Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 05-25-2011, 01:57 PM   #21
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
GregLee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Waimanalo, HI
Posts: 1,881
I don't doubt that a low carb diet is an effective method of weight loss and weight control. The more interesting issue, for me, is whether it is excess carbohydrates that cause obesity. The latter, scientific, thesis is what distinguishes Taubes' writings.
__________________

__________________
Greg (retired in 2010 at age 68, state pension)
GregLee is offline   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 05-25-2011, 02:13 PM   #22
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 265
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregLee View Post
I don't doubt that a low carb diet is an effective method of weight loss and weight control. The more interesting issue, for me, is whether it is excess carbohydrates that cause obesity. The latter, scientific, thesis is what distinguishes Taube's writings.
Along this line, I think a good question for Taube would be can excess fats cause obesity?
__________________

__________________
rgarling is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2011, 02:57 PM   #23
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
TromboneAl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 11,197
Let's say a skinny guy goes out backpacking, and runs out of food. He eats almost nothing for a week. When he comes back, he's going to eat more, because his cells are crying out for food. Try keeping him away from the fridge.

An obese person trying to eat less is a lot like that guy. His cells are crying out for food. Why? Because he has a metabolic disorder in which the energy from what he eats is being stored in his fat cells. Try keeping him away from the fridge.

If he were just eating too much, it would be so easy for him to get thin -- just eat less. You can be sure that he hates being fat, so he has plenty of motivation to eat less. But it's just as hard for him to eat less as it would be for the starved backpacker to eat less.

Here is my response to the simple calories in/calories out idea:
You say that it's just "calories in/calories out," and you're 100% right. But I'm going to give you an example, that I think will make you realize, that while true, that law is actually irrelevant to weight loss, and that all calories are not equivalent.

Let's say I gave you a pill to eat every morning. This pill contains only four calories. However, this pill affects your hormonal balance, and it makes you ravenously hungry all the time, and also quite lethargic. Perhaps it's related to your thyroid, but that doesn't matter for this example. What matters is that it makes you hungry and sedentary.

As a result, you are going to gain weight. The pill is only a few calories, but you have gained weight because it has made you to eat a lot more food and move around less.

Has your "calories in/calories out" thermodynamic law been violated? No, because, as a result of your extra eating, you have taken in a lot more calories, and expended fewer. But because of the nature of these calories that you've eaten, namely those four calories in the pill that affects your metabolism, you have gained weight. If you were to stop taking that four-calorie pill, you'd lose weight.

In other words, calories in/calories out is true, but not helpful in understanding weight gain or loss.

By the way, in a similar way, eating lots of carbohydrates can force your body to store energy in fat cells, which in turn forces you to eat more and expend less.
__________________
Al
TromboneAl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2011, 03:19 PM   #24
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
haha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Hooverville
Posts: 22,382
For those who are sceptical of the carb theory and Taubes' articles, or who just like to have other informed viewpoints (I stress informed, because there are more crackpot nutritionists populating the internets than even crackpot investment theorists) - I would recommend a look at Stephen Guyenet. Whole Health Source

He is a neurobiologist whose interest in neuro-feedback with fat setpoint, leptin signalling, etc. makes his ideas quite interesting. I do think that a potential dieter must understand if he may already have some metabolic disturbance, or perhaps a family histroy of same, and if so cutting way down on carbs is certainly indicated.

But Stephan emphasizes leptin signaling, and the things that can make the brain either more or less sensitive to these feedback signals that are generated in adipose tissue and interpreted in the brain.

More fat = more leptin, which the brain becomes accustomed to getting. Losing weight may then become an attempt to increase brain leptin sensitivity, so a smaller mass of fat cells can suffice.

An interesting thing that he pointed out is that the well known tendency for women to gain weight after menopause, or for them to need to severely restrict calories to avoid this gain comes from a demonstated up regulation of brain leptin sensitivity under estrogen driving, which is largely lost after menopause, leading to decreased leptin sensitivity and a shout-out to the body to supply more adipose tissue to create more leptin to compensate for decreased brain sensitivity to it. So they either eat enough to gain weight, or struggle mightily with their appetite to avoid this weight gain.

He also discusses why it may be easier to lose weight on relatively bland and unpalatable diets.

Ha
__________________
"As a general rule, the more dangerous or inappropriate a conversation, the more interesting it is."-Scott Adams
haha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2011, 03:35 PM   #25
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,264
Not trying to be argumentative T-Al, but your comments really strike me as if you have been 'drinking the (sugar-free) Kool-Aid'. Your response reminds me of much of what I read from Taubes - there is this questionable 'set up' that you have to accept for him to get his point across. So allow me to dissect this a bit:


Quote:
Originally Posted by TromboneAl View Post
An obese person trying to eat less is a lot like that guy. His cells are crying out for food. Why? Because he has a metabolic disorder in which the energy from what he eats is being stored in his fat cells. Try keeping him away from the fridge.
Now hold on a cottin' pickin' minute there. You're saying that the average obese person today has a 'metabolic disorder' causing their intake to be 'stored in his fat cells'? Doesn't taking in more calories than you burn cause this? It isn't a disorder, it is a survival method built into our DNA. Set up #1.

Quote:
If he were just eating too much, it would be so easy for him to get thin -- just eat less.
It isn't easy to eat less when we have calorie rich food that we like all around us, and we don't have to climb trees or run miles to get to it. Set Up #2.

Quote:
Here is my response to the simple calories in/calories out idea:

Let's say I gave you a pill to eat every morning. This pill contains only four calories. However, this pill affects your hormonal balance, and it makes you ravenously hungry all the time, and also quite lethargic. ...

As a result, you are going to gain weight. The pill is only a few calories, but you have gained weight because it has made you to eat a lot more food and move around less.

.... But because of the nature of these calories that you've eaten, namely those four calories in the pill that affects your metabolism, you have gained weight. If you were to stop taking that four-calorie pill, you'd lose weight.
OK, but that's a jump from saying that a moderate amount of non-refined carbs acts this way. But that is the implication, w/o evidence - set up #3.


Quote:
In other words, calories in/calories out is true, but not helpful in understanding weight gain or loss.
Actually, I think it is quite helpful to think of it as calories in calories out. You used that as the explanation for the weight gain yourself in the 4 calorie pill example. He ended up taking in more calories because he was hungry, so he ate more and he gained weight. It was still calories in/out.

Now, I'll agree with you that the ability of the food you eat to help keep you from feeling hungry is important (and one reason I limit the refined carbs - which is also easy for me as I don't feel I miss much by avoiding most sweets - Sweet tea - YUCK!).


Quote:
By the way, in a similar way, eating lots of carbohydrates can force your body to store energy in fat cells, which in turn forces you to eat more and expend less.
So here's that circular logic again - you don't blame 'store energy in fat cells' on taking calories in, but specifically on calories from carbs. Why ignore calories from fats or other sources? You take a generally true statement, and imply that it is specifically true to one group and specifically false for another w/o any backing evidence. As rgarling mentioned, couldn't we also turn this around - "By the way, in a similar way, eating lots of fats/proteins can force your body to store energy in fat cells, which in turn forces you to eat more and expend less."? So nothing is proven, and my suspicions are raised by this odd, twisted wording.

If there is something to all this (and there may be), I'm amazed that it can't be explained better. I'll have to go back and google some - a while back I was looking into some info on satiety index - that 'resonated' better with me. It was a list of foods measured on how well they staved off hunger relative to the number of calories they contained. It was not as obvious as many would have expected, the (evil) baked potatoes ranked very high.

-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2011, 03:36 PM   #26
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
GregLee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Waimanalo, HI
Posts: 1,881
Quote:
Originally Posted by TromboneAl View Post
In other words, calories in/calories out is true, but not helpful in understanding weight gain or loss.
If we assume Taubes is right and take the task to be to explain how this could be to a skeptical audience, I think your hypothetical pill explanation works just fine. But the problem comes with an audience not willing to assume that Taubes is right. A hypothetical pill cannot possibly provide evidence for a scientific theory. We'd have to look at the real world, not a world of our imagining.
__________________
Greg (retired in 2010 at age 68, state pension)
GregLee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2011, 03:39 PM   #27
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 567
I need to learn more about Taubes' research. Does he suggest reduced calorie in addition to the high protein?

I know, just based on my own experience, that certain foods affect me in drastically different ways. I'm sure there's not a one-size-fits-all diet, but low carb (at least low refined carb) + high protein would, I think, resonate with my metabolism. I find some carbs fill me up much better than an equal amount of calories of another carb. Refined sugars just make me hungry and want to eat more where as potatoes fill me right up.

But, my diet is one of moderation and paying attention to how my body reacts. Highly subject and personal and not at all scientific.

eta: for example... I just had bbq chicken for lunch (about 4 oz-5 oz worth) and was full. I then had some of that syrupy crap Fanta soda (because it's in the house, that's why) and now I'm hungry. Not physically hungry, but my body is giving me signs I normally associate with hunger. Last night, our awesome Indian neighbor brought over these little puff pastries filled with potatoes and greens. A small handful of those filled me up as well as anything.
__________________
Webzter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2011, 03:44 PM   #28
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,264
Quote:
Originally Posted by haha View Post
For those who are sceptical of the carb theory and Taubes' articles, or who just like to have other informed viewpoints (I stress informed, because there are more crackpot nutritionists populating the internets than even crackpot investment theorists) - I would recommend a look at Stephen Guyenet. Whole Health Source
Thanks Ha - I'll check that out later, along with googling that satiety index I mentioned.


Quote:
He also discusses why it may be easier to lose weight on relatively bland and unpalatable diets.

Ha
That hardly requires an explanation!

-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2011, 03:33 PM   #29
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,264
Quote:
Originally Posted by haha View Post
For those who are skeptical ... - I would recommend a look at Stephen Guyenet. Whole Health Source

Ha
Quote:
Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post
Thanks Ha - I'll check that out later, along with googling that satiety index I mentioned.
OK, did some looking around there. A lot to digest (OK, pun intended), but I didn't get the sense that he strongly favors one diet type over another - a few quotes:

Whole Health Source: Food Reward: a Dominant Factor in Obesity, Part III

Quote:
So here we have four diets that are diametrically opposed to one another. On one hand, we have low-fat vs. low-carbohydrate diets, and on the other, we have vegan vs. high-meat diets. All four cause a spontaneous decrease in calorie intake in overweight people, all four cause fat loss, and all four improve metabolic markers in overweight people with diabetes risk factors.
I get a bit lost there - what were these people eating before these diets? Compared to what? And if I read correctly, there was no specific calorie restriction applied, they just told people to eat meals that focused on these food groups. It almost sounds like placebo effect - they told me I'm on a diet, so I lost weight? Could be, there is a lot of psychology to this, IMO. As an example, when I exercise, I probably do better than what the pure calorie-burning numbers would indicate. Why? Because if I work out for 30 minutes, I don't want to 'throw away' all that effort with a second helping of dessert. IMO, it's a mistake to ignore what our brain/body is telling us.

Again, if I parsed this correctly, comparing low-fat, non-calorie restricted diets to low-carb, non-calorie restricted diets:

Quote:
Here's what they found:

Low-fat intervention groups showed a greater weight loss than control groups
and ( assuming macronutrients refers to: fat, protein, carbohydrate) ...

Quote:
I think that an optimal diet for lean healthy people is probably not restricted in macronutrients, and if anything a diet biased toward carbohydrate is better for overall long-term health than one biased toward fat.
I'll need to keep reading, but I feel this is going to reinforce my limited knowledge in this area - eat a variety of fresh, minimally processed foods; limit refined carbs; balance the rest; focus on smaller calorie portions of filling foods (that satiety index thing).

More on the satiety index (basically measures how hungry someone feels 2 hours after eating a 240 calorie portion of this food):

Satiety Index | Diabetesnet.com
Fullness Factor™ – NutritionData.com
A satiety index of common foods. [Eur J Clin Nutr. 1995] - PubMed result


Quote:
  • Potatoes gave the highest satisfaction, seven times higher than the least-filling croissants.
  • Whole grain breads are 50% more filling than white breads.
  • Cakes, donuts, and cookies are among the least filling.
  • For fruits, oranges and apples outscore bananas.
  • Fish is more satisfying, per calorie, than lean beef or chicken.
  • Popcorn is twice as filling as a candy bar or peanuts.

Holt's Food Satiety Index is the first of its kind demonstrating that foods with a high-fat content create almost instant cravings for more of the same.

...

"Fatty foods are not satisfying, even though people expected them to be", says Dr Holt. 'We think the reason is that fat is seen by the body as a fuel which should be used only in emergencies - it stores it in the cells instead of breaking it down for immediate use. Because it doesn't recognise the fat as energy for immediate use, the body does not tell the brain to cut hunger signals, so we go on wanting more. Carbohydrates are the opposite - they raise blood glucose so the body knows it has got enough fuel to be going on with.'

Overall, the carbohydrates deter nibbling best, while protein-rich foods such as cheese, eggs, baked beans, meat and fish come second, and fruit third. But there are big differences between the satisfaction value of foods within the same group.
I don't know enough to say if that explanation holds water, and I'd like to see these tested for a three- four hour period to better measure how it might hold off 'between snack/meal' hunger, but the concept seems sound to me. Focus on foods that are more filling relative to their calorie content, regardless of what food group they belong to. Balance your food groups within those guides as much as possible. That would seem to help with portion control, and it fits in well with what I think about the brain/body/numbers interaction.

After seeing that high index for baked potatoes a few months back, I've included 1/2 of a leftover baked potato in my lunch more often. A little cheese melted on top, and it really does seem to be very filling for a small amount of food. I need to keep building on this concept.


Quote:
Originally Posted by GregLee View Post
If we assume Taubes is right and take the task to be to explain how this could be to a skeptical audience, I think your hypothetical pill explanation works just fine. But the problem comes with an audience not willing to assume that Taubes is right. A hypothetical pill cannot possibly provide evidence for a scientific theory. We'd have to look at the real world, not a world of our imagining.
Actually, I don't have any problem with the hypothetical construct. We could just as easily substitute a very real zero calorie glass of water for that four calorie pill, it wouldn't change anything in the presentation. My problem is, there is no logical progression that leads to any conclusion. So you are hungry after the water/pill? Where do carbs fit in there - I can substitute fats or proteins in that story and nothing changes w/o data to back it up. And I'm confused as to why TromboneAl would present this as being convincing in any way. That's why I made my 'drinking the Kool-Aid' comment, it strikes me that only a 'true believer' would see any meaning to that story. And for some background, I enjoy T-Al's posts, I agree with him in many areas (probably far more than I disagree with, but it's not something I ever tried to tabulate), so I'm a little surprised at this disconnect.

T-Al seems to think that low-carb is a slam-dunk, but I don't see the evidence in any of these studies. AFAIK, it only appears like a slam-dunk in Taubes presentations, but as I've said before, those really strike me as cherry-picked and twisted with conclusions 'proven' with the conclusion built into the 'proof'.

All this food talk made me hungry! - ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2011, 05:47 PM   #30
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Katsmeow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,395
Quote:
Originally Posted by TromboneAl View Post
You are a little more ecumenical than I am. That is, I'm less accepting of other causes of obesity, attracted instead to a single theory that explains most people's obesity. Namely: although many people can eat lots of carbs without getting fat, those who are quite overweight or obese are that way because of carb consumption.
I do think that refined junk carbs do have a lot to do with obesity and aren't good for you. I even agree that low-fat is not a goal to strive for.

That said, I think the case for low carb being a healthier way to eat is more compelling than the argument that low carb is a better way to lose weight. From the studies that I've read, people on a low fat diet don't lose significantly more weight than people on a low carb diet. But most studies show the converse is true as well - low carb diets don't lose significantly more weight.

And there is simply not evidence to support the idea that if you, for example, eat 2000 calories a day low carb you will lose more weight han the person eating 1200 calories a day with a high carb/low fat diet. Taubes seem to say that calories don't matter and that seem to be wrong.

If high carbs by themselves caused obesity then low carb diets should cause people to lose more weight than high carb diets. But they don't.
__________________
Katsmeow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2011, 06:28 PM   #31
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
haha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Hooverville
Posts: 22,382
Quote:
Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post
OK, did some looking around there. A lot to digest (OK, pun intended), but I didn't get the sense that he strongly favors one diet type over another - a few quotes:

Whole Health Source: Food Reward: a Dominant Factor in Obesity, Part III
I see Stephan occasionally in the medical library, and as I mentioned before, I met Gary and talked to him one to one after his speech. They each personally follow diets that reflect their writings. Neither one is overweight. Gary must be 20 years older than Stephan, and he does have a more powerful appearing physique and to my eye a lower body fat %, though these things can be very misleading in normal clothing.

Stephan must eat 3-5 potatoes/day. Potatoes are a very high glycemic food, it is next to impossible that they are ideal for someone who has meaningful weight problems, because meaningful weight problems means that a meaningful metabolic derangement exists. All this stuff about satiety seems kind of strange to me. I have never heard anyone who was eating low carb say that hunger was a problem. It certainly is not for me- though on a workout day, about 3 hours after finishing I am going to eat come Hell or high water, so I have to see to it that I have suitable food on hand.

I have heard people try low carb and basically decide that being thin was not worth giving up muffins and cookies. What can intelligently be said about this? To me, not that low carb did not work, but that to some people cookies are worth more than leanness.

Ha
__________________
"As a general rule, the more dangerous or inappropriate a conversation, the more interesting it is."-Scott Adams
haha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2011, 02:03 AM   #32
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,264
Quote:
Originally Posted by haha View Post
... All this stuff about satiety seems kind of strange to me. I have never heard anyone who was eating low carb say that hunger was a problem.
OK, so I'll go along with your statement that low carb people don't have a problem with hunger (I don't know if that is true across the board, but I'll accept it for now). More later...

Quote:
I have heard people try low carb and basically decide that being thin was not worth giving up muffins and cookies. What can intelligently be said about this? To me, not that low carb did not work, but that to some people cookies are worth more than leanness.

Ha
Again, the conclusion is being wrapped into the statement. The way you phrase that, we have to assume that low-carb is the only path to being thin. So that leads to only one answer, but it may be a 'set-up'. The studies you pointed to don't seem to say that low-carb is the only path to being thin.

This is the problem I have with Taubes, and we see it in some political/financial threads. Phrasing like - well, of course you have to admit the stimulus program was a success, because it saved the country from financial ruin. The conclusion is wrapped into the statement.

Regardless, I don't know if anything intelligent can be said about someone deciding that xyz is more important than being thin. But in the end, intelligent or not, people take actions that keep them from being thin (or we would have no overweight people). I read that people get bored with low carb, it's hard to avoid some favorite foods, or other 'excuses' for why they can't stick to it. I can rephrase your statement to apply to any diet - if people would just stick to portion control, or the Mediterranean diet, or this or that, they would lose weight. It doesn't mean those diets don't work, but that to some people larger portions or different foods are worth more than leanness. But many don't stick to the diet, and we need to face that.

Now, if an individual finds that low-carb works for them, and they are able to stick to it, and get good results, then they have their solution. But is that the right solution for everybody? Who is to say? Not everyone loves the same things. I love heaps of black pepper on some foods, DW hates it on anything. Is one of us 'wrong'?

Getting back to satiety index - if we are willing to accept that different diets may be best for different people, then perhaps satiety would help those interested in portion control. In that way, it could be very useful. It may be irrelevant to a low-carb person, but that doesn't make it useless to others.

-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2011, 08:42 AM   #33
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Purron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 5,584
I haven't studied the diets like HaHa and T-Al have, but can offer my personal experience: cutting way down on carbs and sugary foods/drinks resulted in a significant weight loss.

Last night we grilled steaks. Instead of a baked potato on the side, we had some veggies with a little cheese melted on top and a side salad. It was awesome!

We're eating more non processed foods - veggies, salads, fresh meat - and way less potatoes, bread and pasta. Not hungry, have lost weight and still splurge on carbs once in a while.

I don't try to find low carb replacements for things like bread, pasta and potatoes - I just consider these items a treat and serve them less often and in smaller portions. For example, DH and I love spaghetti and used to have it weekly. Now it's a once a month treat with less pasta and more sauce and a bigger side salad.

My doctor is happy. He's very mainstream in his thinking - not into the low carb stuff - but thinks it's been good for me.
__________________
I purr therefore I am.
Purron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2011, 09:35 AM   #34
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purron View Post
I haven't studied the diets like HaHa and T-Al have, but can offer my personal experience: cutting way down on carbs and sugary foods/drinks resulted in a significant weight loss.
Same here. Plus I eliminated the need for tums and proton pump inhibitors for the first time in 15 year < a week after changing my diet. DW says I stopped snoring prior to any meaningful weight loss. Maybe it was a hidden gluten sensitivity. Maybe my physiology and body chemistry is somewhat unique. I doubt it, but I don't know.

I feel great and enjoy food even more now. We had grilled T-Bones and heaps of green chard last night. It was fantastic. I had 1/2OZ of 100% coco chocolate for dessert.
__________________
SunsetSail is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2011, 10:23 AM   #35
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,264
SunsetSail and Purron, I'm glad your choice is working for you. However, as the saying goes, the plural of anecdotal is not data. I'm sure I could dig up anecdotal evidence of all sorts of diets working for people, of people happy with their diet. According to the sources that Ha provided, just about any approach seemed to bring long term weight loss. Plus, I'm not sure your approach really fits what Taubes would call 'low-carb', but that might not matter.

As for my own story, about 8 years ago I decided to trim down and wanted to lose ~ 10-15#. I did it by portion control, and it really was not hard at all, and I wasn't hungry or deprived (though you rarely get that 'full' feeling many of us have become accustom to). Over a period of a few weeks, I went step-by-step to learn just how many calories were in a meal/snack, and I tried to balance each meal/snack with some fat, carbs and proteins, and keep the daily calories to ~ 1700-1900. I ate dark chocolate (the only kind I like) every day. I didn't care about fast weight loss, slow and steady was fine with me, and I lost ~ 2# every 3 weeks with very little effort. I felt better, and my lipid #'s improved.

When I read Taubes, he seemed to say this was impossible.

Now, I did 'fall off the wagon'. Even though portion control wasn't hard, it did take a constant vigilance to be aware of how many calories I put in my mouth at each meal. I got lazy. But I try to keep up with information, maybe I'll get motivated one day, and I want to take the best route for me. And I think the satiety index could help.

But friends on low-carb also fell off the wagon. I don't think the studies show any big improvement in long term weight loss with low-carb over others. But again, if one diet fits your style and you find it easier than another, that might be the 'right' answer for you. With these books on the best seller lists and all the talk, you'd think obesity would be solved by now.

-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2011, 10:51 AM   #36
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
calmloki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Independence
Posts: 5,459
I finally figured what the problem is!
I should have figured it out sooner.

It's the shampoo I use in the shower.
When I wash my hair, the shampoo runs down my whole body.
Printed very clearly on the shampoo label it reads,
"FOR EXTRA VOLUME AND BODY."

I have gotten rid of the shampoo and
I am going to start using Dawn dish soap.
On its label reads, "DISSOLVES FAT THAT IS OTHERWISE DIFFICULT TO REMOVE."
__________________
calmloki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2011, 11:06 AM   #37
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Katsmeow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,395
Quote:
Originally Posted by haha View Post
I have heard people try low carb and basically decide that being thin was not worth giving up muffins and cookies. What can intelligently be said about this? To me, not that low carb did not work, but that to some people cookies are worth more than leanness.
But...for weight loss...does low carb work and nothing else works? I'm sure that isn't true because plenty of people lose weight but don't eat low carb (and plenty do, of course).

Or, is it that other ways to lose weight work but don't work as well as low carb? That you lose weight faster with low carb? That you keep weight off better with low carb? If the evidence was clear cut on that I would do it in a heartbeat.

But, it doesn't appear that the evidence supports that.

Here is an example of a recent study. Low carb diet was successful for weight loss. But so was low fat.

Weight and metabolic outcomes after 2 years on a l... [Ann Intern Med. 2010] - PubMed result

I just don't see that the evidence is there that for weight loss a low carb diet works any better than a low fat diet. In reality, for weight loss, I suspect that the best diet for the individual is which one the individual can stick to the best. For some people that will be low carb and for another it will be low fact. (For me, personally what works best is portion control and something that is neither low fat nor low carb).
__________________
Katsmeow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2011, 11:18 AM   #38
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
haha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Hooverville
Posts: 22,382
ERD, you are an excellent internet argument guy, really good. You don't get mad, you are unfailingly polite, you are well informed, you are very clever in the way that you selectively pull up anecdates, then studies, then chide others for thinking that anecdotes are data. You mis-interpret or misstate authors such as Taubes statements, but in a way that would be just too hard and too boring to try to counter.

So I will just say, congrats, you are good and I respect you. Constantly shifting the frame of a discussion is an excellent ploy, if annoying. But by using it, one can at times win the battle but lose the war. This same technique did help me achieve divorce from a woman that I really did not want to lose, and I see that it may have helped you to get back some formerly missing pounds too!

To anyone who is more interested in being lean than in being right, and who is still looking for methods, remember that for most of us it is easier to go cold turkey on some category of pleasure or experience, than to limit it. The first is qualitative. Is this an ear of corn or an egg? OK, egg, I can eat it. Compare to -let's see, I think I have had 1800 calories so far today, I wonder if this flan is 200 calories worth of dessert, or 100?

One more comment, about the issue of being able to eat until you feel fully satisfied, which is a feature of low carb as experienced by most people.

When you go to a July 4th celebration, do you typically leave before the fireworks or afterward? When you have sex, do you stop before or after the world shifts on its axis?

If you are in the before camp, I think you may be an ideal candidate for portion control. Many others might prefer eating until their bodies say, "Ah, I'm done now!".

I just saw Katsmeow's post. Let me say that I have no idea whether low carb is better or worse than low fat, or some as yet undiscoverd technique. If a person has found a method, used it for at least several years, and stays lean and happy and comfortable, they have found their own answer. All the rest is a bit abstract.

Ha
__________________
"As a general rule, the more dangerous or inappropriate a conversation, the more interesting it is."-Scott Adams
haha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2011, 11:24 AM   #39
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 567
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katsmeow View Post
I just don't see that the evidence is there that for weight loss a low carb diet works any better than a low fat diet. In reality, for weight loss, I suspect that the best diet for the individual is which one the individual can stick to the best. For some people that will be low carb and for another it will be low fact. (For me, personally what works best is portion control and something that is neither low fat nor low carb).
Completely agree on the weight-loss front regarding portion control. Heck, without diet modifications at all outside of paying attention to portions (but not necessarily restricting), I'm down 5" on my waistline through a regime of schlepping 50 lb bags of concrete, 4x4 posts and 16' lengths of wood around my yard.

But, I'm wondering about other factors. For someone with other factors, it looks like a low-carb diet may (may) help. Just in glancing at the charts on the article you linked, I see there was an immediate reduction in triglyceride levels. These rebounded over time but I'm wondering if that's always true... and, selfishly, as I'm paying a higher life ins premium due to triglyceride levels, I'm now armed with a way to get those numbers down at least for the window of a retest (of course, I'd want long term changes)

I'd think portion control wrt insulin resistance would benefit no matter, especially in restricting refined carbs and sugars. I wonder if there are certain populations where low-carb would benefit significantly more though. Ha and Al's comments lead me to think they're at least seeing benefits in this area (anecdotal evidence and all that of course).
__________________
Webzter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2011, 11:34 AM   #40
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
haha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Hooverville
Posts: 22,382
Quote:
Originally Posted by Webzter View Post
But, I'm wondering about other factors. For someone with other factors, it looks like a low-carb diet may (may) help. Just in glancing at the charts on the article you linked, I see there was an immediate reduction in triglyceride levels. These rebounded over time but I'm wondering if that's always true... and, selfishly, as I'm paying a higher life ins premium due to triglyceride levels, I'm now armed with a way to get those numbers down at least for the window of a retest (of course, I'd want long term changes)

I'd think portion control wrt insulin resistance would benefit no matter, especially in restricting refined carbs and sugars. I wonder if there are certain populations where low-carb would benefit significantly more though. Ha and Al's comments lead me to think they're at least seeing benefits in this area (anecdotal evidence and all that of course).
Carb metabolism is my major issue. I have 2 parents and 3 sibs-All but one parent are/were T2 diabetics.

Re triglycerides my annual results several years running were 20 41 38 35.

I don't have tests prior to low carb eating (I didn't go to the doctor back then) so I cannot compare, but my understanding is that these are pretty good numbers for someone with my family history.

Ha
__________________

__________________
"As a general rule, the more dangerous or inappropriate a conversation, the more interesting it is."-Scott Adams
haha is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Anyone Watching Ice Road Truckers or Chasing Mummies? Telly Other topics 11 09-08-2010 04:53 PM

 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:07 AM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.