically changing anything. I like fruit but don't eat enough veggies. I figure if I can do this once a day instead of burger, then it'll be a good start.

User avatar
Clearly_Irrational
Posts: 3087
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2011 3:43 pm

Re: Fat, Sick, and Nearly Dead

Post by Clearly_Irrational » Tue Jan 03, 2012 5:19 pm

A juice fast is a terrible idea since the low (near zero) protein intake will cause massive loss of lean body mass and totally trash your metabolism, likely result is that you'll gain back more weight than you lost after coming off the fast. If you're really excited about losing weight quickly then the safest most effective was to starve yourself (which is basically what all diets do) is the bodybuilder version of the protein sparing modified fast. Essentially your minimum intake = your body weight in protein grams + just enough carbs to stay out of ketosis (generally around 40g) + just enough fat to avoid rabbit starvation (usually around 10% of your calorie intake). Take a 5'10" male who weighs 225lbs for example and you're looking at 225g protein + 40g carbs + 13g fat = 1177 calories per day which I can tell you is not very darn much. Combined with a decent weightlifting and cardio routine you'll shed pounds like nobodies business. (See the v-diet for a practical implementation) Of course on that kind of calorie restriction you'll hate yourself and pretty much everyone else but hey it's a fast so I guess that's to be expected.

User avatar
tyrion
Posts: 1217
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 3:33 pm

Re: Fat, Sick, and Nearly Dead

Post by tyrion » Tue Jan 03, 2012 5:33 pm

Want to feel better and lose weight? Stop eating processed food.

Eat real food. The kind that rots if it sits out on the counter too long. The kind that's not filled with preservatives and doesn't boast of it's healthy qualities on the box (real food doesn't come in a box).

supertreat
Posts: 328
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 11:57 pm

Re: Fat, Sick, and Nearly Dead

Post by supertreat » Tue Jan 03, 2012 6:02 pm

rayout wrote:I second bridnour's book recommendation, it changed my life. Taubes goes into the biology of how fat is regulated in our bodies and how the modern medical institutions have been so blinded and continue to advocate ridiculous dietary policy (grain based, high carb, low fat diets) in the face of substantial evidence for a high fat/low carb diets. I've lost over 30 lbs of fat in the past 9 months, and am no longer pre-diabetic or pre-hypertensive.

The documentary that led me to the book is called Fat Head - a mockumentary against Supersize Me. This guy goes around eating fast food (without the soda or bun) and loses ~10lbs at the end of the month.

I am not a big fan of the Ornish diet...much better than the Standard Ameican Diet but the fact that you leave out saturated fat and animal products that your body actually needs to maintain good health is a big ding against him. The fact that real food (with the exception of the whole grains nonsense) are emphasized in the Ornish diet is a plus though.

I am shocked with how my peers have turned out...I've gone back this previous year to make contact with a few friends from college and everyone has put on 30 to 40 lbs. Weird that I used to be the tubby guy compared to them and now its the other way around. I'm only 25...amazing what 3 to 4 years of stressful office work and poor diet can do.
I thought it was common scientific/medical knowledge that saturated fat causes arterial disease. Are you saying that saturated fat is necessary for optimal health? Also, please explain how whole grains are bad for you.
If you visit ornish's website he shows the clinical trials they've done using the diet and how they've found it to reverse cardiovascular disease and early stage prostate cancer - hard to argue with real world results based on science.
Assets - Liabilities = Equity + (Income - Expenses)

KyleAAA
Posts: 7751
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 5:35 pm
Contact:

Re: Fat, Sick, and Nearly Dead

Post by KyleAAA » Tue Jan 03, 2012 10:00 pm

supertreat wrote: I thought it was common scientific/medical knowledge that saturated fat causes arterial disease.
I don't think I've ever seen any hard empirical evidence that this is true. I could be missing something.
supertreat wrote:Are you saying that saturated fat is necessary for optimal health?
This is absolutely true.
supertreat wrote: Also, please explain how whole grains are bad for you.
They aren't in moderation, but if they are the cornerstone of your diet they can be.
supertreat wrote:If you visit ornish's website he shows the clinical trials they've done using the diet and how they've found it to reverse cardiovascular disease and early stage prostate cancer - hard to argue with real world results based on science.
Not at the amounts advocated by most mainstream dietary "experts."

HuggieBear
Posts: 64
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2011 7:06 am

Re: Fat, Sick, and Nearly Dead

Post by HuggieBear » Tue Jan 03, 2012 10:37 pm

supertreat wrote:
I thought it was common scientific/medical knowledge that saturated fat causes arterial disease. Are you saying that saturated fat is necessary for optimal health? Also, please explain how whole grains are bad for you.
If you visit ornish's website he shows the clinical trials they've done using the diet and how they've found it to reverse cardiovascular disease and early stage prostate cancer - hard to argue with real world results based on science.


The entire problem is "common knowledge." It's all, more or less, wrong. I'm not going to explain all the science behind it here, because i am neither qualified nor inclined.


But let me says this, the whole carbs/fat debate is a flawed one. And even the saturated fat/non-saturated fat debate is oversimplified and misleading. A high fat high protein diet is a superior diet, in the absence of refined/processed carbs. With regard to fats, highly processed oils are "evil", more natural sources are good for you. There is specific science to back this up, but bottom line is the secret to a balanced and sustainable diet involves lots of green veggies, healthy natural oils, and good natural meat. A lot of meat is relatively flawed because the steer are "finished" on grains so they get fat. They finish the cows on 6 weeks of grain to "fatten" them, even though they were grass fed before that.


What does it tell you that cows are fed grain to get "fat" at the end? It's telling.


But anyway, read Taube's book, he's smarter than I and will open your eyes.


I'm sure ornish's diet is better than the average SAD diet (strandard american diet), but so are a lot of weight loss diets. Eating primal/paleo is radically different from other diets, in that it provides optimal nutrition we are evolutionarily attuned to, and the results are nothing short of magical.

supertreat
Posts: 328
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 11:57 pm

Re: Fat, Sick, and Nearly Dead

Post by supertreat » Wed Jan 04, 2012 12:21 am

KyleAAA wrote:
supertreat wrote: I thought it was common scientific/medical knowledge that saturated fat causes arterial disease.
I don't think I've ever seen any hard empirical evidence that this is true. I could be missing something.

http://www.annals.org/content/153/5/289.abstract

http://mygreendiet.com/wp-content/uploa ... 2/2286.pdf

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1110 ... d_RVDocSum

This empirical evidence does not jive with a diet high in animal protein/fat.
Assets - Liabilities = Equity + (Income - Expenses)

User avatar
LH
Posts: 5490
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2007 2:54 am

Re: Fat, Sick, and Nearly Dead

Post by LH » Wed Jan 04, 2012 3:53 am

wjwhitney wrote:I just watched the film yesterday on Hulu.com.... Very inspirational, interesting and entertaining.

He (Joe Cross) does not claim the method (juice fast) is "sustainable". In his case he targeted 60 days. For others, it could be less than that. Whatever works or helps.

Regarding the method of the juice fast... there is no magic bullet but it worked for the people in the movie. Hard to argue with that. One guy went from about 420 lbs to about 220 IIRC. Basically saved his life.

It's actually better to consume the whole fruit / vegetable rather than just the juice... (in other words, make green smoothies) but for a short-term "kick-start" I would not quibble with the details.
This is actually true as I understand it medically (from layman wrote reports of med info, not direct from studies or authoritative med lit).

When you drink juice, its a sugar surge all at once. One gets a bolus of insulin internally as a response.

When you eat a fruit, one does not get one big bolus of sugar, the septae say in an orange, release the suguar over time, resulting in measurably lower insulin levels in ones blood stream.

Insulin does many things, one of which is to convert sugars to stored fat.

Ergo, more sugare=>more release by your body of the mediator insulin => more fat storage from sugar intake. Eat a fruit, less insulin, less fat storage. Drink the same fruit juiced, more insulin, more fat storage, even though sugar is the same in both instances.

Brody
Posts: 983
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2011 8:21 am

Re: Fat, Sick, and Nearly Dead

Post by Brody » Wed Jan 04, 2012 9:44 am

With regard to fats, highly processed oils are "evil",
Can someone explain this more? What oils are highly processed? What oils are not? What makes one more or less healthy?
I am the poster formerly known as Oneanddone.

User avatar
dgm
Posts: 214
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2011 10:32 pm

Re: Fat, Sick, and Nearly Dead

Post by dgm » Wed Jan 04, 2012 9:50 am

TxAg wrote:Has anyone watched this? Has anyone tried this?

There's no way I'd be able to do a juice fast for any length of time, but I do think it would be beneficial to substitute a meal (or two) a day with solely fruits/veggies.

I'm curious what the masses think...
I watched it, and "semi-tried" it. What I did was go to a juice bar nearby that served the green stuff in the movie and drank it 10 times total or so. I also looked for juicers to find the best one. I didn't do a juice fast, but just tried those juices first to see if I could do it.

What I found was:
- I enjoyed the juices more than I expected.
- I'm glad I tried the juices first as I discovered I'm mildly allergic to carrot juice and beet juice (or it makes me queasy for some reason)
- I've discovered that I like vegetables alot more than I used to after trying some of those juices.
- Friends have told me those juicers are a lot of work to clean up each time, and suggested alternatives that use a blender instead. They eat quite healthy so I am trying the blender versions now to see how it goes. cleanup is super simple and I still get the fiber.


My favorite smoothie/breakfast substitute
- a couple spoonfuls of yogurt
- a handful of kale (or more)
- one banana
- a teaspoon of honey or so

surprisingly good and super filling. I have never liked veggies much and its been a great way for me to get more than I usually do.

brianH
Posts: 328
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 12:21 pm

Re: Fat, Sick, and Nearly Dead

Post by brianH » Wed Jan 04, 2012 10:02 am

supertreat wrote:
KyleAAA wrote:
supertreat wrote: I thought it was common scientific/medical knowledge that saturated fat causes arterial disease.
I don't think I've ever seen any hard empirical evidence that this is true. I could be missing something.

http://www.annals.org/content/153/5/289.abstract

http://mygreendiet.com/wp-content/uploa ... 2/2286.pdf

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1110 ... d_RVDocSum

This empirical evidence does not jive with a diet high in animal protein/fat.
The evidence is hardly conclusive. The first study you linked uses data from the Nurses' Health Study, which Taubes goes into detail about in his book. The largest problem is that this is an observational study that fails to properly control for confounding variables. Basically, nurses that eat a conventional 'healthy' diet (low fat/animal meat) tend to be healthier in general with other factors not properly controlled for. Observational studies are notoriously weak, in fact, here's one that shows the opposite: http://www.ajcn.org/content/early/2010/ ... 5.abstract

I have some concerns about that second paper (pdf) as well. Mice used as a human proxy shows us very little about the effects of high-fat diets in humans. Rodents don't eat, nor have they evolved to eat, diets similar to humans. Medial testing generally prohibits using, say, dogs, which would better approximate the apex carnivores we are. Another problem with mice is the actual rat chow they are fed. It's typically high in poly-unsaturated, soybean oils, which have been shown to be dangerous to CV health.
Brody wrote:Can someone explain this more? What oils are highly processed? What oils are not? What makes one more or less healthy?
Generally speaking, oils lower in polyunsaturated fats (PUFA) are best. For example, olive oil is largely monounsaturated fat (MUFA), and well deserves its healthy reputation. Any other vegetable/seed oil (soybean, canola) should be avoided. More info: http://www.marksdailyapple.com/healthy-oils/

stoptothink
Posts: 6791
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2010 9:53 am

Re: Fat, Sick, and Nearly Dead

Post by stoptothink » Wed Jan 04, 2012 11:25 am

supertreat wrote:
rayout wrote:I second bridnour's book recommendation, it changed my life. Taubes goes into the biology of how fat is regulated in our bodies and how the modern medical institutions have been so blinded and continue to advocate ridiculous dietary policy (grain based, high carb, low fat diets) in the face of substantial evidence for a high fat/low carb diets. I've lost over 30 lbs of fat in the past 9 months, and am no longer pre-diabetic or pre-hypertensive.

The documentary that led me to the book is called Fat Head - a mockumentary against Supersize Me. This guy goes around eating fast food (without the soda or bun) and loses ~10lbs at the end of the month.

I am not a big fan of the Ornish diet...much better than the Standard Ameican Diet but the fact that you leave out saturated fat and animal products that your body actually needs to maintain good health is a big ding against him. The fact that real food (with the exception of the whole grains nonsense) are emphasized in the Ornish diet is a plus though.

I am shocked with how my peers have turned out...I've gone back this previous year to make contact with a few friends from college and everyone has put on 30 to 40 lbs. Weird that I used to be the tubby guy compared to them and now its the other way around. I'm only 25...amazing what 3 to 4 years of stressful office work and poor diet can do.
I thought it was common scientific/medical knowledge that saturated fat causes arterial disease. Are you saying that saturated fat is necessary for optimal health? Also, please explain how whole grains are bad for you.
If you visit ornish's website he shows the clinical trials they've done using the diet and how they've found it to reverse cardiovascular disease and early stage prostate cancer - hard to argue with real world results based on science.
...here we go again

Van
Posts: 624
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 9:24 am

Re: Fat, Sick, and Nearly Dead

Post by Van » Wed Jan 04, 2012 11:46 am

A calorie is a unit of energy. Calories do NOT come in good or bad.

Why do people buy in to all of the nonsense? It is so simple: calories in versus calories out.

An excess of calories in leads to storage of the excess as fat.

greensky
Posts: 118
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 9:55 pm

Re: Fat, Sick, and Nearly Dead

Post by greensky » Wed Jan 04, 2012 11:53 am

rayout wrote:The documentary that led me to the book is called Fat Head - a mockumentary against Supersize Me. This guy goes around eating fast food (without the soda or bun) and loses ~10lbs at the end of the month
Don't forget that the guy in that movie walked 5 miles a day while eating that way.

User avatar
Clearly_Irrational
Posts: 3087
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2011 3:43 pm

Re: Fat, Sick, and Nearly Dead

Post by Clearly_Irrational » Wed Jan 04, 2012 11:58 am

Van wrote:A calorie is a unit of energy. Calories do NOT come in good or bad.

Why do people buy in to all of the nonsense? It is so simple: calories in versus calories out.

An excess of calories in leads to storage of the excess as fat.
So you're suggesting that 2000 calories of donuts is an equivalent diet to 2000 calories of lean meats and vegetables?

User avatar
3CT_Paddler
Posts: 3273
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 5:28 pm
Location: Marietta, GA

Re: Fat, Sick, and Nearly Dead

Post by 3CT_Paddler » Wed Jan 04, 2012 12:12 pm

Clearly_Irrational wrote:
Van wrote:A calorie is a unit of energy. Calories do NOT come in good or bad.

Why do people buy in to all of the nonsense? It is so simple: calories in versus calories out.

An excess of calories in leads to storage of the excess as fat.
So you're suggesting that 2000 calories of donuts is an equivalent diet to 2000 calories of lean meats and vegetables?
For the purposes of weight loss/gain... it is the same IMO. Obviously a diet of nothing but doughnuts won't provide all of the vitamins/nutrients your body needs and eventually some health condition would arise.

If I put you on a diet of primarily junk food with just enough nutrients to meet daily minimum nutrient requirements and keep it at 2000 Calories, and then put someone else with similar height/weight/age/metabolism on a 3000 Calorie diet of lean meats and vegetables... who would be at a healthier weight after several months?

User avatar
Clearly_Irrational
Posts: 3087
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2011 3:43 pm

Re: Fat, Sick, and Nearly Dead

Post by Clearly_Irrational » Wed Jan 04, 2012 12:40 pm

3CT_Paddler wrote:For the purposes of weight loss/gain... it is the same IMO. Obviously a diet of nothing but doughnuts won't provide all of the vitamins/nutrients your body needs and eventually some health condition would arise.

If I put you on a diet of primarily junk food with just enough nutrients to meet daily minimum nutrient requirements and keep it at 2000 Calories, and then put someone else with similar height/weight/age/metabolism on a 3000 Calorie diet of lean meats and vegetables... who would be at a healthier weight after several months?
That would depend on the length of the diet and the exercise regimes of the two participants. If the first person was doing just diet + cardio and the second person was doing diet + heavy weightlifting and they both did it for six months I can guarantee you that the second person would have better long term results.

You're missing two factors that are hampering your analysis: 1) Insulin response 2) Protein requirements of muscular hypertrophy

Both of those things can have a strong impact on how your diet effects your progress.

Yes, your car engine won't run right if you give it too much fuel (flooding) but it also runs poorly if you give it the wrong kind of fuel like using low octane gas in a Lamborghini Diablo. Your body works the same way, quality of fuel is important as well as quantity of fuel.

Cognitive Miser
Posts: 147
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2008 11:52 am
Location: Los Angeles CA Age:35

Re: Fat, Sick, and Nearly Dead

Post by Cognitive Miser » Wed Jan 04, 2012 1:12 pm

Van wrote:A calorie is a unit of energy. Calories do NOT come in good or bad.

Why do people buy in to all of the nonsense? It is so simple: calories in versus calories out.

An excess of calories in leads to storage of the excess as fat.
It's actually far more complex than this. Your metabolism doesn't operate in the exact same manner as a bomb calorimeter and some calories are less available for fat accumulation than others due to their thermic effect.

Furthermore, some calories can promote water retention more than others while other calories promote satiety more than others.

User avatar
3CT_Paddler
Posts: 3273
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 5:28 pm
Location: Marietta, GA

Re: Fat, Sick, and Nearly Dead

Post by 3CT_Paddler » Wed Jan 04, 2012 1:38 pm

Clearly_Irrational wrote:
3CT_Paddler wrote:For the purposes of weight loss/gain... it is the same IMO. Obviously a diet of nothing but doughnuts won't provide all of the vitamins/nutrients your body needs and eventually some health condition would arise.

If I put you on a diet of primarily junk food with just enough nutrients to meet daily minimum nutrient requirements and keep it at 2000 Calories, and then put someone else with similar height/weight/age/metabolism on a 3000 Calorie diet of lean meats and vegetables... who would be at a healthier weight after several months?
That would depend on the length of the diet and the exercise regimes of the two participants. If the first person was doing just diet + cardio and the second person was doing diet + heavy weightlifting and they both did it for six months I can guarantee you that the second person would have better long term results.

You're missing two factors that are hampering your analysis: 1) Insulin response 2) Protein requirements of muscular hypertrophy

Both of those things can have a strong impact on how your diet effects your progress.

Yes, your car engine won't run right if you give it too much fuel (flooding) but it also runs poorly if you give it the wrong kind of fuel like using low octane gas in a Lamborghini Diablo. Your body works the same way, quality of fuel is important as well as quantity of fuel.
Let me be more specific... to add to the same height/weight/age/metabolism description... same exercise routine. Its a normal person who is not training for peak athletic performance. The first diet would yield a lower BMI... do you disagree?

Obviously if you are an athlete training for performance, the type of food matters more.

I am not arguing that type of food doesn't matter, but that the number 1 factor for weight loss or gain is calories. Now you could argue that certain foods may make it easier to stick to a lower calorie diet by suppressing appetite, and therefore it is easier to stick to a 2000 Calorie diet on healthier food.

Van
Posts: 624
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 9:24 am

Re: Fat, Sick, and Nearly Dead

Post by Van » Wed Jan 04, 2012 1:40 pm

Cognitive Miser wrote:
Van wrote:A calorie is a unit of energy. Calories do NOT come in good or bad.

Why do people buy in to all of the nonsense? It is so simple: calories in versus calories out.

An excess of calories in leads to storage of the excess as fat.
It's actually far more complex than this. Your metabolism doesn't operate in the exact same manner as a bomb calorimeter and some calories are less available for fat accumulation than others due to their thermic effect.

Furthermore, some calories can promote water retention more than others while other calories promote satiety more than others.
You can try to make it as complex as you want. I'll stick by what I said.

Obese people look for excuses in the complexity. Just eat less and exercise more.

Brody
Posts: 983
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2011 8:21 am

Re: Fat, Sick, and Nearly Dead

Post by Brody » Wed Jan 04, 2012 1:43 pm

If I put you on a diet of primarily junk food with just enough nutrients to meet daily minimum nutrient requirements and keep it at 2000 Calories, and then put someone else with similar height/weight/age/metabolism on a 3000 Calorie diet of lean meats and vegetables... who would be at a healthier weight after several months?
"Calories in minus Calories out = wt gain or wt loss" is such a simple equation, but there is nothing easy about it.

3000 calories in minus 2000 calories out = wt loss. It sounds simple. It isn't because "calories in" and "calories out" are not independent of each other. They are dependent upon each other.

I'll assume that I eat 2500 calories a day.

I'm pretty sure that if I ate 2500 calories of junk vs. eating a well balanced 2500 calorie healthy diet, over time, I would be heavier with the junk.

I'm also pretty confident that if I changed a 2500 calorie healthy diet to a 2600 calorie diet my weight would not change. This is also true if I changed it to a 2400 calorie diet. If "calories in" were independent of "calories out", my weight would change by 10 pounds.

I have zero expertise in this area. I'm stating an opinion backed by nothing other than my own experience. It just seems obvious to me that as humans, we have the ability to control the "calorie in" part of the equation, but our bodies control the "calorie out" part of the equation. I'm not saying that we can't do things to burn more calories. Rather I am saying that we can't control how many calories we will burn doing the activity.

Here's an example that I have noticed about myself. I don't count calories, so I can't be sure of anything. If I make a goal to run a marathon in June with the goal of finishing comfortably, my weight will be within 5 pounds of what it is today. It may be more or it may be less. If I have a goal to run 1 mile as fast as I can, I'll lose at least 10 pounds between now and then. This is without making any effort to change my weight.

With the marathon, I'll spend lots more time working out and running, but primarily long slow distance. With the mile, I'll run much less, but harder. I'll use more calories while on my runs training for the marathon. Yet, my weight will drop for the mile. My conclusion is that there is something about the hard runs that make my body burn more calories when I'm doing nothing.

As to the 2000 calories of junk vs. 3000 calories of healthy food and keeping everything else the same, I'll simply take a guess. It's interesting. If the amount of calories and type of calories don't matter then the 3000 calorie healthy diet would result in 2 extra pounds a week. Yet, I'm fairly certain that the difference would be much smaller than that and it is possible that there wouldn't be a difference.
Last edited by Brody on Wed Jan 04, 2012 1:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I am the poster formerly known as Oneanddone.

KyleAAA
Posts: 7751
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 5:35 pm
Contact:

Re: Fat, Sick, and Nearly Dead

Post by KyleAAA » Wed Jan 04, 2012 1:45 pm

Have you ever trained for a marathon while eating junk food? It's a lot harder to exercise when you're eating crap than when you're eating healthy. In my experience, it is absolutely better for weight loss to eat more healthy calories than to eat fewer unhealthy calories in most cases because you will also tend to be more active as a result.

Brody
Posts: 983
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2011 8:21 am

Re: Fat, Sick, and Nearly Dead

Post by Brody » Wed Jan 04, 2012 1:51 pm

KyleAAA wrote:Have you ever trained for a marathon while eating junk food? It's a lot harder to exercise when you're eating crap than when you're eating healthy. In my experience, it is absolutely better for weight loss to eat more healthy calories than to eat fewer unhealthy calories in most cases because you will also tend to be more active as a result.

No. I've never had a "junk food" diet. However, I also have never had a particularly healthy diet. Now, as I start to get older, I am more concerned about this issue.
I am the poster formerly known as Oneanddone.

User avatar
Clearly_Irrational
Posts: 3087
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2011 3:43 pm

Re: Fat, Sick, and Nearly Dead

Post by Clearly_Irrational » Wed Jan 04, 2012 2:11 pm

3CT_Paddler wrote:For the purposes of weight loss/gain... it is the same IMO.
The problem is that "weight loss" and "fat loss" are not synonymous. The composition of your food intake and type of exercise routine strongly influence what sort of "weight" you will lose. Not all pounds are created equally which is why BMI is a poor measure of health.

If I tell you I gained 10lbs do you congratulate me or sympathize with me? Answer: You can't know without more information since it could have been muscle or fat.

If I tell you I lost 10lbs do you congratulate me or sympathize with me? Answer: You can't know without more information since it could have been muscle or fat.

Locked