A Problem for Low-Carb Theories?

[W2R]

At least for an hour.

But this reminds me, I used to live off chili dogs (called Coney Islands) every Saturday of my junior high career. 5 for a buck, with onions and cheese at Chili and Pool, a very fine establishment. If I had recently gotten food poisoning there, I might lay off and have White Castles the following week. What an upcale life I led.

I never had Chili and Pool food, but White Castle burgers are so bad that my parents would not allow me to eat them and they were adamant about it. By the time I was 12 my big brother had his drivers' license, though, and he would take me to White Castle where we would sneak a greaseburger and pledge to one another that we would never tell our parents.

Compared to today's kids, I guess this malfeasance was pretty mild! I was sure scared that I would get "caught", though.

Thanks for the memory. I had forgotten all about that.

 

[Moemg]

I could never do a Twinkies diet or even the Jared ( Subway ) diet . I want to start the wine & appetizers diet . All you eat are appetizers and wash them down with wine or liquor maybe light beer but only occasionally .

 

[Nords]

How I interpret the twinkie diet is that the guy had the willpower and motivation to keep calories low, and therefore lost weight. I'll bet that he could not stay on that diet for years.

I think additional [-]Twinkies[/-] research is called for.

Coincidentally I seem to be getting very hungry...

 

[deserat]

I was thinking more like this type of food.

OMG - what an awesome menu!!! But for people counting calories, just the second course would blow the whole day!!!!

Off topic here - but I've been to a 3 star Michelin restaurant in France - 10 courses and we skipped the cheese course. The portions were smaller, but about course 6 we were stuffed - very interesting food, though. Nothing that was traditional at all. They were in to the 'food and taste science' so paired not usually paired foods. All in all an interesting experience. Might do it again, but it hits the pocketbook (100 Euros each prix fixe *without* the wine) - that was 6 years ago, too.

Enjoy your one year ER anniversary!

 

[deserat]

Speaking as a submariner sewage expert, the phrasing is a little awkward. Are they merely noting that his total weight loss over the last two months is now 35 pounds, or are they implying that he had an "eight-pound event"?

Yup - talk about 'dropping a load.'

 

[hankster]

No poop for 2 months

Just think of the LBYM possibilities due to savings on toilet paper

 

[REWahoo]

No poop for 2 months

Very similar to the results on the E-R forum when the Soapbox was closed...

 

[Alan]

Very similar to the results on the E-R forum when the Soapbox was closed...

 

[Nords]

Says one of the guys who used to have to moderate that [-]cesspool[/-] forum...

 

[Isoman]

I tried low carb high fat and it worked for me. And i believe carb are the primary reason for the fat ppl in our soceity. the right fat is good for us and is not making us fat. Its like saying you look sweet if you eat sugar...silly silly

This is whats happening in sweden now:

A High-Fat, Low-Carb Diet Explosion Happening In Sweden « Jimmy Moore's Livin' La Vida Low Carb Blog

 

[NW-Bound]

Good grief! That 8-pound event after 2 months has got to hurt! I wonder if it could have set a Guinness world record, if they keep track of such a thing.

 

[Nords]

I wonder if it could have set a Guinness world record, if they keep track of such a thing.

I'm sure someone is out there buying a pallet of Twinkies as we speak...

 

[obgyn65]

You are correct Nords.

There's a difference between eliminating fat and building muscle, and the difference is likely to make your weight go up.

 

[lets-retire]

In a long ago post I asserted the same. Calories in v calories out.

Simple example: In Auschwitz the captives were on a [-]severe caloric restrictive [/-] starvation diet, the results were not photogenic. There were no overweight captives, there or at Birkenau.

Seems there was some other thread on types of calories being good v bad.

I did the same thing a few years ago on here. I thought I was going to be lynched for saying that. It resulted in a many, many page "discussion".

 

[lets-retire]

I have journaled what I eat for several years. I track calories, calories net of exercise, grams of protein, grams of fat, grams of carbs and sodium. I have tried low carb, low fat and lots of exercise and no exercise. This article supports exactly what I have observed, that is total calories eaten is the most important factor by a large margin.

However, I have also found it easier to stick to 1,800-2,000 calories per day when eating a higher protein diet with moderate carbs. I feel full and satisfied much longer when eating a good amount of protein and fat instead of tons of carbs.

I also have found that exercise is not the benefit on weight loss that I thought it was. For instance, I will lose more weight by eating 1,800 calories per day with no exercise than if I eat 2,400 calories per day and burn 600 per day on the treadmill.

Not suggesting people don't exercise because it provides other health benefits. But just don't think you can eat that extra 400 calorie slice of pizze and burn it off by working out for 400 cals.

There are several problems with exercising as the main method for losing weight. If you lift weights then you increase your muscle mass. Muscle is heavy so your weight will go up. Muscle does use more calories than fat or no muscle, but you must continue to increase or your muscles get lazy.

If you try to work cardio, all you are really doing is making you muscles more efficient at burning calories. The end result is you have to constantly increase the amount of cardio you do in order to continue to see weight loss. The other side of it is cardio really doesn't burn that many calories. As inaccurate as they are, look at the number of calories you burn on a treadmill or elliptical. It typically takes me about 15 minutes to burn off a Coke, according to those estimates. Using those estimates it will take almost an hour to really hit any decent calorie use. One thing those estimates are good for is a deterrent to eating food you don't need. I look at it from the perspective that this Big Mac and fries are going to cost me 1.5 hours on the elliptical. It makes some food taste really bad.

 

[TromboneAl]

In a long ago post I asserted the same. Calories in v calories out.

Simple example: In Auschwitz the captives were on a [-]severe caloric restrictive [/-] starvation diet, the results were not photogenic. There were no overweight captives, there or at Birkenau.

That example illustrates the nuance of the calories in v. calories out issue. In my hypothetical pill example above, I made the point that the pill was only four calories, yet it made you ravenously hungry. So you ended up eating more.

The captives didn't have the option of eating more. You do. If the kind of calories you take in cause you to become irresistibly hungry, you will go to the kitchen and eat more.

 

[haha]

Once I heard Gary Taubes speak at UW. Various audience members were coming up with this or that objection to his low carb weight loss ideas. I was recognized to speak and I told how I and my brother had lost weight low carbing, he some serious weight, and I asked for a show of hands of people who had given an educated, serious try at low carb weight loss, and had failed at it.

No one raised their hand.

I lot of people just like to find reasons why "it won't work"-even though it is working all around them. This attitude is just a preferred life adjustment for them.

Ha

 

[TromboneAl]

The Twinkie diet story is a bit of a problem for me. As you've mentioned, Ha, we are constantly bombarded with the "avoid saturated fat, eat grains and fruit" message, so there's always that question in your mind: "maybe I'm wrong."

For me, the best argument for low carb is that although I've increased my consumption of meats by at least five-fold, I've lost weight instead of gained it. That argument seemed pretty ironclad.

But if someone can lose weight eating Twinkies, then that argument isn't as strong.

 

[haha]

The Twinkie diet story is a bit of a problem for me. As you've mentioned, Ha, we are constantly bombarded with the "avoid saturated fat, eat grains and fruit" message, so there's always that question in your mind: "maybe I'm wrong."

For me, the best argument for low carb is that although I've increased my consumption of meats by at least five-fold, I've lost weight instead of gained it. That argument seemed pretty ironclad.

But if someone can lose weight eating Twinkies, then that argument isn't as strong.

Al: Did you lose weight eating Twinkies? Would it be possible to survive long term eating Twinkies? Would a Twinkie, or pancake, or apple pie diet make you feel ravenous a few hours on? Could anyone stay on a Twinkie type diet for years?

It is highly likely that not everyone has the same metabolic makeup. So isn't the world big enough for Twinkie dieters and cheese omelet dieters to coexist without the the opposite numbers feeling challenged? I know a high carb diet works for some, as every time I go out to the UW I see hundreds of very thin Asian students eating udon.

These kind of questions tend not to occupy me much, though I know others are different.

I started low carbing in 1997, and tighened it as I learned more about where the carbs are found. After an initial 15# weight loss, my weight is pretty much nailed, like a your speedometer running cruise control across Kansas. And my health is better, in spite of getting older by the by.

As a famous Mexican philosopher/bailing wire mechanic profoundly spoke-"Se sirve, señor". Which I took to mean, "it works, buddy".

Ha

 

[Nords]

But if someone can lose weight eating Twinkies, then that argument isn't as strong.

I think it's support for your "if you're hungry, you'll eat more" statement. If I had a pallet of Twinkies in my refrigerator then I'd have to put a timer lock on the door for portion control, or use one of those rat-pellet feeding machines.

My spouse's dining discipline [-]annoys the hell out of me[/-] is impressive. When we don't work out as much, she "just" eats less. When I don't work out I probably eat more just because I have the extra time. My adjusting to eating less has been a painful prolonged effort to overcome the body's learned responses and my own brain chemistry...

 

[GregLee]

But, folks, low carb diets work because they can depend on satiety to control food intake (and perhaps for other reasons). The twinkie diet controlled calories of intake. They're not at all comparable. Maybe our professor of human nutrition was ravenous the whole time and would have gained lots if he had permitted his appetite free rein.

 

[ERD50]

The Twinkie diet story is a bit of a problem for me. ...

For me, the best argument for low carb is that although I've increased my consumption of meats by at least five-fold, I've lost weight instead of gained it. That argument seemed pretty ironclad.

But if someone can lose weight eating Twinkies, then that argument isn't as strong.

I don't think it is a problem. The twinkie guy was a researcher, motivated to stay on the diet to make his point. I seriously doubt that most people could keep their calorie counts down with that diet. I saw a blurb on GMA with the guy, 1800 calories of junk food is not very much food. I think I'd feel like I was starving and I would not stay on the diet.

The question is, how many calories are you eating with your diet? If you are keeping your weight down, and other signs are good, then that is probably a "good" diet for you. It may not be the only one though.

Haha's story of the Taube's meeting doesn't tell me much - that is a self selected group. I actually have big problems with what I've read from Taube's - but that doesn't mean his conclusions are wrong. I guess you could say I'm more skeptical of Taubes himself than I am of anyone who says a low carb diet is working for them (I'm not really skeptical of those people at all - I guess I still question if that is the only thing that works for them, but that's irrelevant if they are happy with their diet).

-ERD50

 

[haha]

Haha's story of the Taube's meeting doesn't tell me much - that is a self selected group. I actually have big problems with what I've read from Taube's - but that doesn't mean his conclusions are wrong. I guess you could say I'm more skeptical of Taubes himself than I am of anyone who says a low carb diet is working for them (I'm not really skeptical of those people at all - I guess I still question if that is the only thing that works for them, but that's irrelevant if they are happy with their diet).

-ERD50

Obviously selected, but they seemed to have different reasons for showing up. It was in the medical school, and attracted a lot of people who were not true believers. Also, a goodly number of overweights and the usual "but what about" types, who just enjoy the mental stimulation of criticizing things. That is why I asked a practical question- "have you tried it, and failed?"

I sometimes get a bit weary of professional critics. It's just one more way of avoiding action, and action is the purpose of life. I do think it's pretty funny that the medical profession worries about low carb diets, but recommends "bariatric" surgery.

Ha

 

[ERD50]

It's just one more way of avoiding action, and action is the purpose of life. I do hihnk it's pretty funny that the medical profession worries about low carb diets, but recommends "bariatric" surgery.

Ha

LOL - I'm with you on that one! Kinda like the old saw, 'to a hammer salesman, every problem looks like a nail'.

-ERD50

 

[ls99]

That example illustrates the nuance of the calories in v. calories out issue. In my hypothetical pill example above, I made the point that the pill was only four calories, yet it made you ravenously hungry. So you ended up eating more.

The captives didn't have the option of eating more. You do. If the kind of calories you take in cause you to become irresistibly hungry, you will go to the kitchen and eat more.

I added the bolding.

Thus the importance of having "won't" power instead of "will" power. Options, options, options. What to do?

The difficulty of living in the land of easy, and of plenty cheap food. The individual always has choices. Choices have consequences.

The bottom line still remains, if there is no or very low caloric input, regardless of quality, there can be no weight gain.

Wish I had a nickel for every time I heard an overweight person say, but I hardly eat. Yeah right, by whose standards?

A distressing scene I witnessed a few weeks ago while camping in a small park: A very chubby kid about five or six years old walking about with a bag of potato chips nearly as big as he was, under his armpit a bottle of caramel colored soft drink. At no time in a couple of days they were there, did I see this kid without dragging a bag of chips and constantly munching on them. His parents looked like a 100lb over their normal weight.