Stupid diet tricks

[HFWR]

Perhaps not. Not being a "practioner" I am not qualified to judge... Hmmmm... maybe that's why I wasn't sucked in. "bro science"? I like it.

Well, I am a forum member, though not super active, but most of the posters are 20-40 and lifting heavy and often.

Or, they could be 14yo girls from Missoula...

 

[RonBoyd]

Here is what I ate yesterday -- a pretty typical day.





Oh! And I drank water with dinner (forgot to enter that).

 

[Chuckanut]

OK, I am going to try more fat and less carbs. This morning I had two scrambled eggs with a bit of 1/2&1/2 mixed in, cheese, and some ham. Coffee, of course. For lunch I ate salmon, red peppers and a slice of cheese. One glass of wine, of course.

 

[JoeWras]

Here is what I ate yesterday -- a pretty typical day.
Oh! And I drank water with dinner (forgot to enter that).

I think I'd be hallucinating on a diet like that.

 

[ERD50]

Getting back to basics, can anyone explain the history of the recommendations to go low-fat? Was there any real research, was it a fad, bad research?

I'm curious how we get to these conclusions, just as I'm curious why so many kids had their tonsils removed in the 60's, and we rarely do that today.

I've said this before, but the only thing I feel pretty confident in is that refined sugars and refined carbs should be limited (how much, heck, I dunno!). I just don't see any reliable source anywhere saying that people lost weight by eating sugar, white bread and pasta. It's the only thing that seems consistent. Beyond that, I'm confused.

But I'm willing to listen to the idea that higher levels of fat are not the bugaboo we have been told. Seems like a lot of people have gone to higher fat levels, and their numbers look good, and they claim to feel better. But DW still freaks out a bit at the idea of some of these fat levels. I've come to realize that if you apply some self-control, you really don't end up eating as much of them, because they are satisfying. DW needs more convincing.

I'm trying to lose some weight, I've done it before, it wasn't so hard, but it took diligence, and I let it creep back on. I'm back to some basics like eating slowly, taste each bite, put the fork down between bites. If I take the time to think about it, and eat slowly, I find that I can be satisfied on a smaller amount of food. If I'm not thinking about it, I just gulp down more than I really need.

-ERD50

 

[RonBoyd]

I think I'd be hallucinating on a diet like that.

It was quality Scotch though.

We are having Liver & Onions for dinner tonight. I will try to remember to measure all the ingredients and we'll see what that looks like.

(Actually, I was kind of surprised at the calorie count because, after dinner, I had felt that I had eaten way too much.)

 

[RAE]

Getting back to basics, can anyone explain the history of the recommendations to go low-fat? Was there any real research, was it a fad, bad research?-ERD50

Gary Taubes covers this pretty thoroughly in his two books, and also some of the articles he has written. Here is a short article that contains an interview with Taubes where he discusses why the old advice to eat a high-carb, low-fat diet is seriously flawed:

What if the low-fat craze was based on flawed thinking? | NutritionResearchCenter.org

 

[HFWR]

The China Study was one culprit, still referenced, but somewhat if not thoroughly debunked. And I think much of it is political correctness mixed with environmental "concerns" etc., i.e. anti-meat. And maybe some good PR from the grain lobby...

 

[RonBoyd]

And maybe some good PR from the grain lobby...

Assisted by the full force of the US Government -- remember, the only purpose for the USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) is to promote the sale and use of agricultural products. There is very little fat in most crops. And even when there was, the company line would be that Saturated fats are bad and vegetable oil is good -- Crisco & Margarine anyone.

 

[RAE]

A lot of this is individual. I dropped to 50g or less of carbs/day and dropped 30 pounds to 162 (5'11"). I have gradually added some carbs back in up to around 100-150g/day and am steady at 162. I don't really want to go much lower. I eat a bit of old favs like rice and potatoes, an apple a day, etc. For others that might be problematic. You need to start out aggressively and then see what works for you.

My experience was very similar to yours. I cut way back on carbs at first (mostly by eliminating bread, pasta, baked goods, crackers, chips, pizza, etc) and I dropped 20+ lbs. right away, getting down to about 150-153 lbs. A lot of the 20 lbs. came right off of my gut/middle, so I was very pleased with that! I didn't want to lose any more weight, so I started adding back some carbs from "real food" (potatoes, sweet potatoes, some other starchy veggies). I'll have an apple or a banana occasionally, not often. I also eat some wild rice, and a little corn. That seemed to work for me, as my weight now stays very stable (never over 153 anymore), and I don't really even have to think about what I can/can't eat now (and I don't restrict the quantity of food that I eat at all). I try to eat at least some protein at every meal, and I eat as much healthy fat (coconut oil, butter/ghee, olive oil) as I want.

I have come to think of the way I eat now as a "real food" eating plan, and not a low-carb diet. Eliminating the processed junk foods was the real key for me (anything that comes in a box or a package with a list of ingredients on the side). Eating vegetables (even the so-called starchy vegetables) doesn't seem to be a problem for me, so I now eat whatever vegetables I want.

Kurt Harris has a good, brief summary of the type of diet I eat now here:
Archevore - Archevore Diet

 

[RonBoyd]

And this was today's meals:





Here is the Liver & Onion recipe -- it also included some other stuff difficult to measure; Tamari (a Soy Sauce), Molasses, a Splash or so of Jack Daniels, etc.

 

[W2R]

Wow, 900+ calories of liver and onions? You sure must like them.

 

[haha]

And this was today's meals:


Here is the Liver & Onion recipe -- it also included some other stuff difficult to measure; Tamari (a Soy Sauce), Molasses, a Splash or so of Jack Daniels, etc.

535 gms liver. That's a quivering slab for sure. You are liverman!

BTW- What is that coconut flour you used? Where do you buy it?

Ha

 

[RonBoyd]

BTW- What is that coconut flour you used? Where do you buy it?

I had to go look. It was Organic Coconut Flour :: Bob\'s Red Mill Natural Foods but there are other brands.

Bob's Mill brand can be found at Safeway, Wal Mart and, of course, Whole Foods, and other stores.

Another good wheat flour substitute (well, non-gluten) is Almond Meal/Flour :: Bob's Red Mill Natural Foods.

Or go to the website at Bobs Red Mill Natural Foods for the whole product line.

 

[Chuckanut]

Getting back to basics, can anyone explain the history of the recommendations to go low-fat? Was there any real research, was it a fad, bad research?

I would start with Dr. Lustig's talk on Sugar. The first 30 minutes or so are a discussion about how we came to regard fat consumption as the source of weight gain and cardiovascular disease. I don't accept anybody as the be-all and end-all in this discussion (years of eating high trans-fat margarine because it was better for me than butter taught to be skeptical), but Lustig certainly has good credentials and some science to backup up what he believes.

Essentially, he explains the move to low-fat as coming from errors in logic, questionable studies, and, of course, politics. The middle part of the talk is very technical with lots of biochemistry, but I think an intelligent lay-person can understand the gist what he is saying if not always the details behind it. The last third is easier to understand and will probably make you want to hand out fruit instead of candy for trick-or-treat. Fruit contains the antidote to sugar - fiber.

Two things that struck me from his talk are; 1.) Ingested sugar in the form of fructose gets made into fat. A high sugar diet is a high fat diet. And 2.) When the body metabolizes fructose it somehow short circuits the process by which the digestive organs tell our brain we are full. Thus, we eat a lot more than we have to.

As I understand this, a high sugar diet is worse than a high fat diet since sugar gets converted into body fat just as ingested fat can do, but the sugar digestion (unlike fat digestion) does not signal the brain that we are full, so we end up eating even more and get even fatter.

 

[RonBoyd]

Her is another view of the Look AHEAD Trial (the one I was waiting for, actually):

Fat Head » Another ‘Heart-Healthy’ Diet Study Fails

BINGO! It wasn’t losing weight that failed to prevent cardiovascular disease, it was losing weight on the ADA’s crappy low-fat, calorie-restricted diet. If participants were indeed consuming 30% fat and 15% protein, that leaves 55% of their calories from carbohydrates – just what a diabetic needs, eh? Hope Warshaw would approve.

Diabetics are three to four times more likely to die of heart disease than non-diabetics. Thanks to the arterycloggingsaturatedfat theory, this sad fact causes so-called experts like the medical wizards at the ADA to recommend exactly the wrong diet. The logic goes like this: Well, since we know a fatty diet causes heart disease and diabetics are prone to heart disease, they need to eat a low-fat diet.

They can’t seem to bring themselves to consider an obvious alternate theory: What if diabetics are prone to heart disease because high blood sugar causes heart disease? What if heart disease begins with damage to a coronary artery and high levels of blood glucose can cause that damage?

If you look at it that way, then it’s clear that diabetics absolutely, positively should not be eating the kind of high-carb, low-fat diet the ADA recommends. They should be eating a diet that keeps their blood sugar down – every day, every hour. Since fat is the only macronutrient that doesn’t raise blood sugar, that would be a moderate protein, high-fat diet.

Why was a psychiatrist chairing the study? Probably because the NIH believes overeating is a psychological problem. People are gluttons, being gluttons makes them fat, and being fat turns them into diabetics. Then they get heart disease because they’re diabetics. Cure their gluttony with intensive dietary counseling, and they’ll lose weight and suffer fewer cardiovascular problems as a result.

Except it didn’t work out that way, did it? After 11 years and $220 million spent, this large study failed to show that the diet promoted by the ADA, the USDA and countless doctors prevents heart disease in a population prone to heart disease. With that in mind, perhaps the psychiatrist can come up with an explanation for this quote in the Washington Post article:

"The results will probably surprise many physicians and patients but are not likely to change the advice they give and get."

Well, of course not. You wouldn’t want failure to inspire a change in your beliefs, much less in your strategy.

 

[RonBoyd]

Wow, 900+ calories of liver and onions? You sure must like them.

Well, yeah, I do.

Again, calories don't count. If they did, I would be more concerned with the calories from Alcohol (385) which does nothing nutritionally -- serving only to overwork my Liver -- rather than calories that my body needs to survive (as opposed to storing away for some unknown "other" time).

 

[RonBoyd]

Essentially, he explains the move to low-fat as coming from errors in logic, questionable studies, and, of course, politics.

Fruit contains the antidote to sugar - fiber.

1.) Ingested sugar in the form of fructose gets made into fat. A high sugar diet is a high fat diet.

And 2.) When the body metabolizes fructose it somehow short circuits the process by which the digestive organs tell our brain we are full. Thus, we eat a lot more than we have to.

As I understand this, a high sugar diet is worse than a high fat diet since sugar gets converted into body fat just as ingested fat can do, but the sugar digestion (unlike fat digestion) does not signal the brain that we are full, so we end up eating even more and get even fatter.

True... and mostly politics.

Sugar is Sugar and Fiber does not destroy it. Beside there are much "healthier" ways to get Fiber into your system.

Dietary Fat and Fat manufactured by the body are completely different. Dietary fat is used immediately while body fat is stored -- and never the two shall meet (yeah, not technically correct but close enough). This, BTW, is also the similar difference in dietary cholesteral and that manufactured by the body.

The lack of satiety triggers is true of all carbohydrates.

 

[RonBoyd]

here are a couple of places to start your research:

My 5 Low-Carb Mistakes And How Nutritional Ketosis Rescued Me From Them by Jimmy Moore
...

12 Healthy High-Fat Foods Perfect For Nutritional Ketosis by Jimmy Moore

 

[haha]

Don't forget that there is now a giant low-carb promotion machine. Who knows what Jimmy Moore's receipts are, but judging from the amount of advertising, they are very substantial.

I listen to many of his podcasts- all of them that feature scientists and MDs, few of them that feature low carb bloggers/promoters. If some guest who has done years of research starts to stray into, "well I am not sure about the results of eating all that fat", Jimmy quickly papers that over. Americans love to be marketed to, even though they usually do not realize this. So they also like that their messages be clear and have no off topic or contrary information. Examples are near at hand.

Ha

 

[RonBoyd]

White House Cookbook And Longevity In The 1800s

I had a great find at the used bookstore today. It was an old copy of the White House Cook Book, which was copyrighted in 1887! It’s not in the best condition, but it includes photos of the first ladies as well as rooms in the White House. I perused some of the recipes and as expected, they have lots of fat – heavy cream, lard, you name it!

... clearly people back then weren’t worried about butter, eggs and lard clogging their arteries and giving them heart disease. And why should they have been worried? Heart disease was rare. ... But even after doctors could properly diagnose heart attacks, the rate of heart-attack deaths didn’t take a sharp rise until the 1940s – when consumption of butter and lard was dropping.

When I’ve pointed that out in previous posts, I’ve heard from lipophobes who insist that the only reason few people died of heart disease back in our lard-powered past is that they didn’t live long enough to die from a heart attack. “Of course people weren’t dying of heart disease!” they tell me. “Most people died before they turned 40!”

What they apparently believe is that most adults died sometime around age 40. That’s simply not true. They’re citing (without understanding) the average life expectancy in the 1800s. ...

In 1850, the average lifespan from birth for boys was only 38 years. But for boys who had already reached age 5 in 1850, the average lifespan was 55 years. For young men who were already age 20, the average was lifespan was 58 years, and for men who were already 40, the average was 66 years. Keep in mind those figures would include violent deaths, not just deaths from diseases.

By contrast, the average lifespan for a boy born in 1950 is listed at 65, but for a young man who was already 20 in 1950, it’s listed at 68 — just a few years older.

 

[haha]

This is so true. If people knew 30% of what they very confidently and loudly proclaim, the world would be a lot less boring.

Walk through a pre WW2 cemetary. You won't see 95% of headstones saying 62, you'll see a very wide spread. Lots of infants and children, a fair number of young women, plenty of young adults who succumbed to influenza, or TB, and even a good number of old men and women in their 80s and nineties.

There was very limited medical care of any usefulness until WW2. Digtalis for sure, and perhaps arsenic for syphyllis, aspirin and I am sure lots more, but to the best of my knowledge antibiotics did not make ther way into general civilian use until the 40s. Yet most of us had very old grandparents and even great-grandparents. My great-grandfather died in 1944 at age 96, his wife a few years later at 98. They lived together in their own home, with no live-in help. If they wanted to go somewhere they climbed aboard a streetcar, or got a ride from family members or a cab. Neither of them ever drove or owned a car. They cared for one of their adult children, who had picked up syphyllis in Europe during WW1. He himself lived well into his 70s, in spite of never having heard of Dr. Oz. On the other side of my family, I had a Grandfather who was born in 1864. I have been told that he only once saw a doctor in his life-in his mid 50s he had a very badly infected hand from a farm mishap. My Dad, after promising to pay, took him to the Doc who lanced it and soon he was well.

I have no idea why some people back then lived such long and healthy lives, but I do have confidence that MIs were in fact relatively rare. My pet idea is that it is not mainly diet at all, but a combination of culture and a great deal of what our modern gurus like to denigrate as "chronic cardio". These people, both men and women, rarely sat down.

Ha

 

[HFWR]

Though working hard on the farm all day doesn't really resemble spending an hour on an elliptical...

My maternal great-grandmother likely never gave a thought to how much fat or how many carbs she ingested.

She died of atherosclerosis. She was 89...

 

[steelyman]

I have no idea why some people back then lived such long and healthy lives, but I do have confidence that MIs were in fact relatively rare. My pet idea is that it is not mainly diet at all, but a combination of culture and a great deal of what our modern gurus like to denigrate as "chronic cardio". These people, both men and women, rarely sat down.

File this in the "Best E-R.org Advice" folder...

 

[Alan]

I have no idea why some people back then lived such long and healthy lives, but I do have confidence that MIs were in fact relatively rare. My pet idea is that it is not mainly diet at all, but a combination of culture and a great deal of what our modern gurus like to denigrate as "chronic cardio". These people, both men and women, rarely sat down.

Ha

Ditto, I don't know what it was. Most of my grandparents and great grandparents lived into their late 70's or early 80's despite living and working in pit villages and all of them being heavy smokers.

My favorite was the great grandfather that I knew very well, as I used to run errands for him. He was a coal miner and was already in the reserves when WW I started so he served in France in the trenches from 1914 through to being discharged "60% disabled" in 1919. That was according to his military record that DW found on a trip to the national archives in Kew a few years ago. His record shows medical leaves for "normal" stuff such as dysentery & hemorrhoids, as well being gassed twice and gun shot wounds to the arm. He also won the Military Medal during one action re-supplying a gun post that had been isolated.

After the war he went back down the mine and in 1938 fell down a mineshaft resulting in having his right leg amputated just below the knee. He then had a "wooden leg" and used to walk with the aid of a cane.

Here is a photo of him on his 90th birthday (I'm the tall one at the back in blue V-neck sweater). He died aged 92.