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
3CT_Paddler
Posts: 3274
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 2:13 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.
The example I posted was not about diet's influence on training for athletic performance.

The real world example was the Twinkie diet by a KState nutrition professor. He went from a normal, diet full of mostly healthy food where he commonly ate more than 2000 calories to a 1800 Calorie diet primarily consisting of snack machine food. He lost 27 lbs in 2 months, and his other health markers improved (like LDL cholesterol).

None of this is to say that eating healthy is not important (or that only eating junk food is wise). Healthy food contains nutrients we need, but there is probably a point of diminishing returns once you get past some minimum required nutrient level for function.

Personally I think there is a lot of mysticism and placebo affect (not to mention big business) when it comes to the health food industry.

KyleAAA
Posts: 7753
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 5:35 pm
Contact:

Re: Fat, Sick, and Nearly Dead

Post by KyleAAA » Wed Jan 04, 2012 2:17 pm

3CT_Paddler wrote: The example I posted was not about diet's influence on training for athletic performance.
But my point was that you can't ignore diet's influence on training, especially not over the long term. An unhealthy diet may lead to weight loss in the short term, but it also leads to lethargy, which has serious long-term consequences. Short-term weight loss is a silly goal. Long-term health and maintaining a reasonable weight can't be done on a diet consisting primarily of junk food. You can also lose weight and other health indicators in the short-term by just not eating at all, but that doesn't really promote good long-term health either.

User avatar
3CT_Paddler
Posts: 3274
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 2:21 pm

Clearly_Irrational wrote:
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.
I agree fat gain/loss and weight gain/loss are not synonymous. To be more specific... I am referring to an increasing body fat percentage.

My point still stands... diet 1 (from my earlier post) has shown to be more effective than diet 2 at decreasing body fat.

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 2:25 pm

3CT_Paddler wrote:The real world example was the Twinkie diet by a KState nutrition professor. He went from a normal, diet full of mostly healthy food where he commonly ate more than 2000 calories to a 1800 Calorie diet primarily consisting of snack machine food. He lost 27 lbs in 2 months, and his other health markers improved (like LDL cholesterol).
I'd just about guarantee that his bodyfat percentage got worse in the process though as he would have been losing more lean body mass than fat mass. Weight, in and of itself, is not a sufficient measure of progress otherwise these two people, who both weigh about three hundred pounds, wouldn't look so different:

Image

Image

Awesome looking burger by the way.

User avatar
3CT_Paddler
Posts: 3274
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 3:00 pm

Clearly_Irrational wrote:I'd just about guarantee that his bodyfat percentage got worse in the process though as he would have been losing more lean body mass than fat mass. Weight, in and of itself, is not a sufficient measure of progress otherwise these two people, who both weigh about three hundred pounds, wouldn't look so different:
Lol... you sure about that guarantee? :D

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/tw ... index.html
Haub's body fat dropped from 33.4 to 24.9 percent. This posed the question: What matters more for weight loss, the quantity or quality of calories?
There is no absence of dogmatic opinions when it comes to diet and fitness (and I am no exception). :beer

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 3:11 pm

Ah, looks like there was some additional information in the article that made a difference to his results:

"Two-thirds of his total intake came from junk food. He also took a multivitamin pill and drank a protein shake daily. And he ate vegetables, typically a can of green beans or three to four celery stalks."

"He maintained the same level of moderate physical activity as before going on the diet."

The protein shake (and physical exercise if it was hypertrophy based) would have played a significant role in retaining lean body mass.

No joke about people getting fixated on their particular diet philosophy though.

Just FYI, I'm not arguing that calories aren't important, in fact they are the most important factor since even if you have everything else right you won't lose fat if you're not in a calorie deficit. I'm just saying they're not the only factor and that the other factors do actually matter.

newbie001
Posts: 397
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 1:50 am

Re: Fat, Sick, and Nearly Dead

Post by newbie001 » Wed Jan 04, 2012 3:30 pm

3CT_Paddler wrote:
Clearly_Irrational wrote:I'd just about guarantee that his bodyfat percentage got worse in the process though as he would have been losing more lean body mass than fat mass. Weight, in and of itself, is not a sufficient measure of progress otherwise these two people, who both weigh about three hundred pounds, wouldn't look so different:
Lol... you sure about that guarantee? :D

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/tw ... index.html
Haub's body fat dropped from 33.4 to 24.9 percent. This posed the question: What matters more for weight loss, the quantity or quality of calories?
There is no absence of dogmatic opinions when it comes to diet and fitness (and I am no exception). :beer

Wow, 33.4% BF on a guy! He should have gone for the world record while he was up that high!

User avatar
3CT_Paddler
Posts: 3274
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 3:46 pm

newbie001 wrote:
3CT_Paddler wrote:
Clearly_Irrational wrote:I'd just about guarantee that his bodyfat percentage got worse in the process though as he would have been losing more lean body mass than fat mass. Weight, in and of itself, is not a sufficient measure of progress otherwise these two people, who both weigh about three hundred pounds, wouldn't look so different:
Lol... you sure about that guarantee? :D

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/tw ... index.html
Haub's body fat dropped from 33.4 to 24.9 percent. This posed the question: What matters more for weight loss, the quantity or quality of calories?
There is no absence of dogmatic opinions when it comes to diet and fitness (and I am no exception). :beer

Wow, 33.4% BF on a guy! He should have gone for the world record while he was up that high!
Well not sure about the body fat % numbers... but he went from 201 lbs to 174 lbs (5' 10" tall)... a real fatty 8-)

Most people probably underestimate their body fat percentage.

Triple digit golfer
Posts: 3917
Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 5:57 pm

Re: Fat, Sick, and Nearly Dead

Post by Triple digit golfer » Wed Jan 04, 2012 7:40 pm

I would think that a juice diet would be severely lacking in some micronutrients, not to mention fat and protein on the macronutrient side.

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

Re: Fat, Sick, and Nearly Dead

Post by HuggieBear » Wed Jan 04, 2012 9:57 pm

I do not believe calories in/calories out i accurate in terms of weight gain and loss. I do believe diets in different compositions yield different weight loss and gain results at the same caloric level. I'm not sure why, but I suspect it is all based on insulin response.


Even if 'm wrong on this point, it's absolutely clear to me that satiety gained from particular dietary approaches (e.g. paleo & primal) yields an inherently lower daily caloric intake than the typical sad american diet. In other words, you stay full while eating dramatically less....and lose weight with no effort.

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

Re: Fat, Sick, and Nearly Dead

Post by supertreat » Wed Jan 04, 2012 10:24 pm

brianH wrote:
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/

And what about the third study? I still stand by my assertion that the preponderance of evidence taken as a whole will point to a diet high in saturated fatty acids increases the risk of cardiovascular disease significantly.
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 » Wed Jan 04, 2012 11:33 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.
I used to think that until I read "Good Calories, Bad Calories"... It sounds like a fad diet book but it's actually quite scholarly and comprehensive. Basically, refined carbohydrates stimulate insulin production, and isulin causes the body to store the blood glucose as fat and prevents stored fat from being used as fuel. A low-fat, high-carb calorie-restricted diet will usually fail in the long run because the resulting low blood glucose causes extreme hunger. A high-fat, low-carb diet does not result in as much hunger because the body can use its fat stores to replenish blood glucose. But my explanation does not do justice... Taubes uses 601 fact filled pages to explain in GCBC.

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

Re: Fat, Sick, and Nearly Dead

Post by brianH » Wed Jan 04, 2012 11:42 pm

supertreat wrote:And what about the third study? I still stand by my assertion that the preponderance of evidence taken as a whole will point to a diet high in saturated fatty acids increases the risk of cardiovascular disease significantly.
It took me a while to find it for free (http://www.atkinsexposed.org/atkins/131 ... ,_m.d..htm), but after reading it, this jumped out quite a bit:
Patients had to commit to staying on the dietary regimen for a minimum of 1 year and were randomly assigned to one of the four dietary regimens based upon dietary preferences.
That's not the proper way to randomize diets for testing. Also, most of the results he found were not statistically significant or marred by the multi-vitamin he gave to the low fat group. The only major change was LDL levels. It's pretty well accepted that high saturated fat may raise LDL, but it is not agreed upon that high TC/LDL represents a problem:http://www.westonaprice.org/cardiovascu ... atin-drugs

Gary Taubes actually wrote a letter to The Washington Post commenting on this study:
Fleming reports on a one-year trial of 100 participants and four diets with extensive follow-up. His paper, however, has no co-authors; it acknowledges no source of funding, nor any nurses, dietitians or technicians who might have helped. Fleming identifies himself as Medical Director of Preventive Cardiology, the Camelot Foundation at the Fleming Heart & Health Institute, but if his Web site or receptionist are any indication, he is the sole member of each of those.

As for the issue of peer-review, Fleming states that his patients "were randomly assigned to one of the four dietary regimens based upon dietary preferences." This protocol is pivotal to interpretation of the findings, yet oxymoronic: If patients were assigned to diets based on their dietary preferences, then they weren't randomly assigned. If they were randomly assigned, then their preferences must be irrelevant. The two methods are incompatible. If this paper was peer-reviewed, it was done poorly. If this constitutes high-quality research in this field, then I suggest even more skepticism is necessary.

Helloeeze
Posts: 157
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 11:47 am

Re: Fat, Sick, and Nearly Dead

Post by Helloeeze » Wed Jan 04, 2012 11:54 pm

3CT_Paddler wrote:
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.
The example I posted was not about diet's influence on training for athletic performance.

The real world example was the Twinkie diet by a KState nutrition professor. He went from a normal, diet full of mostly healthy food where he commonly ate more than 2000 calories to a 1800 Calorie diet primarily consisting of snack machine food. He lost 27 lbs in 2 months, and his other health markers improved (like LDL cholesterol).

None of this is to say that eating healthy is not important (or that only eating junk food is wise). Healthy food contains nutrients we need, but there is probably a point of diminishing returns once you get past some minimum required nutrient level for function.

Personally I think there is a lot of mysticism and placebo affect (not to mention big business) when it comes to the health food industry.
I flat out don't believe this. By eating 200 less calories a day it would take you over two weeks to lose one pound. That's a bunch of poppycock.

TheEternalVortex
Posts: 2559
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 9:17 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: Fat, Sick, and Nearly Dead

Post by TheEternalVortex » Thu Jan 05, 2012 12:32 am

Helloeeze wrote: I flat out don't believe this. By eating 200 less calories a day it would take you over two weeks to lose one pound. That's a bunch of poppycock.
The article actually says he ate possibly 2,600/day before, and that in his diet he ate "at most 1,800 calories".

But you're right that to lose 27 pounds in 10 weeks requires eating 1,350 calories less than normal/day. Still, that seems possible.

User avatar
ladders11
Posts: 845
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 4:20 pm

Re: Fat, Sick, and Nearly Dead

Post by ladders11 » Fri Jan 06, 2012 5:22 pm

I think a whole lot of the success of a particular diet relies on the psychological factors at play.

A person has a three way switch inside that can be set to "yes" "no" or "maybe", and this switch comes into play whenever food is around. Most people have their switch set to "maybe" and they are constantly deciding whether to eat or not.

The juicer, and even the twinkie guy, have their switches set to "no". Since this guy knows that if food is not a twinkie he won't be eating it, his mind can be clear of food until it is twinkie time.

Essentially any master-planned diet allows the dieter to ignore any urge or impulse and know they are doing the right thing. Obviously we are biased to eat too much, and most eating is the result of an essential mistake wherein irrational hunger is taken as a "need" to eat. People can feel (as opposed to think) that eating is the "healthy" thing to do. Planning can at least provide the comfort and confidence to enable someone to determine "need" from "want" and ultimately right from wrong.

Getting fat strikes me as similar to profligate spending: feeling hungry is like money burning a hole in a pocket.

Of course the problem is that we can't all carefully plan our diets or our spending for our whole lives. Some of us really need to though.

minesweep
Posts: 1269
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 9:17 pm
Location: PA

Re: Fat, Sick, and Nearly Dead

Post by minesweep » Sun Jan 15, 2012 10:12 am

Terry lost about 50 pounds in nine weeks with a low-cost technique that he's even recommended to some of his patients. That's right, Cheapsters, we're about to give you free weight-loss advice from a doctor. No co-pay or anything.

Terry discovered his weight-loss trick last year. A busy Easton doctor specializing in geriatrics, he would often rush through the day without eating and then overeat at night. He'd get a hunger pang and reach for some crackers, then some cheese, then some pickles, and if there was chocolate in the house, it disappeared.

Last year he started dieting to lose weight for a high school reunion. He took a store brand Metamucil, a psyllium fiber marketed as a laxative, while dieting and noticed something. Shortly after drinking a glass of water with a teaspoon of fiber, he wasn't hungry anymore. He kept taking it daily before meals, which controlled his appetite, and the weight melted away.

That got Terry theorizing about his new discovery, which he likes to call "Virtual Bypass Surgery." He thinks processed foods don't have enough fiber to turn off our hormones that regulate hunger, so we eat more than people used to before processed food became available.

"It's why we're fat," Terry said.

He takes 1 teaspoon of psyllium fiber in 16 ounces of water once or twice a day, about 30 to 45 minutes before meals. He was taking it up to four times daily when he started, but has curtailed it.

The stomach is tricked into passing the liquid right through the stomach," Terry said. "The seed powder sticks to the glass, sticks to the water, sticks to the duodenum, which turns off hunger. And if you are not hungry, you have plenty of will power to not eat much."

Terry eats one or two small meals a day and is no longer reaching for snack food before bed.
A spoonful of fiber helps the weight come down.

Mike

User avatar
dm200
Posts: 22912
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 2:21 pm
Location: Washington DC area

Re: Fat, Sick, and Nearly Dead

Post by dm200 » Sun Jan 15, 2012 11:18 am

Until recently (while eating healthy and doing daily exercise and losing 50+ pounds in a year), I had trouble reconciling the advice "Don't count calories" and "Calories Count".

I do not (and have not) actually counted daily calories, or meal calories, etc. I could only guess about what my daily calories consumed is. However, I look at the nutritional labels of calories all the time. I am especially watching for surprises in eating a high calorie food. Sometimes, the calories listed indicate lots of refined sugars, unexpected high fat, and so on.

Triple digit golfer
Posts: 3917
Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 5:57 pm

Re: Fat, Sick, and Nearly Dead

Post by Triple digit golfer » Sun Jan 15, 2012 12:02 pm

Fiber doesn't cause weight loss. Fiber causes some people to feel fuller and therefore eat fewer calories. Eating fewer calories than one burns is the only thing I know of that actually causes weight loss.

Locked