Weight loss

[madsquopper]

Heck, if you want to lose weight then just go on the salmonella diet I started that last Wednesday night and had lost 12 pounds by Sunday morning.

All joking aside, I'm doing OK (finally) after doing the usual "treat the symptoms" with rest, lots of fluids, and eventually a bland diet to start. I was surprised at how much weight I lost given how much fluid I've been drinking.

Larry

[Rianne]

Quote:

Originally Posted by madsquopper Heck, if you want to lose weight then just go on the salmonella diet I started that last Wednesday night and had lost 12 pounds by Sunday morning. All joking aside, I'm doing OK (finally) after doing the usual "treat the symptoms" with rest, lots of fluids, and eventually a bland diet to start. I was surprised at how much weight I lost given how much fluid I've been drinking. Larry

That is awful, I hope all is ok. At least you were drinking fluids. When I had food poisoning, I could not keep anything down including water. Very dangerous for kidneys. I was told, after I recovered, I should have gone to Emerg Room for IV solution. It took a long time to enjoy food again. Would not wish that on anyone.

[MRG]

Quote:

Originally Posted by madsquopper Heck, if you want to lose weight then just go on the salmonella diet I started that last Wednesday night and had lost 12 pounds by Sunday morning. All joking aside, I'm doing OK (finally) after doing the usual "treat the symptoms" with rest, lots of fluids, and eventually a bland diet to start. I was surprised at how much weight I lost given how much fluid I've been drinking. Larry

Oh yea I've been there, done that. Three days in my bathroom and my trusty bucket buddy. After that, I was admitted to a gastrointestinal unit of a local hospital for another 3 days. They captured, weighed, cultured and had fun with all that stuff. If you've never stayed in a gastrointestinal unit it's a great time.

They performed a CT and then needed to do a sigmoidoscopy to check something else out. When the gastroenterologist told me I needed to prep, the look I gave him was special! All of this because a restaurant in KCMO(The Phoenix) fed me poison homemade mayo.

[flintnational]

I read the recent carbohydrate study published in the Lancet. Clearly, I do not have enough to do!

So, what is the key finding? Diets with an intake of 50%-55% carbohydrates lead to longer life than diets with lower carb percentiles. Keep in mind this is only an observational study and requires participants to fill out food questionaires indicating what they ate over the prior several years. This is not a randomized controlled trial. It cannot show cause and effect, only associations. Additionally, this study conflicts with several short term randomized controlled trials that show low carb diets reduce weight and improve medobolic markers for heart disease and diabetes. Here is my N=1 example of the implications of this study compared to my low carb diet.

My lunch (low carb)
Broiled hamburger patty only (4 ounce)
1/2 avocado
1 cup sauted kale
2 Tbs extra virgin olive oil (for kale and avocado)

Nutrition - Calories 736 - 14% Carbohydrate

Comparison lunch (McDonald's)
Quarter Pounder with Cheese
Small fries

Nutrition - Calories 737 - 49% Carbohydrate

Per this study, the McDonald's, meal at 49% carbohydrate, will lead to a longer life compared to my lunch, at 14% carbohydrate. And the McDonald's meal falls at the study finding optimal carb intake of 50%-55%. Common sense and several randomized controlled trials say this study is flawed. Anybody want to check your blood glucose after each of these meals?

[6miths]

The findings aren't inconsistent in my mind as they are apples and oranges. Carbohydrates per se are not bad and are likely the bodies preferred fuel. They are just very difficult to store in their native state. It is ingesting an excess of carbohydrates (and perhaps an excess of simple and atypical carbohydrates) that is likely problematic. Everything in moderation and like a departed poster's advice 'just eat real food' (JERF)

As you point out, association and definitely not suggestion of causation. Food for thought!

[LOL!]

A careful reading of the study is in order. Don't trust journalists to tease out the important details.

Quote:

Our findings suggest a negative long-term association between life expectancy and both low carbohydrate and high carbohydrate diets when food sources are not taken into account. These data also provide further evidence that animal-based low carbohydrate diets should be discouraged. Alternatively, when restricting carbohydrate intake, replacement of carbohydrates with predominantly plant-based fats and proteins could be considered as a long-term approach to promote healthy ageing.

[flintnational]

^^I agree that food quality is very important (IMO, probably the most important factor in diet.). That was one of the flaws with the study. They did not look at food quality only macro nutrient make-up. In the comments they indicated whole carbs would be better than refined. But once again, they did not look at this. So, sort of a useless analysis. That was my point showing the MCD meal met their study findings. And my meal full of whole veggies did not.

Edit to add: Following on 6miths post.

[Freedom56]

Forget McDonald's, if you are going to eat a burger, go all the way. Try the Dead Hippie burger from MeatLiquor (Brighton UK also in London). The world's best burger by far.
Once in a while it's okay to eat this. Our daily exercise easily covered the calories. I washed mine down with a beer. What you see in the picture cost about 30 pounds or $43 USD. A lower cost option burger would be the In-N-Out double double at about 30% of the cost for the same meal minus the beer.

[RAE]

Chris Kresser took a look at the Lancet study, and pretty much shredded it:

Here is a link to his analysis, and a couple of excerpts from it:

https://chriskresser.com/will-a-low-...ten-your-life/

"Decades of nutrition research have myopically focused on the quantity of protein, fat, and carbohydrate we eat, without considering the quality. In my mind, this is perhaps the single biggest shortcoming of the bulk of nutrition research."


"I’m going to give you seven reasons why you should take the recent Lancet study with a huge grain of salt:

• Using observational data to draw conclusions about causality
• Relying on inaccurate food frequency questionnaires (FFQs)
• Failing to adjust for confounding factors
• Focusing exclusively on diet quantity and ignoring quality
• Meta-analyzing data from multiple sources

Unfortunately, this study has already been widely misinterpreted by the mainstream media, and that will continue because:

1. Most media outlets don’t have science journalists on staff anymore
2. Even so-called “science journalists” today seem to lack basic scientific literacy"

[flintnational]

Quote:

Originally Posted by RAE Chris Kresser took a look at the Lancet study, and pretty much shredded it: Here is a link to his analysis, and a couple of excerpts from it: https://chriskresser.com/will-a-low-...ten-your-life/ "Decades of nutrition research have myopically focused on the quantity of protein, fat, and carbohydrate we eat, without considering the quality. In my mind, this is perhaps the single biggest shortcoming of the bulk of nutrition research."[/LIST]

Nice analysis. IMO, once we went down the "a calorie is a calorie" path, we have ignored food quality. The two meals I posted, post #164, had the same calorie count but the quality of the meals was vastly different. Food quality matters.

[6miths]

Quote:

Originally Posted by RAE Chris Kresser took a look at the Lancet study, and pretty much shredded it: Here is a link to his analysis, and a couple of excerpts from it: https://chriskresser.com/will-a-low-...ten-your-life/ "Decades of nutrition research have myopically focused on the quantity of protein, fat, and carbohydrate we eat, without considering the quality. In my mind, this is perhaps the single biggest shortcoming of the bulk of nutrition research." "I’m going to give you seven reasons why you should take the recent Lancet study with a huge grain of salt: Using observational data to draw conclusions about causality Relying on inaccurate food frequency questionnaires (FFQs) Failing to adjust for confounding factors Focusing exclusively on diet quantity and ignoring quality Meta-analyzing data from multiple sources Unfortunately, this study has already been widely misinterpreted by the mainstream media, and that will continue because: Most media outlets don’t have science journalists on staff anymore Even so-called “science journalists” today seem to lack basic scientific literacy"

The media does what it wants which is mainly to try to generate clicks or views. Point one is the key one. This is observational data. Association not causation and I didn't get the impression that the authors were saying that there was causation. This type of study is meant to raise questions and avenues for future research not to answer questions definitively.

Meta-analysis IS taking data from multiple sources. That's the point.

One should always be skeptical.

[UnrealizedPotential]

So I thought I would give an update on my progress. If you remember last July I weighed 190 lbs. I was in the hospital because of high blood pressure at that time. A week later I weighed 180 lbs. My progress was slow for a while. I was stuck in the high 170's. I finally bought a scale so I could check my progress. It was slow going.


Fast forward to today. I am consistently weighing 170lbs. So 20 lbs I have lost since July. My ideal weight is from 129 to 173. I would like to get down to 165 lbs. I think I can do it. Three months ago I would have said no way. I drink more water, and my portion sizes for my meals are smaller. I quit drinking beer for good. So all that has helped me.



My BP is now under control and I feel really good. So I am on the right track.

[MRG]

Quote:

Originally Posted by UnrealizedPotential So I thought I would give an update on my progress. If you remember last July I weighed 190 lbs. I was in the hospital because of high blood pressure at that time. A week later I weighed 180 lbs. My progress was slow for a while. I was stuck in the high 170's. I finally bought a scale so I could check my progress. It was slow going. Fast forward to today. I am consistently weighing 170lbs. So 20 lbs I have lost since July. My ideal weight is from 129 to 173. I would like to get down to 165 lbs. I think I can do it. Three months ago I would have said no way. I drink more water, and my portion sizes for my meals are smaller. I quit drinking beer for good. So all that has helped me. My BP is now under control and I feel really good. So I am on the right track.

Nice.

[ugeauxgirl]

Quote:

Originally Posted by UnrealizedPotential So I thought I would give an update on my progress. If you remember last July I weighed 190 lbs. I was in the hospital because of high blood pressure at that time. A week later I weighed 180 lbs. My progress was slow for a while. I was stuck in the high 170's. I finally bought a scale so I could check my progress. It was slow going. Fast forward to today. I am consistently weighing 170lbs. So 20 lbs I have lost since July. My ideal weight is from 129 to 173. I would like to get down to 165 lbs. I think I can do it. Three months ago I would have said no way. I drink more water, and my portion sizes for my meals are smaller. I quit drinking beer for good. So all that has helped me. My BP is now under control and I feel really good. So I am on the right track.

Congratulations- that's an impressive amount of weight you've lost, and sounds like your overall health is much better. Good for you!