The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewJames Thompson Archive
Diet Is an IQ Test: Part 23
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

calorie balance

At a time when some people may be wishing to set a New Year’s resolution, after some festive eating and drinking, it is apposite to look at a recent very striking headline:

‘I beat type 2 diabetes with 200-calorie drinks’

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-42154666

It describes what is said to be a very promising treatment for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. The breakthrough comes from “200 calories drinks” suggesting that if you have lots of these you can cure an illness. This seems a cheerful suggestion, and a welcome achievement of Science. The article itself, read carefully, has only two mentions of the word “fat”. Here they are:

Body fat building up around the pancreas causes stress to the beta cells in the organ that controls blood sugar levels. They stop producing enough of the hormone insulin, and that causes blood sugar levels to rise out of control. Dieting loses the fat, and then the pancreas works properly again.

This suggests to readers that it is fat round the pancreas which causes the problem, rather than being fat everywhere. In fact, although one can always quibble with epidemiological studies, being fat causes a variety of problems, including in the knees: yet another medical mystery. More widely, arthritis symptoms are worse among fat people.

What is this wonder cure based on?

Complan.

Complan is what we gave decades ago to women with anorexia nervosa when they came into the York Clinic, Guy’s Hospital, at death’s door when the psychotherapists treating them had fnally realised that inpatient treatment was required. A commercial product, Complan is a vitamin drink with carbohydrates and fat and the full range of nutrients required for a balanced diet. We used a behaviour therapy routine which rewarded patients for weight gain. The total daily calorific intake was 2000-3000 calories, resulting in a mean weight gain of 12.39 kilos over 53 days, a daily gain of 234 grams, or 1.64 kilos (3.6 pounds) a week. That is in fact a reasonable estimate of the weight gains made by a totally sedentary person who eats a 3000 calorie diet. For a higher amount of calories, adjust upwards. Thermodynamics.

Here is the reference to the anorexia paper.

S.Bhanji and J.Thompson. Operant conditioning in the treatment of anorexia nervosa. British Journal of Psychiatry (1974),124,579,166 174.

Enough of that. Here is The Lancet summary of the latest paper on the “treatment” of diabetes 2:

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(17)33102-1/fulltext?elsca1=tlpr

The account does not mention fat at all. They say:

Type 2 diabetes is a chronic disorder that requires lifelong treatment. We aimed to assess whether intensive weight management within routine primary care would achieve remission of type 2 diabetes.

This leads one to ask: How does one catch this illness? Is there some vaccination against this “chronic disorder”? By lifelong, does it really mean that it lasts for ever?

Later in the paper there are a few clues about weight loss after an 850 calorie per day diet. Patients had BMIs of 27 to 45 Kgs per m2 which is from “over-weight” to “morbid obesity”. Patients lost 15 Kg or more.

Patients had been put on Complan, or its equivalent, to break them from the bad habits of their habitual fattening diet. This is good news, and I am in favour of it. What irritates me is the evasion contained in this story, in that it does not mention that the “illness” of type 2 diabetes is merely a consequence of eating too much and becoming fat. What should the headline have been?

Trial shows that fat people who eat less become slimmer and healthier.

I hope this wonder treatment receives lots of publicity. If you wish to avoid hurting anyone’s feelings just don’t mention fatness. In extremis, you may talk about body fat around vital organs, but keep it brief, and generally evasive.

http://www.unz.com/jthompson/diet-is-iq-test/

I see little need to update the broad conclusion: if you want to lose weight you should eat less.

However, you do not need to make a New Year’s Resolution about this. Your body is your own temple.

Happy New Year.

Disclosure: I have a wonder diet I have designed and followed since 12th March 2015. Oddly enough, it is simply a way of eating less. It is fully written up, and I am willing to disclose it at the 3 year anniversary next March, or sooner in the case of very generous donations. For all I know, it may boost your IQ.

 
• Category: Science • Tags: Diet, IQ 
Hide 368 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. “This leads one to ask: How does one catch this illness? Is there some vaccination against this “chronic disorder”? By lifelong, does it really mean that it lasts for ever?”

    No there is no ‘vaccination’. It only requires ‘lifelong’ intervention if you’re following the Big Pharma plan. Intermittent fasting combined with low carb diets are the best ‘cure’ for TIIDM.

    https://nutritionandmetabolism.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1743-7075-5-36?wptouch_preview_theme=enabled

    http://obesity.imedpub.com/benefits-of-ketogenic-diet-for-management-of-type-two-diabetes-a-review.php?aid=14629

    http://www.rcsi.ie/files/facultyofsportsexercise/20170406095210_Low%20carbohydrate%20diets%20Tim%20Noa.pdf

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5329646/

    That’s better than any Big Pharma ‘vaccination’.

    850 kcal per day diet? Don’t make me laugh. That’s not sustainable. At all.

    “If you want to loss weight you should eat less”

    Eat less/move more does not work.

    The first law of thermodynamics is irrelevant to human physiology.

    https://www.dietdoctor.com/first-law-thermodynamics-utterly-irrelevant

    Diet is not ‘an IQ test.’

    Read More
    • Replies: @blah blah blah blah
    Eating less works just fine. Everybody I know who has lost weight has done so by eating less. Intermittent fasting and low carb are ways to trick yourself into eating less.

    Exercising more, I've found, does not work so well since it tends to make me hungrier. YMMV...
    , @anon
    RaceRealist88 is right in his comments.
    James Thompson is a brilliant guy, but knows nothing about this subject.
    Americans are not lazy or naturally gluttonous - they eat the wrong food and are still hungry all the time. The problem is American food.
    www.perfecthealthdiet.com
    , @Stealth
    High protein, high fat diets are not healthy at all. The subject has been studied extensively, and a low fat diet centered around carbohydrates really is the best for people. Vegetarian Seventh Day Adventists are some of the longest lived people in the world. The traditional Okinawan diet revolved around brown rice and sweet potatoes.

    The studies purported to show that fat (in excess) and meat are either healthy or have no negative impact are usually set up in advance to discover just that. For example, a "low-fat" group in a study might still eat a terribly unhealthy amount of fat, and voila, the study just proved that a low fat diet has no health benefits.

    You say that eating 850 calories per day is unsustainable, but I doubt the writer is suggesting that people pursue such a lifestyle. What's also unsustainable is ketosis. Are you suggesting that people adopt a ketogenic diet for life?

    FYI, my own diet is very unhealthy, but I don't tell myself the lie that beef, pork and butter are health foods.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. dearieme says:

    And to think that I contemplated telling you how much we’d drunk over Xmas, and asking for your opinion on its likely consequences. Eating was not a problem because everyone knows that goose doesn’t count, not whether roast (hot), roast (cold), confit, risotto, crackling, nor broth.

    Goose for the win! (That’s an Americanism I don’t understand, but I like the sound of it.)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  3. …that it does not mention that the “illness” of type 2 diabetes is merely a consequence of eating too much and becoming fat.

    Rather than “merely”, you need something like “most often” or “very often”, there are other causes, as I imagine you know.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  4. @RaceRealist88
    "This leads one to ask: How does one catch this illness? Is there some vaccination against this “chronic disorder”? By lifelong, does it really mean that it lasts for ever?"

    No there is no 'vaccination'. It only requires 'lifelong' intervention if you're following the Big Pharma plan. Intermittent fasting combined with low carb diets are the best 'cure' for TIIDM.

    https://nutritionandmetabolism.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1743-7075-5-36?wptouch_preview_theme=enabled

    http://obesity.imedpub.com/benefits-of-ketogenic-diet-for-management-of-type-two-diabetes-a-review.php?aid=14629

    http://www.rcsi.ie/files/facultyofsportsexercise/20170406095210_Low%20carbohydrate%20diets%20Tim%20Noa.pdf

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5329646/

    That's better than any Big Pharma 'vaccination'.

    850 kcal per day diet? Don't make me laugh. That's not sustainable. At all.

    "If you want to loss weight you should eat less"

    Eat less/move more does not work.

    The first law of thermodynamics is irrelevant to human physiology.

    https://www.dietdoctor.com/first-law-thermodynamics-utterly-irrelevant

    Diet is not 'an IQ test.'

    Eating less works just fine. Everybody I know who has lost weight has done so by eating less. Intermittent fasting and low carb are ways to trick yourself into eating less.

    Exercising more, I’ve found, does not work so well since it tends to make me hungrier. YMMV…

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    Eating less works, but unless you can find a way to decrease your hunger, it’s just not sustainable. You cannot stay on semi-starvation all your life.
    , @Santoculto
    Eat less [much less; never at dawn];

    Stabilized schedule for great meals and snacks;

    Lower- impact physical exercises [at least to me/ program for insufferably and proudy lazy].

    From ~79-80 kg to 68-69 kg in some months.
    , @anon
    RaceRealist88, you are mostly right. But eating differently isn't a trick. It nourishes your body and that makes it easy to naturally eat less.
    , @RaceRealist88
    "Intermittent fasting and low carb are ways to trick yourself into eating less."

    That's not the only reason. You get great benefits from it, it curbs your hunger. They keep you sated compared to high carb diets, which is the diet pushed by the main dieticians associations in both America and the UK. Big Food is in their pockets so they recommend diets with 65 performance of it coming from carbs. Wonder why there's an obesity and diabetes epidemic? There's your answer.

    "Exercising more, I’ve found, does not work so well since it tends to make me hungrier. YMMV…"

    So you agree that the "eat less move more" model doesn't work? What you mentioned above won't happen with high carb diets. Take two diets both with the same kcal. But one is 65 percent fat and the other is 65 percent carbs. What would happen to the dieters in one year? Two years?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. Fat people are often hungrier and crave more fattening food. It’s well known (also personal experience) that eating lots of sugary foods makes you crave them more. Probably people with a lower impulse control are at a disadvantage here – as elsewhere – but it doesn’t mean that it’s a simple problem, as attested to by the high number of smart and fat people.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    reiner Tor is mostly correct. But it's not just that sugary food makes one hungry, or that people have poor impulse control. Eating the wrong food makes one undernourished, contributing to the cravings and the impulses to eat.
    Bad food changes the gut flora, and the gut, governed by its flora, is a second brain that produces impulses and cravings. It's complicated.
    www.perfecthealthdiet.com
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. @blah blah blah blah
    Eating less works just fine. Everybody I know who has lost weight has done so by eating less. Intermittent fasting and low carb are ways to trick yourself into eating less.

    Exercising more, I've found, does not work so well since it tends to make me hungrier. YMMV...

    Eating less works, but unless you can find a way to decrease your hunger, it’s just not sustainable. You cannot stay on semi-starvation all your life.

    Read More
    • Replies: @blah blah blah blah
    Very true. There's a learning curve to figuring out what foods work for you. As you wrote above, sugar is generally a bad idea.
    , @anon
    reiner Tro, correct again.
    You must eat right in order to decrease your hunger. And satiate your healthy hunger with the right foods.
    www.perfecthealthdiet.com
    , @Sin City Milla
    Right, eating less doesn't work because willpower can't survive the first hunger pangs. But if you simply switch to the right diet, then you can eat all you want without ever getting hungry n still lose weight. Twice a year I switch to eating only meat for 8-10 days, nothing else. I eat all I want n never get hungry. I go into mild ketosis for the last couple of days, but that's not what does the trick. Its not so much what I'm eating that does the trick, which is mostly fish. Its what I'm not eating: cakes, pies, carbs etc. I typically lose 10 lbs. If I want to lose more, I will eat normally for 2 weeks, then return to the diet for another 8-10 days. For me it works. And it's much cheaper than buying a new wardrobe.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. @reiner Tor
    Eating less works, but unless you can find a way to decrease your hunger, it’s just not sustainable. You cannot stay on semi-starvation all your life.

    Very true. There’s a learning curve to figuring out what foods work for you. As you wrote above, sugar is generally a bad idea.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. @blah blah blah blah
    Eating less works just fine. Everybody I know who has lost weight has done so by eating less. Intermittent fasting and low carb are ways to trick yourself into eating less.

    Exercising more, I've found, does not work so well since it tends to make me hungrier. YMMV...

    Eat less [much less; never at dawn];

    Stabilized schedule for great meals and snacks;

    Lower- impact physical exercises [at least to me/ program for insufferably and proudy lazy].

    From ~79-80 kg to 68-69 kg in some months.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. Coming from James Thompson, who has written on the genetic and possible environmental sources of intelligence, I was expecting something that discussed obesity and diabetes in that light. I mean, seriously, there are no genetic traits that relate to these conditions? Current society has no obesogenic environmental factors that it didn’t have half a century ago?

    Come on. People are fat just because they are dumb and don’t associate obesity with food and drink? They are completey independent ghost-in-the-machine agents who can just decide to be thin and stop overeating without regard to their genome?

    I have no doubt that I.Q., or a bundle of the myriad genes underlying I.Q., is one factor in the mix. But it’s got to be more complicated than that. Hint: Google “polygenic obesity.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    Europeans are no more dedicated to health than Americans, and no harder working or harder playing than Americans. And they love food and drink just as much as Americans do. Yet they weigh less. The difference is the food.
    , @RaceRealist88
    "Current society has no obesogenic environmental factors that it didn’t have half a century ago?"

    Of course it does, they're obesogenic environments. That's when the rise in obesity began. It has nothing to do with "IQ genes" nor does it have anything to do with genetic change. This is due to the obesogenic environment which is also another reason why we have tons of diseases that our hunter gatherer ancestors didn't have.

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/12/21/on-diseases-of-civilization-romanticizing-the-hunter-gatherers-diet/

    So was it a genetic change that occurred 50 years ago that then caused the uptick in obesity and its related diseases or was it the changing food environment brought on by companies like Kelloggs marketing breakfast as a 'must have'?

    "or a bundle of the myriad genes underlying I.Q., is one factor in the mix."

    Whatever that means.

    "I have no doubt that I.Q., or a bundle of the myriad genes underlying I.Q., is one factor in the mix. But it’s got to be more complicated than that. Hint: Google “polygenic obesity.”"

    I doubt that "IQ genes" (whatever that is) exist so your proposal of them being polygenic with 'obesity genes' doesn't make sense.

    Obesity is a multifaceted disease, which comes down mostly to our obesogenic environments. We have Paleolithic genomes in novel, obesogenic environments. That's why we have these problems and we will begin to change them if the obesogenic environment changes.

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/02/19/an-evolutionary-look-at-obesity/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @RaceRealist88
    "This leads one to ask: How does one catch this illness? Is there some vaccination against this “chronic disorder”? By lifelong, does it really mean that it lasts for ever?"

    No there is no 'vaccination'. It only requires 'lifelong' intervention if you're following the Big Pharma plan. Intermittent fasting combined with low carb diets are the best 'cure' for TIIDM.

    https://nutritionandmetabolism.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1743-7075-5-36?wptouch_preview_theme=enabled

    http://obesity.imedpub.com/benefits-of-ketogenic-diet-for-management-of-type-two-diabetes-a-review.php?aid=14629

    http://www.rcsi.ie/files/facultyofsportsexercise/20170406095210_Low%20carbohydrate%20diets%20Tim%20Noa.pdf

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5329646/

    That's better than any Big Pharma 'vaccination'.

    850 kcal per day diet? Don't make me laugh. That's not sustainable. At all.

    "If you want to loss weight you should eat less"

    Eat less/move more does not work.

    The first law of thermodynamics is irrelevant to human physiology.

    https://www.dietdoctor.com/first-law-thermodynamics-utterly-irrelevant

    Diet is not 'an IQ test.'

    RaceRealist88 is right in his comments.
    James Thompson is a brilliant guy, but knows nothing about this subject.
    Americans are not lazy or naturally gluttonous – they eat the wrong food and are still hungry all the time. The problem is American food.
    http://www.perfecthealthdiet.com

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @blah blah blah blah
    Eating less works just fine. Everybody I know who has lost weight has done so by eating less. Intermittent fasting and low carb are ways to trick yourself into eating less.

    Exercising more, I've found, does not work so well since it tends to make me hungrier. YMMV...

    RaceRealist88, you are mostly right. But eating differently isn’t a trick. It nourishes your body and that makes it easy to naturally eat less.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @reiner Tor
    Fat people are often hungrier and crave more fattening food. It’s well known (also personal experience) that eating lots of sugary foods makes you crave them more. Probably people with a lower impulse control are at a disadvantage here - as elsewhere - but it doesn’t mean that it’s a simple problem, as attested to by the high number of smart and fat people.

    reiner Tor is mostly correct. But it’s not just that sugary food makes one hungry, or that people have poor impulse control. Eating the wrong food makes one undernourished, contributing to the cravings and the impulses to eat.
    Bad food changes the gut flora, and the gut, governed by its flora, is a second brain that produces impulses and cravings. It’s complicated.
    http://www.perfecthealthdiet.com

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @reiner Tor
    Eating less works, but unless you can find a way to decrease your hunger, it’s just not sustainable. You cannot stay on semi-starvation all your life.

    reiner Tro, correct again.
    You must eat right in order to decrease your hunger. And satiate your healthy hunger with the right foods.
    http://www.perfecthealthdiet.com

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Stephen Marle II
    Coming from James Thompson, who has written on the genetic and possible environmental sources of intelligence, I was expecting something that discussed obesity and diabetes in that light. I mean, seriously, there are no genetic traits that relate to these conditions? Current society has no obesogenic environmental factors that it didn't have half a century ago?

    Come on. People are fat just because they are dumb and don't associate obesity with food and drink? They are completey independent ghost-in-the-machine agents who can just decide to be thin and stop overeating without regard to their genome?

    I have no doubt that I.Q., or a bundle of the myriad genes underlying I.Q., is one factor in the mix. But it's got to be more complicated than that. Hint: Google "polygenic obesity."

    Europeans are no more dedicated to health than Americans, and no harder working or harder playing than Americans. And they love food and drink just as much as Americans do. Yet they weigh less. The difference is the food.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    The difference is the food.
     
    I think that is mostly true between Europeans and Americans (or between Americans in 1917 and 2017) as you said. But within Americans in 2017 I think genetics plays a large role. Genetics is important in obesity both for first order reasons (how the body responds to a given food intake) and for many more reasons (e.g. willpower, desire for/response to exercise).

    Given all the IQ related discussion we have here about within and between population differences and the relative importance of genetic and environmental factors I think obesity and other food/gene related issues make an interesting and timely tie in. One interesting aspect of that connection is that intelligence and obesity seem to have somewhat similar heritability:
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2570383/
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20816022
    The first paper (title Human Obesity: A Heritable Neurobehavioral Disorder That Is Highly Sensitive to Environmental Conditions) has some discussion of the possibility that heritability is changing over time.

    And yes, finding a diet that works for oneself is something of an IQ test (and a willpower test as well). I actually think Steve Sailer gave some of the best nutritional advice I have ever seen. Look at what diets work for others in your family (i.e. genetically close). I think that also applies at a larger population level (i.e. ethnicity, especially people who seem otherwise phenotypically similar).

    Happy New Year to all!
    , @utu
    The difference is the food.

    Yes to some extent, but also daily movements.

    Smaller apartments, smaller refrigerators, frequent daily shopping of food in neighborhood stores.
    Old cities with narrow streets, less time spent in cars.
    Less mobility so several generations of people live near by and thus better social connections.
    , @Adrian
    The food isn't the only issue in the USA. Most British people find American portion sizes repulsive. There's enough on a plate to feed two people.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. anon • Disclaimer says:

    This is a huge and difficult subject. But to get you started -
    Avoid polyunsaturated vegetable oils
    Cook at home instead of eating out.Avoid fast foods.
    Use good saturated fats – butter, ghee, olive oil, beef fat, fish oils (salmon, sardines, herring, etc.), coconut oil, palm kernel oil
    Practice intermittent fasting – eat meals during an 8 hour period each day and don’t eat the rest of the time until the next day’s 8 hour period.
    Eat carbs only moderately – potatoes, sweet potatoes, rice. Avoid wheat and all grains except for white rice. You’re still damaged by the other grains, even if you don’t have a celiac condition or gluten sensitivity. The antinutrients in grain are bad for everyone, symptomatic or not.
    Avoid legumes and beans.
    Eat good meats, fish, seafood, vegetables and some fruits.
    Take (only some needed ones) supplements to make sure you get all the nutrients you need.

    Tired of me already, right? The folks who tell you it’s simple are wrong, but they are easy to follow and they give you simple, easily remembered rules.
    And following them is why you’re fat and diabetic or headed in that direction.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hunsdon
    I think your advice is pretty simple. But it works.
    , @Anonymous
    I thought legumes are beans were supposed to be healthy.
    , @utu
    Another pseudo-scientific wacko!

    Grains are good for you. Moderation is even better for you. This includes beans in moderation.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. @blah blah blah blah
    Eating less works just fine. Everybody I know who has lost weight has done so by eating less. Intermittent fasting and low carb are ways to trick yourself into eating less.

    Exercising more, I've found, does not work so well since it tends to make me hungrier. YMMV...

    “Intermittent fasting and low carb are ways to trick yourself into eating less.”

    That’s not the only reason. You get great benefits from it, it curbs your hunger. They keep you sated compared to high carb diets, which is the diet pushed by the main dieticians associations in both America and the UK. Big Food is in their pockets so they recommend diets with 65 performance of it coming from carbs. Wonder why there’s an obesity and diabetes epidemic? There’s your answer.

    “Exercising more, I’ve found, does not work so well since it tends to make me hungrier. YMMV…”

    So you agree that the “eat less move more” model doesn’t work? What you mentioned above won’t happen with high carb diets. Take two diets both with the same kcal. But one is 65 percent fat and the other is 65 percent carbs. What would happen to the dieters in one year? Two years?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. @Stephen Marle II
    Coming from James Thompson, who has written on the genetic and possible environmental sources of intelligence, I was expecting something that discussed obesity and diabetes in that light. I mean, seriously, there are no genetic traits that relate to these conditions? Current society has no obesogenic environmental factors that it didn't have half a century ago?

    Come on. People are fat just because they are dumb and don't associate obesity with food and drink? They are completey independent ghost-in-the-machine agents who can just decide to be thin and stop overeating without regard to their genome?

    I have no doubt that I.Q., or a bundle of the myriad genes underlying I.Q., is one factor in the mix. But it's got to be more complicated than that. Hint: Google "polygenic obesity."

    “Current society has no obesogenic environmental factors that it didn’t have half a century ago?”

    Of course it does, they’re obesogenic environments. That’s when the rise in obesity began. It has nothing to do with “IQ genes” nor does it have anything to do with genetic change. This is due to the obesogenic environment which is also another reason why we have tons of diseases that our hunter gatherer ancestors didn’t have.

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/12/21/on-diseases-of-civilization-romanticizing-the-hunter-gatherers-diet/

    So was it a genetic change that occurred 50 years ago that then caused the uptick in obesity and its related diseases or was it the changing food environment brought on by companies like Kelloggs marketing breakfast as a ‘must have’?

    “or a bundle of the myriad genes underlying I.Q., is one factor in the mix.”

    Whatever that means.

    “I have no doubt that I.Q., or a bundle of the myriad genes underlying I.Q., is one factor in the mix. But it’s got to be more complicated than that. Hint: Google “polygenic obesity.””

    I doubt that “IQ genes” (whatever that is) exist so your proposal of them being polygenic with ‘obesity genes’ doesn’t make sense.

    Obesity is a multifaceted disease, which comes down mostly to our obesogenic environments. We have Paleolithic genomes in novel, obesogenic environments. That’s why we have these problems and we will begin to change them if the obesogenic environment changes.

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/02/19/an-evolutionary-look-at-obesity/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stephen Marle II
    @RaceRealist88

    Just as life and diet are IQ tests, so is reading comprehension of blog comments ... and you failed. My style is a little elliptical, but if you concentrate and read my comment again, I think you can figure it out. And we don't really disagree.

    For instance, "Current society has no obesogenic environmental factors that it didn’t have half a century ago?" has a question mark after it, which in this context means, "Surely you're not saying that ...?" It doesn't mean "What I believe is that ...."

    The obesity epidemic is genetic triggered by environment, in other words, both. Latent genetic tendancies started to have an effect when confronted with a different environment. Two people, one with a latent tendancy to overeat when free of external social pressures of regular family meals and lack of exposure to the number of fast foot restaurants and packaged foods that we have, will both stay thin. Add the change of a disintegrating family eating structure and lots more food around, and the person with the latent weakness will get fat, but not the person without it.

    This is why one-third of the population was overweight or obese in 1980 and two-thirds are today. One third of the population has always had an active genetic tendancy to be fat, in modern times at least, and one third is programmed to be thin. The central third could remain thin until the environment became obesogenic and enabled their latent genetic weaknesses.

    And I think that there are indeed "IQ genes" that affect obesity. Of course, there are no IQ genes per se, but swimming around in the polygenic pool of genes that affect congitive abilities are genes that also cause Tay-Sachs, and obesity, and health in general. Whether the effect is "Smart people know not to overeat because they're smart and they logicked it out, calories in, etc.," or "Smart people tend to have a mix of genes that also have certain affects on appetite and metabolism" is another question.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. @RaceRealist88
    "Current society has no obesogenic environmental factors that it didn’t have half a century ago?"

    Of course it does, they're obesogenic environments. That's when the rise in obesity began. It has nothing to do with "IQ genes" nor does it have anything to do with genetic change. This is due to the obesogenic environment which is also another reason why we have tons of diseases that our hunter gatherer ancestors didn't have.

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/12/21/on-diseases-of-civilization-romanticizing-the-hunter-gatherers-diet/

    So was it a genetic change that occurred 50 years ago that then caused the uptick in obesity and its related diseases or was it the changing food environment brought on by companies like Kelloggs marketing breakfast as a 'must have'?

    "or a bundle of the myriad genes underlying I.Q., is one factor in the mix."

    Whatever that means.

    "I have no doubt that I.Q., or a bundle of the myriad genes underlying I.Q., is one factor in the mix. But it’s got to be more complicated than that. Hint: Google “polygenic obesity.”"

    I doubt that "IQ genes" (whatever that is) exist so your proposal of them being polygenic with 'obesity genes' doesn't make sense.

    Obesity is a multifaceted disease, which comes down mostly to our obesogenic environments. We have Paleolithic genomes in novel, obesogenic environments. That's why we have these problems and we will begin to change them if the obesogenic environment changes.

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/02/19/an-evolutionary-look-at-obesity/

    Just as life and diet are IQ tests, so is reading comprehension of blog comments … and you failed. My style is a little elliptical, but if you concentrate and read my comment again, I think you can figure it out. And we don’t really disagree.

    For instance, “Current society has no obesogenic environmental factors that it didn’t have half a century ago?” has a question mark after it, which in this context means, “Surely you’re not saying that …?” It doesn’t mean “What I believe is that ….”

    The obesity epidemic is genetic triggered by environment, in other words, both. Latent genetic tendancies started to have an effect when confronted with a different environment. Two people, one with a latent tendancy to overeat when free of external social pressures of regular family meals and lack of exposure to the number of fast foot restaurants and packaged foods that we have, will both stay thin. Add the change of a disintegrating family eating structure and lots more food around, and the person with the latent weakness will get fat, but not the person without it.

    This is why one-third of the population was overweight or obese in 1980 and two-thirds are today. One third of the population has always had an active genetic tendancy to be fat, in modern times at least, and one third is programmed to be thin. The central third could remain thin until the environment became obesogenic and enabled their latent genetic weaknesses.

    And I think that there are indeed “IQ genes” that affect obesity. Of course, there are no IQ genes per se, but swimming around in the polygenic pool of genes that affect congitive abilities are genes that also cause Tay-Sachs, and obesity, and health in general. Whether the effect is “Smart people know not to overeat because they’re smart and they logicked it out, calories in, etc.,” or “Smart people tend to have a mix of genes that also have certain affects on appetite and metabolism” is another question.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    "diet are IQ tests"

    It's not.

    "but if you concentrate and read my comment again, I think you can figure it out. And we don’t really disagree."

    I understood your comment. I know we don't really disagree (only on small minutae). Don't disrespect me please. Thank you.

    "For instance, “Current society has no obesogenic environmental factors that it didn’t have half a century ago?” has a question mark after it, which in this context means, “Surely you’re not saying that …?” It doesn’t mean “What I believe is that ….”"

    Noted. I explained it and provided links with more citations for the claim.

    "Latent genetic tendancies started to have an effect when confronted with a different environment."

    Right. But without the environment, where's the obesity? Where's the disease of civilization? It's almost non-existent. So it's the environment that directly drives this. Change the obesogenic environment, change obesity rates.

    "Add the change of a disintegrating family eating structure and lots more food around, and the person with the latent weakness will get fat, but not the person without it."

    Correct. And there are avenues that the person with the 'latent weakness' can take that will help them.

    "One third of the population has always had an active genetic tendancy to be fat, in modern times at least, and one third is programmed to be thin. The central third could remain thin until the environment became obesogenic and enabled their latent genetic weaknesses."

    'Programmed'? So nature > nurture, you're saying?

    "And I think that there are indeed “IQ genes” that affect obesity. Of course, there are no IQ genes per se, but swimming around in the polygenic pool of genes that affect congitive abilities are genes that also cause Tay-Sachs, and obesity, and health in general."

    Where? So these 'IQ genes that affect obesity' would give low IQ and higher susceptibility to both obesity and poverty, correct? What do you base this off of, if that is indeed the view you hold? Assumptions? Have you ever worked with obese people in regard to diet and exercise?

    "Whether the effect is “Smart people know not to overeat because they’re smart and they logicked it out, calories in, etc.,” or “Smart people tend to have a mix of genes that also have certain affects on appetite and metabolism” is another question."

    Individual variation in metabolism is 5 to 10 percent. That doesn't explain individual obesity rates. Hormones affect appetite, ghrelin is the main driver and when on an extended diet with low kcal, your body releases more of the hormone to make you eat more while blunting the hormones that sate you. This holds for everyone.

    And calories in/out? Don't make me laugh. A calorie is not a calorie and saying so is fallacious.

    https://nutritionj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1475-2891-3-9

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFOogvab2TA

    The First Law of Thermodynamics is irrelevant to human physiology.

    https://www.dietdoctor.com/first-law-thermodynamics-utterly-irrelevant

    Also read a nutrionist's take on the study Dr. Thompson wrote about in this article.

    https://www.zoeharcombe.com/2017/12/reversing-diabetes-type-2/%E2%80%9D
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. IQ points is equivalent to height Kg**

    So to ”IQ genes” become something as ”Kg genes” it’s needed a ”brain balance”**

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    "IQ points is equivalent to height Kg**"

    Not at all.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. Stealth says:
    @RaceRealist88
    "This leads one to ask: How does one catch this illness? Is there some vaccination against this “chronic disorder”? By lifelong, does it really mean that it lasts for ever?"

    No there is no 'vaccination'. It only requires 'lifelong' intervention if you're following the Big Pharma plan. Intermittent fasting combined with low carb diets are the best 'cure' for TIIDM.

    https://nutritionandmetabolism.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1743-7075-5-36?wptouch_preview_theme=enabled

    http://obesity.imedpub.com/benefits-of-ketogenic-diet-for-management-of-type-two-diabetes-a-review.php?aid=14629

    http://www.rcsi.ie/files/facultyofsportsexercise/20170406095210_Low%20carbohydrate%20diets%20Tim%20Noa.pdf

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5329646/

    That's better than any Big Pharma 'vaccination'.

    850 kcal per day diet? Don't make me laugh. That's not sustainable. At all.

    "If you want to loss weight you should eat less"

    Eat less/move more does not work.

    The first law of thermodynamics is irrelevant to human physiology.

    https://www.dietdoctor.com/first-law-thermodynamics-utterly-irrelevant

    Diet is not 'an IQ test.'

    High protein, high fat diets are not healthy at all. The subject has been studied extensively, and a low fat diet centered around carbohydrates really is the best for people. Vegetarian Seventh Day Adventists are some of the longest lived people in the world. The traditional Okinawan diet revolved around brown rice and sweet potatoes.

    The studies purported to show that fat (in excess) and meat are either healthy or have no negative impact are usually set up in advance to discover just that. For example, a “low-fat” group in a study might still eat a terribly unhealthy amount of fat, and voila, the study just proved that a low fat diet has no health benefits.

    You say that eating 850 calories per day is unsustainable, but I doubt the writer is suggesting that people pursue such a lifestyle. What’s also unsustainable is ketosis. Are you suggesting that people adopt a ketogenic diet for life?

    FYI, my own diet is very unhealthy, but I don’t tell myself the lie that beef, pork and butter are health foods.

    Read More
    • LOL: Alden
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    "High protein, high fat diets are not healthy at all."

    I didn't advocate for them. I'm aware of the dangers of high protein intake.

    https://idmprogram.com/how-much-protein-is-excessive/

    "The subject has been studied extensively, and a low fat diet centered around carbohydrates really is the best for people."

    All people?

    "Vegetarian Seventh Day Adventists are some of the longest lived people in the world. The traditional Okinawan diet revolved around brown rice and sweet potatoes."

    I discussed some of these papers here, I'll go in depth on all of these 'blue laws' soon.

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/05/29/rebutting-heartiste-on-the-twinkie-diet/#comment-2692

    "The studies purported to show that fat (in excess) and meat are either healthy or have no negative impact are usually set up in advance to discover just that. For example, a “low-fat” group in a study might still eat a terribly unhealthy amount of fat, and voila, the study just proved that a low fat diet has no health benefits."

    Citations?

    "You say that eating 850 calories per day is unsustainable, but I doubt the writer is suggesting that people pursue such a lifestyle. What’s also unsustainable is ketosis. Are you suggesting that people adopt a ketogenic diet for life?"

    How is LCHF or VLCKD less sustainable than 850 kcal per day, or even 65 percent energy from CHO as the pariah AHA recommends to dieters? I'm suggesting that people eat as little sugar and processed carbohydrates as possible and adopt a diet of whole, healthy foods with an emphasis on animal fat and protein, low on carbs.

    "FYI, my own diet is very unhealthy, but I don’t tell myself the lie that beef, pork and butter are health foods."

    Well read this book then.

    https://www.amazon.com/Big-Fat-Surprise-Butter-Healthy/dp/1451624425

    , @nsa
    Stealth is correct. A high carb plant based diet mixed with walking a couple miles a day is the best way to lose weight, be free of degenerative diseases, and live to a ripe old age. Excluded are: refined sugars, all fats, all dairy, all meat from dead murdered animals. The Pritikin diet is the best example, and is now used widely as a cure for Type Two diabetes (which is entirely a lifestyle disease). Most everything in a modern grocery store is bad for you. If it comes out of a can, a box, cellophane rapped packet, bag........it's likely filled with chemicals and preservatives and harmful to the body you are trapped in. You want your coronaries to resemble sludge filled sink traps and your joints falling apart at age 50, than partake of the modern american diet.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. @Stephen Marle II
    @RaceRealist88

    Just as life and diet are IQ tests, so is reading comprehension of blog comments ... and you failed. My style is a little elliptical, but if you concentrate and read my comment again, I think you can figure it out. And we don't really disagree.

    For instance, "Current society has no obesogenic environmental factors that it didn’t have half a century ago?" has a question mark after it, which in this context means, "Surely you're not saying that ...?" It doesn't mean "What I believe is that ...."

    The obesity epidemic is genetic triggered by environment, in other words, both. Latent genetic tendancies started to have an effect when confronted with a different environment. Two people, one with a latent tendancy to overeat when free of external social pressures of regular family meals and lack of exposure to the number of fast foot restaurants and packaged foods that we have, will both stay thin. Add the change of a disintegrating family eating structure and lots more food around, and the person with the latent weakness will get fat, but not the person without it.

    This is why one-third of the population was overweight or obese in 1980 and two-thirds are today. One third of the population has always had an active genetic tendancy to be fat, in modern times at least, and one third is programmed to be thin. The central third could remain thin until the environment became obesogenic and enabled their latent genetic weaknesses.

    And I think that there are indeed "IQ genes" that affect obesity. Of course, there are no IQ genes per se, but swimming around in the polygenic pool of genes that affect congitive abilities are genes that also cause Tay-Sachs, and obesity, and health in general. Whether the effect is "Smart people know not to overeat because they're smart and they logicked it out, calories in, etc.," or "Smart people tend to have a mix of genes that also have certain affects on appetite and metabolism" is another question.

    “diet are IQ tests”

    It’s not.

    “but if you concentrate and read my comment again, I think you can figure it out. And we don’t really disagree.”

    I understood your comment. I know we don’t really disagree (only on small minutae). Don’t disrespect me please. Thank you.

    “For instance, “Current society has no obesogenic environmental factors that it didn’t have half a century ago?” has a question mark after it, which in this context means, “Surely you’re not saying that …?” It doesn’t mean “What I believe is that ….””

    Noted. I explained it and provided links with more citations for the claim.

    “Latent genetic tendancies started to have an effect when confronted with a different environment.”

    Right. But without the environment, where’s the obesity? Where’s the disease of civilization? It’s almost non-existent. So it’s the environment that directly drives this. Change the obesogenic environment, change obesity rates.

    “Add the change of a disintegrating family eating structure and lots more food around, and the person with the latent weakness will get fat, but not the person without it.”

    Correct. And there are avenues that the person with the ‘latent weakness’ can take that will help them.

    “One third of the population has always had an active genetic tendancy to be fat, in modern times at least, and one third is programmed to be thin. The central third could remain thin until the environment became obesogenic and enabled their latent genetic weaknesses.”

    ‘Programmed’? So nature > nurture, you’re saying?

    “And I think that there are indeed “IQ genes” that affect obesity. Of course, there are no IQ genes per se, but swimming around in the polygenic pool of genes that affect congitive abilities are genes that also cause Tay-Sachs, and obesity, and health in general.”

    Where? So these ‘IQ genes that affect obesity’ would give low IQ and higher susceptibility to both obesity and poverty, correct? What do you base this off of, if that is indeed the view you hold? Assumptions? Have you ever worked with obese people in regard to diet and exercise?

    “Whether the effect is “Smart people know not to overeat because they’re smart and they logicked it out, calories in, etc.,” or “Smart people tend to have a mix of genes that also have certain affects on appetite and metabolism” is another question.”

    Individual variation in metabolism is 5 to 10 percent. That doesn’t explain individual obesity rates. Hormones affect appetite, ghrelin is the main driver and when on an extended diet with low kcal, your body releases more of the hormone to make you eat more while blunting the hormones that sate you. This holds for everyone.

    And calories in/out? Don’t make me laugh. A calorie is not a calorie and saying so is fallacious.

    https://nutritionj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1475-2891-3-9

    The First Law of Thermodynamics is irrelevant to human physiology.

    https://www.dietdoctor.com/first-law-thermodynamics-utterly-irrelevant

    Also read a nutrionist’s take on the study Dr. Thompson wrote about in this article.

    https://www.zoeharcombe.com/2017/12/reversing-diabetes-type-2/%E2%80%9D

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    And calories in/out? Don’t make me laugh. A calorie is not a calorie and saying so is fallacious.
     
    Calories in/out is certainly not everything, but how true do you think it is given a constant diet composition? There is a lot to be said for portion size control. The challenge is feeling satiated and you gave some good advice there.

    Also read a nutrionist’s take on the study Dr. Thompson wrote about in this article.

    https://www.zoeharcombe.com/2017/12/reversing-diabetes-type-2/%E2%80%9D
     
    That is a good and well referenced counterpoint. I especially appreciated the references to other studies showing remission in T2DM. Thanks.
    , @James Thompson
    On the thermodynamic not being relevant argument, I simply do not understand the point being made. Bodies are heat machines.
    The other, more detailed account, had interesting points.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. @Stealth
    High protein, high fat diets are not healthy at all. The subject has been studied extensively, and a low fat diet centered around carbohydrates really is the best for people. Vegetarian Seventh Day Adventists are some of the longest lived people in the world. The traditional Okinawan diet revolved around brown rice and sweet potatoes.

    The studies purported to show that fat (in excess) and meat are either healthy or have no negative impact are usually set up in advance to discover just that. For example, a "low-fat" group in a study might still eat a terribly unhealthy amount of fat, and voila, the study just proved that a low fat diet has no health benefits.

    You say that eating 850 calories per day is unsustainable, but I doubt the writer is suggesting that people pursue such a lifestyle. What's also unsustainable is ketosis. Are you suggesting that people adopt a ketogenic diet for life?

    FYI, my own diet is very unhealthy, but I don't tell myself the lie that beef, pork and butter are health foods.

    “High protein, high fat diets are not healthy at all.”

    I didn’t advocate for them. I’m aware of the dangers of high protein intake.

    https://idmprogram.com/how-much-protein-is-excessive/

    “The subject has been studied extensively, and a low fat diet centered around carbohydrates really is the best for people.”

    All people?

    “Vegetarian Seventh Day Adventists are some of the longest lived people in the world. The traditional Okinawan diet revolved around brown rice and sweet potatoes.”

    I discussed some of these papers here, I’ll go in depth on all of these ‘blue laws’ soon.

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/05/29/rebutting-heartiste-on-the-twinkie-diet/#comment-2692

    “The studies purported to show that fat (in excess) and meat are either healthy or have no negative impact are usually set up in advance to discover just that. For example, a “low-fat” group in a study might still eat a terribly unhealthy amount of fat, and voila, the study just proved that a low fat diet has no health benefits.”

    Citations?

    “You say that eating 850 calories per day is unsustainable, but I doubt the writer is suggesting that people pursue such a lifestyle. What’s also unsustainable is ketosis. Are you suggesting that people adopt a ketogenic diet for life?”

    How is LCHF or VLCKD less sustainable than 850 kcal per day, or even 65 percent energy from CHO as the pariah AHA recommends to dieters? I’m suggesting that people eat as little sugar and processed carbohydrates as possible and adopt a diet of whole, healthy foods with an emphasis on animal fat and protein, low on carbs.

    “FYI, my own diet is very unhealthy, but I don’t tell myself the lie that beef, pork and butter are health foods.”

    Well read this book then.

    https://www.amazon.com/Big-Fat-Surprise-Butter-Healthy/dp/1451624425

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. @Santoculto
    IQ points is equivalent to height Kg**

    So to ''IQ genes'' become something as ''Kg genes'' it's needed a ''brain balance''**

    https://neurobollocks.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/balanced-brain-576x328.png

    “IQ points is equivalent to height Kg**

    Not at all.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    Why not*

    ''weight'', oops...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. res says:
    @anon
    Europeans are no more dedicated to health than Americans, and no harder working or harder playing than Americans. And they love food and drink just as much as Americans do. Yet they weigh less. The difference is the food.

    The difference is the food.

    I think that is mostly true between Europeans and Americans (or between Americans in 1917 and 2017) as you said. But within Americans in 2017 I think genetics plays a large role. Genetics is important in obesity both for first order reasons (how the body responds to a given food intake) and for many more reasons (e.g. willpower, desire for/response to exercise).

    Given all the IQ related discussion we have here about within and between population differences and the relative importance of genetic and environmental factors I think obesity and other food/gene related issues make an interesting and timely tie in. One interesting aspect of that connection is that intelligence and obesity seem to have somewhat similar heritability:

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2570383/

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20816022

    The first paper (title Human Obesity: A Heritable Neurobehavioral Disorder That Is Highly Sensitive to Environmental Conditions) has some discussion of the possibility that heritability is changing over time.

    And yes, finding a diet that works for oneself is something of an IQ test (and a willpower test as well). I actually think Steve Sailer gave some of the best nutritional advice I have ever seen. Look at what diets work for others in your family (i.e. genetically close). I think that also applies at a larger population level (i.e. ethnicity, especially people who seem otherwise phenotypically similar).

    Happy New Year to all!

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    "e.g. willpower"

    You can't 'willpower' your way to lasting weight loss.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2016/06/you-cant-willpower-your-way-to-lasting-weight-loss/488801/

    https://www.amazon.com/Secrets-Eating-Lab-Science-Willpower/dp/0062329235

    From the first paper:

    In our opinion, there are really only two basic explanations (and they are not necessarily mutually exclusive) for how these people have avoided the “toxic” effects of environment. The one that intuitively appeals to the mass media (and to many lean people) is that this group is largely made up of individuals who have made conscious choices about diet and exercise and have actively fought off the “toxic environment.” An alternative explanation, much less frequently cited in public debate, is that this group of subjects are somehow biologically different and achieve their leanness largely through unconscious mechanisms.

    I agree that they're not mutually exclusive, but I think that it's something along these lines. You can also change behaviors. What do you think of cognitive behavior therapy?

    I don't think it's 'unconscious mechanisms' per se, because weight can and does fluctuate throughout the lifespan. I can make the conscious choice to eat a good diet (which I do) or to eat a bad, high carb, high fat diet. I choose to eat a good diet because I know about nutrition and am educated in it. People only need to know the alternatives and not listen to 'Big Food' et al.

    That's also an old review (10 years old) and it's been found that the FTO gene doesn't have that large of an effect.

    http://www.bmj.com/content/354/bmj.i4707

    Thus, it is at least plausible that those who may be biologically and genetically predisposed to obesity ...

    Bad phrasing. Nature/nurture is irrelevant.

    I like that it brings up Speakman's work though, because he hypothesizes about 'drify genes', not 'thrifty genes'. Though looking at some peoples like the Pima, this very may well be the case.

    For medical, social, and economic reasons, most obese people are highly motivated to lose weight but find it difficult to lose weight and, if they succeed, even more difficult to maintain weight loss

    Because of horrible advice.

    The biology behind it is becoming clear, as he says, but it's very preventable with the right interventions. Behaviors are neither 'genetic' nor 'environmental'.

    Second paper:

    The proportion of variation in dietary intake explained by variation in genes differed between the dietary traits under study but for the majority of dietary variables the genetic influence was 20-50%.

    Robyn Toomath writes the same in her book.

    https://www.amazon.com/Obesity-Epidemic-Diets-Exercise-Work_and/dp/1421422492

    It has good stuff, I especially like the focus on the genetics of obesity and exercise. Though she gets a bit wrong.

    Also look up the HERITAGE study which shows wildly different variation in response to diet and exercise, with some people showing no response at all (though that doesn't mean that everyone shouldn't exercise).

    , @YetAnotherAnon
    Alas a diet that works for me is low-carb, high-veg and high-protein (mostly fish).

    Trouble is I love a doorstep slice of malted granary bread. Or three. Preferably slathered in butter.

    Diabetes does bad things to the veins in your legs, and if you're elderly you can end up with open sores that are difficult to heal.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. res says:
    @RaceRealist88
    "diet are IQ tests"

    It's not.

    "but if you concentrate and read my comment again, I think you can figure it out. And we don’t really disagree."

    I understood your comment. I know we don't really disagree (only on small minutae). Don't disrespect me please. Thank you.

    "For instance, “Current society has no obesogenic environmental factors that it didn’t have half a century ago?” has a question mark after it, which in this context means, “Surely you’re not saying that …?” It doesn’t mean “What I believe is that ….”"

    Noted. I explained it and provided links with more citations for the claim.

    "Latent genetic tendancies started to have an effect when confronted with a different environment."

    Right. But without the environment, where's the obesity? Where's the disease of civilization? It's almost non-existent. So it's the environment that directly drives this. Change the obesogenic environment, change obesity rates.

    "Add the change of a disintegrating family eating structure and lots more food around, and the person with the latent weakness will get fat, but not the person without it."

    Correct. And there are avenues that the person with the 'latent weakness' can take that will help them.

    "One third of the population has always had an active genetic tendancy to be fat, in modern times at least, and one third is programmed to be thin. The central third could remain thin until the environment became obesogenic and enabled their latent genetic weaknesses."

    'Programmed'? So nature > nurture, you're saying?

    "And I think that there are indeed “IQ genes” that affect obesity. Of course, there are no IQ genes per se, but swimming around in the polygenic pool of genes that affect congitive abilities are genes that also cause Tay-Sachs, and obesity, and health in general."

    Where? So these 'IQ genes that affect obesity' would give low IQ and higher susceptibility to both obesity and poverty, correct? What do you base this off of, if that is indeed the view you hold? Assumptions? Have you ever worked with obese people in regard to diet and exercise?

    "Whether the effect is “Smart people know not to overeat because they’re smart and they logicked it out, calories in, etc.,” or “Smart people tend to have a mix of genes that also have certain affects on appetite and metabolism” is another question."

    Individual variation in metabolism is 5 to 10 percent. That doesn't explain individual obesity rates. Hormones affect appetite, ghrelin is the main driver and when on an extended diet with low kcal, your body releases more of the hormone to make you eat more while blunting the hormones that sate you. This holds for everyone.

    And calories in/out? Don't make me laugh. A calorie is not a calorie and saying so is fallacious.

    https://nutritionj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1475-2891-3-9

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFOogvab2TA

    The First Law of Thermodynamics is irrelevant to human physiology.

    https://www.dietdoctor.com/first-law-thermodynamics-utterly-irrelevant

    Also read a nutrionist's take on the study Dr. Thompson wrote about in this article.

    https://www.zoeharcombe.com/2017/12/reversing-diabetes-type-2/%E2%80%9D

    And calories in/out? Don’t make me laugh. A calorie is not a calorie and saying so is fallacious.

    Calories in/out is certainly not everything, but how true do you think it is given a constant diet composition? There is a lot to be said for portion size control. The challenge is feeling satiated and you gave some good advice there.

    Also read a nutrionist’s take on the study Dr. Thompson wrote about in this article.

    https://www.zoeharcombe.com/2017/12/reversing-diabetes-type-2/%E2%80%9D

    That is a good and well referenced counterpoint. I especially appreciated the references to other studies showing remission in T2DM. Thanks.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    "but how true do you think it is given a constant diet composition?"

    Because the out part of the equation is affected by other variables not related to the in part of the equation (some partially are).

    Take two people, one eats 65 percent carbohydrates, 20 percent fat and 15 percent protein. Then take another person who eats that combination except switch fat for carbs. They both eat at a deficit for one year. Who will show better compliance? Who will have a better blood profile?

    "There is a lot to be said for portion size control. The challenge is feeling satiated and you gave some good advice there."

    Feeling sated is hard, especially in an obesogenic environment where food is constantly advertised to you and is always around you. Doesn't hurt that those foods are cheaper too. But if you know how to feel sated then you're good to go.

    People who are proponents of the calories in calories out model like to point to Mark Haub, a professor of human nutrition who ate twinkies and other high carb foods as 66 percent of his diet and lost weight, good blood profile.

    http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html

    But he was paid by Coca-Cola. Shocker.

    https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/why-coca-cola-loves-the-calories-model/

    The calories in calories out model is wrong and harms too many people. It assumes that all food ingested, no matter its source, is the same on the body and you'll lose the same amount of weight on one diet. This doesn't take into account the genome, nor does it take into account how the microbiome expresses different genes based on the foods you eat, nor does it take into account how your microbiome composition can be changed by the foods you eat, all of which affect health and how you can lose weight.

    "That is a good and well referenced counterpoint. I especially appreciated the references to other studies showing remission in T2DM. Thanks."

    Zoe Harcombe has great stuff. You should also check out Tim Noakes and his new book The Lore of Nutrition.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. @RaceRealist88
    "IQ points is equivalent to height Kg**"

    Not at all.

    Why not*

    ”weight”, oops…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. Obesity = caloric hedonism, ;)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  28. @res

    And calories in/out? Don’t make me laugh. A calorie is not a calorie and saying so is fallacious.
     
    Calories in/out is certainly not everything, but how true do you think it is given a constant diet composition? There is a lot to be said for portion size control. The challenge is feeling satiated and you gave some good advice there.

    Also read a nutrionist’s take on the study Dr. Thompson wrote about in this article.

    https://www.zoeharcombe.com/2017/12/reversing-diabetes-type-2/%E2%80%9D
     
    That is a good and well referenced counterpoint. I especially appreciated the references to other studies showing remission in T2DM. Thanks.

    “but how true do you think it is given a constant diet composition?”

    Because the out part of the equation is affected by other variables not related to the in part of the equation (some partially are).

    Take two people, one eats 65 percent carbohydrates, 20 percent fat and 15 percent protein. Then take another person who eats that combination except switch fat for carbs. They both eat at a deficit for one year. Who will show better compliance? Who will have a better blood profile?

    “There is a lot to be said for portion size control. The challenge is feeling satiated and you gave some good advice there.”

    Feeling sated is hard, especially in an obesogenic environment where food is constantly advertised to you and is always around you. Doesn’t hurt that those foods are cheaper too. But if you know how to feel sated then you’re good to go.

    People who are proponents of the calories in calories out model like to point to Mark Haub, a professor of human nutrition who ate twinkies and other high carb foods as 66 percent of his diet and lost weight, good blood profile.

    http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html

    But he was paid by Coca-Cola. Shocker.

    https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/why-coca-cola-loves-the-calories-model/

    The calories in calories out model is wrong and harms too many people. It assumes that all food ingested, no matter its source, is the same on the body and you’ll lose the same amount of weight on one diet. This doesn’t take into account the genome, nor does it take into account how the microbiome expresses different genes based on the foods you eat, nor does it take into account how your microbiome composition can be changed by the foods you eat, all of which affect health and how you can lose weight.

    “That is a good and well referenced counterpoint. I especially appreciated the references to other studies showing remission in T2DM. Thanks.”

    Zoe Harcombe has great stuff. You should also check out Tim Noakes and his new book The Lore of Nutrition.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. I’m going to suggest that a healthy life style is a function of both IQ and OCEAN but perhaps more heavily weighted towards the latter. A friend and I both have IQs at least three or four SDs above the mean. He eats a healthy diet, exercises regularly, and at age seventy weighs what he did in grad school and suffers no serious health problems. I eat what I want – a lot of it junk food – exercise seldom, and am very much overweight that causes some concerning health issues. I lack the C to do anything about this although I know I ought to.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  30. @res

    The difference is the food.
     
    I think that is mostly true between Europeans and Americans (or between Americans in 1917 and 2017) as you said. But within Americans in 2017 I think genetics plays a large role. Genetics is important in obesity both for first order reasons (how the body responds to a given food intake) and for many more reasons (e.g. willpower, desire for/response to exercise).

    Given all the IQ related discussion we have here about within and between population differences and the relative importance of genetic and environmental factors I think obesity and other food/gene related issues make an interesting and timely tie in. One interesting aspect of that connection is that intelligence and obesity seem to have somewhat similar heritability:
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2570383/
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20816022
    The first paper (title Human Obesity: A Heritable Neurobehavioral Disorder That Is Highly Sensitive to Environmental Conditions) has some discussion of the possibility that heritability is changing over time.

    And yes, finding a diet that works for oneself is something of an IQ test (and a willpower test as well). I actually think Steve Sailer gave some of the best nutritional advice I have ever seen. Look at what diets work for others in your family (i.e. genetically close). I think that also applies at a larger population level (i.e. ethnicity, especially people who seem otherwise phenotypically similar).

    Happy New Year to all!

    “e.g. willpower”

    You can’t ‘willpower’ your way to lasting weight loss.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2016/06/you-cant-willpower-your-way-to-lasting-weight-loss/488801/

    https://www.amazon.com/Secrets-Eating-Lab-Science-Willpower/dp/0062329235

    From the first paper:

    In our opinion, there are really only two basic explanations (and they are not necessarily mutually exclusive) for how these people have avoided the “toxic” effects of environment. The one that intuitively appeals to the mass media (and to many lean people) is that this group is largely made up of individuals who have made conscious choices about diet and exercise and have actively fought off the “toxic environment.” An alternative explanation, much less frequently cited in public debate, is that this group of subjects are somehow biologically different and achieve their leanness largely through unconscious mechanisms.

    I agree that they’re not mutually exclusive, but I think that it’s something along these lines. You can also change behaviors. What do you think of cognitive behavior therapy?

    I don’t think it’s ‘unconscious mechanisms’ per se, because weight can and does fluctuate throughout the lifespan. I can make the conscious choice to eat a good diet (which I do) or to eat a bad, high carb, high fat diet. I choose to eat a good diet because I know about nutrition and am educated in it. People only need to know the alternatives and not listen to ‘Big Food’ et al.

    That’s also an old review (10 years old) and it’s been found that the FTO gene doesn’t have that large of an effect.

    http://www.bmj.com/content/354/bmj.i4707

    Thus, it is at least plausible that those who may be biologically and genetically predisposed to obesity …

    Bad phrasing. Nature/nurture is irrelevant.

    I like that it brings up Speakman’s work though, because he hypothesizes about ‘drify genes’, not ‘thrifty genes’. Though looking at some peoples like the Pima, this very may well be the case.

    For medical, social, and economic reasons, most obese people are highly motivated to lose weight but find it difficult to lose weight and, if they succeed, even more difficult to maintain weight loss

    Because of horrible advice.

    The biology behind it is becoming clear, as he says, but it’s very preventable with the right interventions. Behaviors are neither ‘genetic’ nor ‘environmental’.

    Second paper:

    The proportion of variation in dietary intake explained by variation in genes differed between the dietary traits under study but for the majority of dietary variables the genetic influence was 20-50%.

    Robyn Toomath writes the same in her book.

    https://www.amazon.com/Obesity-Epidemic-Diets-Exercise-Work_and/dp/1421422492

    It has good stuff, I especially like the focus on the genetics of obesity and exercise. Though she gets a bit wrong.

    Also look up the HERITAGE study which shows wildly different variation in response to diet and exercise, with some people showing no response at all (though that doesn’t mean that everyone shouldn’t exercise).

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    You can’t ‘willpower’ your way to lasting weight loss.

     

    My experience is you can 'willpower' your way to changing diet long enough to ingrain new habits. YMMV. Also don't underestimate the importance of willpower in combating those toxic environments. It is hard to be the odd person.

    I agree that they’re not mutually exclusive, but I think that it’s something along these lines. You can also change behaviors. What do you think of cognitive behavior therapy?
     
    Most of my complaints in this debate center around people regarding different explanations as being mutually exclusive. CBT seems like a great idea to me, but for some reason I've never had much success doing it formally. I do think incorporating aspects of it in everyday life is useful.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. res says:
    @RaceRealist88
    "e.g. willpower"

    You can't 'willpower' your way to lasting weight loss.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2016/06/you-cant-willpower-your-way-to-lasting-weight-loss/488801/

    https://www.amazon.com/Secrets-Eating-Lab-Science-Willpower/dp/0062329235

    From the first paper:

    In our opinion, there are really only two basic explanations (and they are not necessarily mutually exclusive) for how these people have avoided the “toxic” effects of environment. The one that intuitively appeals to the mass media (and to many lean people) is that this group is largely made up of individuals who have made conscious choices about diet and exercise and have actively fought off the “toxic environment.” An alternative explanation, much less frequently cited in public debate, is that this group of subjects are somehow biologically different and achieve their leanness largely through unconscious mechanisms.

    I agree that they're not mutually exclusive, but I think that it's something along these lines. You can also change behaviors. What do you think of cognitive behavior therapy?

    I don't think it's 'unconscious mechanisms' per se, because weight can and does fluctuate throughout the lifespan. I can make the conscious choice to eat a good diet (which I do) or to eat a bad, high carb, high fat diet. I choose to eat a good diet because I know about nutrition and am educated in it. People only need to know the alternatives and not listen to 'Big Food' et al.

    That's also an old review (10 years old) and it's been found that the FTO gene doesn't have that large of an effect.

    http://www.bmj.com/content/354/bmj.i4707

    Thus, it is at least plausible that those who may be biologically and genetically predisposed to obesity ...

    Bad phrasing. Nature/nurture is irrelevant.

    I like that it brings up Speakman's work though, because he hypothesizes about 'drify genes', not 'thrifty genes'. Though looking at some peoples like the Pima, this very may well be the case.

    For medical, social, and economic reasons, most obese people are highly motivated to lose weight but find it difficult to lose weight and, if they succeed, even more difficult to maintain weight loss

    Because of horrible advice.

    The biology behind it is becoming clear, as he says, but it's very preventable with the right interventions. Behaviors are neither 'genetic' nor 'environmental'.

    Second paper:

    The proportion of variation in dietary intake explained by variation in genes differed between the dietary traits under study but for the majority of dietary variables the genetic influence was 20-50%.

    Robyn Toomath writes the same in her book.

    https://www.amazon.com/Obesity-Epidemic-Diets-Exercise-Work_and/dp/1421422492

    It has good stuff, I especially like the focus on the genetics of obesity and exercise. Though she gets a bit wrong.

    Also look up the HERITAGE study which shows wildly different variation in response to diet and exercise, with some people showing no response at all (though that doesn't mean that everyone shouldn't exercise).

    You can’t ‘willpower’ your way to lasting weight loss.

    My experience is you can ‘willpower’ your way to changing diet long enough to ingrain new habits. YMMV. Also don’t underestimate the importance of willpower in combating those toxic environments. It is hard to be the odd person.

    I agree that they’re not mutually exclusive, but I think that it’s something along these lines. You can also change behaviors. What do you think of cognitive behavior therapy?

    Most of my complaints in this debate center around people regarding different explanations as being mutually exclusive. CBT seems like a great idea to me, but for some reason I’ve never had much success doing it formally. I do think incorporating aspects of it in everyday life is useful.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    "My experience is you can ‘willpower’ your way to changing diet long enough to ingrain new habits. YMMV. Also don’t underestimate the importance of willpower in combating those toxic environments. It is hard to be the odd person."

    "Willpower" is a finite resource, so if you're using it to stay away from certain foods, you're still using it in your everyday life so eventually one will give in. Look into Traci Mann's work.

    https://www.thecut.com/2015/05/willpower-is-the-wrong-way-to-think-about-weight.html

    I agree that it's hard on combatting certain environments, but that falls on society as a whole (which I think needs a complete overhaul but that's another story).

    "Most of my complaints in this debate center around people regarding different explanations as being mutually exclusive. CBT seems like a great idea to me, but for some reason I’ve never had much success doing it formally. I do think incorporating aspects of it in everyday life is useful."

    In my experience it works well for people. Though longterm studies show that the effect goes away after one stops CBT. And you can make 'conscious' choices to diet and exercise, contra JayMan, but most people don't know what to do and they need to be educated on it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. I read somewhere extroverted and lower neurotic people are more prone to exercise more and eat healthily.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  33. 22pp22 says:

    I am overweight because I have too little self control around cheese and chocolate.

    However, in Costa Rica I ate the same unhealthy diet I have always eaten and became very lean and thin. (2okg loss) Costa Ricans, by the way, are often severely obese.

    I returned to New Zealand and slowly regained all the weight. I then moved to Cyprus for two years and put on an extra kilo despite eating a Mediterranean diet and taking lots of exercise. The Troodos Mountains are close to paradise and the perfect place to go hiking.

    I don’t get it.

    Read More
    • Agree: Philip Owen
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  34. @RaceRealist88
    "diet are IQ tests"

    It's not.

    "but if you concentrate and read my comment again, I think you can figure it out. And we don’t really disagree."

    I understood your comment. I know we don't really disagree (only on small minutae). Don't disrespect me please. Thank you.

    "For instance, “Current society has no obesogenic environmental factors that it didn’t have half a century ago?” has a question mark after it, which in this context means, “Surely you’re not saying that …?” It doesn’t mean “What I believe is that ….”"

    Noted. I explained it and provided links with more citations for the claim.

    "Latent genetic tendancies started to have an effect when confronted with a different environment."

    Right. But without the environment, where's the obesity? Where's the disease of civilization? It's almost non-existent. So it's the environment that directly drives this. Change the obesogenic environment, change obesity rates.

    "Add the change of a disintegrating family eating structure and lots more food around, and the person with the latent weakness will get fat, but not the person without it."

    Correct. And there are avenues that the person with the 'latent weakness' can take that will help them.

    "One third of the population has always had an active genetic tendancy to be fat, in modern times at least, and one third is programmed to be thin. The central third could remain thin until the environment became obesogenic and enabled their latent genetic weaknesses."

    'Programmed'? So nature > nurture, you're saying?

    "And I think that there are indeed “IQ genes” that affect obesity. Of course, there are no IQ genes per se, but swimming around in the polygenic pool of genes that affect congitive abilities are genes that also cause Tay-Sachs, and obesity, and health in general."

    Where? So these 'IQ genes that affect obesity' would give low IQ and higher susceptibility to both obesity and poverty, correct? What do you base this off of, if that is indeed the view you hold? Assumptions? Have you ever worked with obese people in regard to diet and exercise?

    "Whether the effect is “Smart people know not to overeat because they’re smart and they logicked it out, calories in, etc.,” or “Smart people tend to have a mix of genes that also have certain affects on appetite and metabolism” is another question."

    Individual variation in metabolism is 5 to 10 percent. That doesn't explain individual obesity rates. Hormones affect appetite, ghrelin is the main driver and when on an extended diet with low kcal, your body releases more of the hormone to make you eat more while blunting the hormones that sate you. This holds for everyone.

    And calories in/out? Don't make me laugh. A calorie is not a calorie and saying so is fallacious.

    https://nutritionj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1475-2891-3-9

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFOogvab2TA

    The First Law of Thermodynamics is irrelevant to human physiology.

    https://www.dietdoctor.com/first-law-thermodynamics-utterly-irrelevant

    Also read a nutrionist's take on the study Dr. Thompson wrote about in this article.

    https://www.zoeharcombe.com/2017/12/reversing-diabetes-type-2/%E2%80%9D

    On the thermodynamic not being relevant argument, I simply do not understand the point being made. Bodies are heat machines.
    The other, more detailed account, had interesting points.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    This is a bit cute and vulgar for my taste, but has a surprising amount of good information about the calories in/out (CICO) argument: http://physiqonomics.com/calories/

    This argument actually reminds me of the IQ heritability argument. It is a classic false dichotomy with the (IMHO) first order effects of thermodynamics and genetic inheritance being incorrectly dichotomized to all or none. The existence of second order effects does not make the first order effects irrelevant.

    Bodies are heat machines, but all foods and metabolic pathways are not created equal. Some instances where the apparent external thermodynamic reality is either incomplete or less important:
    - Not all food is digested. See "availability" at link above. For example, fiber contains calories but they are not digestible.
    - Not all metabolic pathways are the same. Efficiency and the number of conversions matter. RR's final link goes into some detail concerning fat storage as a third compartment (it is worth noting that the First Law of Thermodynamics refers to closed systems, which the body is, 2,3,4 or however many compartments).
    - Perhaps the best example of efficiency is aerobic vs. anaerobic metabolism for converting glucose to ATP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_respiration (~18x difference in efficiency! http://www.uwyo.edu/bio1000skh/lecture15.htm )
    - Another example of efficiency is the conversion of fat/protein/carbohydrates into glucose (or fat, muscle, etc.).
    - Still another example of efficiency is converting between forms of F/P/C. For example, simple vs. complex carbohydrates or conversion between amino acids (e.g. phenylalanine to tyrosine) or Omega 3/6 fats metabolic pathways.
    - Then there is the issue of burning fat vs. carbohydrate as metabolic fuel: https://ultrarunning.com/features/metabolic-efficiency-becoming-a-better-butter-burner/ These are different metabolic pathways and relative use may vary because of a number of factors (e.g. intensity, genetics, training).
    - It does not affect thermodynamics, but satiety and tendency to induce cravings (e.g. by taste, glucose spiking/crashing, or addiction type responses) are IMHO key to weight loss in the real world.

    RaceRealist88 is making some good points against CICO (the false dichotomy version of CICO where it is the only thing that matters), but his statements "And calories in/out? Don't make me laugh. A calorie is not a calorie and saying so is fallacious. " and "The First Law of Thermodynamics are irrelevant to human physiology." are IMHO just him being hyperbolic. Which I think is what you are reacting to?

    I have gotten kind of tired of the hyperbole, but the underlying good points make his comments worth reading IMHO. The hyperbole does affect my willingness to engage though.

    TLDR: "Calories out" is a surprisingly complicated subject.

    , @RaceRealist88
    I should have clarified. The first law only states that if one eats more then they burn then they gain weight. It doesn't tell us anything about causation, it tells us about how, not why.

    In all actuality, it's just reversing the cause of obesity. People assume that eating more leads to obesity, but what if causality is reversed? Obesity leads to one eating more. Invoking the first law of thermodynamics in discussions about obesity and its causes are meaningless, and eventually becomes tautological.

    A classic example from Gary Taubes is this: imagine a crowded room. People leaving and entering the room cause differences in the number of people in the room. Sure. But it doesn't tell you WHY people are entering and leaving the room. Maybe there's a fire, a performer is around, etc but stating that 'the room gained more people because more people walked in doesn't say anything about causation. So people eat more, they become obese. OK, but what does it tell us about preventing it? Eating less and moving more doesn't work as I've shown, so the underplay must be hormonal.

    Similarly, when someone tells me so-and-so is obese because he eats more than he expends, I say, “of course he does…you’re just re-stating the First Law.” What I want to know is, WHY did he eat more calories than he burned? If we don’t understand this point, how can we treat this condition?

    http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/revisit-the-causality-of-obesity

    Regarding the second law, stating that a calorie is a calorie violates it:

    "The second law of thermodynamics says that variation of efficiency for different metabolic pathways is to be expected. Thus, ironically the dictum that a “calorie is a calorie” violates the second law of thermodynamics, as a matter of principle."

    https://nutritionj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1475-2891-3-9

    It's fallacious. So both of people's 'thermodynamic weapons', if you will, have detailed physiological arguments against them.
    , @cthulhu


    On the thermodynamic not being relevant argument, I simply do not understand the point being made. Bodies are heat machines.

     

    Coming in late to this thread, but let me see if I can give a succinct answer without too much simplifying. See GCBC for details.

    The "carb hypothesis" in Taubes' Good Calories, Bad Calories (aka GCBC) goes like this:

    0. In homeostasis, the body stores a modest amount of fat, and can easily use stored fat as required to meet the body's energy needs. Insulin levels rise modestly as we eat, causing unused dietary carbohydrates to be stored as fat, then drop later, allowing the body to use stored fat. (Insulin is the hormone that controls access to our fat stores.)

    1. We eat too many carbs, especially easily-digested carbs and/or fructose, at a meal. Insulin levels rise abnormally high. The fructose can't be used directly at all and is converted to fat by the liver, and because of the high insulin, said fat gets stored in the fat tissue immediately. The other carbs are converted to glucose, used to fuel the body and replenish glucose stores, and the leftovers are also converted to fat and stored.

    2. Insulin levels remain high, and this keeps the stored fat locked up. Normal activity depletes our stored glucose, and the stored fat is inaccessible due to high insulin. Therefore, we get hungry and eat!

    3. Repeat this cycle and we gain weight, because we can only use a portion of our food for metabolism due to elevated insulin, and the rest is stored as fat which is inaccessible to our metabolism. As long as insulin remains high, our stored fat cannot be used, and more of our food intake gets stored as fat.

    4. So the thermodynamic viewpoint is true but barely relevant. Yes, obese people take in more calories than they expend, but it's because elevated insulin is both causing too many calories to be stored as fat, and preventing the body from using its stored fat, driving up appetite and reducing caloric expenditure. It has little to do with willpower, refusal to exercise, etc. Telling fat people that they just need to, say, suck it up and exercise portion control is offensive and wrong.

    5. Reducing calories without changing the composition of the diet is a fool's errand. You have to get insulin levels down so that the body can use its stored fat. Get rid of sugar, especially any sugars that have substantial fructose content, and all carbs that provoke a significant insulin response - e.g., white flour. Eat moderate amounts of protein. Monounsaturated and saturated fat is fine. Dietary cholesterol is fine - it has essentially no impact on serum cholesterol; see Peter Attia's "straight dope on cholesterol" series at his website.

    6. All diets that work do so by eliminating foods that cause a substantial insulin response and eliminating foods like fructose that are converted directly to fat and stored. This can be done with both high carb low fat and low carb high fat diets, but my take is that the best-designed studies seem to indicate that low carb high fat, properly designed, is easier to follow and overall more effective than low fat high carb. Once proper insulin sensitivity is recovered and stored fat is available for use, the obese person's caloric intake will drop because he/she is less hungry, because his/her metabolism is functioning properly.

    7. There are people who seem to be capable of eating substantial amounts of grains without significant issues, which is not terribly unexpected since some human populations have been eating grains for several thousands of years. But it seems clear that there are plenty of people who can't handle grains well. And sugar seems to be an unalloyed evil no matter how good it tastes :-(
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. nsa says:
    @Stealth
    High protein, high fat diets are not healthy at all. The subject has been studied extensively, and a low fat diet centered around carbohydrates really is the best for people. Vegetarian Seventh Day Adventists are some of the longest lived people in the world. The traditional Okinawan diet revolved around brown rice and sweet potatoes.

    The studies purported to show that fat (in excess) and meat are either healthy or have no negative impact are usually set up in advance to discover just that. For example, a "low-fat" group in a study might still eat a terribly unhealthy amount of fat, and voila, the study just proved that a low fat diet has no health benefits.

    You say that eating 850 calories per day is unsustainable, but I doubt the writer is suggesting that people pursue such a lifestyle. What's also unsustainable is ketosis. Are you suggesting that people adopt a ketogenic diet for life?

    FYI, my own diet is very unhealthy, but I don't tell myself the lie that beef, pork and butter are health foods.

    Stealth is correct. A high carb plant based diet mixed with walking a couple miles a day is the best way to lose weight, be free of degenerative diseases, and live to a ripe old age. Excluded are: refined sugars, all fats, all dairy, all meat from dead murdered animals. The Pritikin diet is the best example, and is now used widely as a cure for Type Two diabetes (which is entirely a lifestyle disease). Most everything in a modern grocery store is bad for you. If it comes out of a can, a box, cellophane rapped packet, bag……..it’s likely filled with chemicals and preservatives and harmful to the body you are trapped in. You want your coronaries to resemble sludge filled sink traps and your joints falling apart at age 50, than partake of the modern american diet.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    "Stealth is correct. A high carb plant based diet mixed with walking a couple miles a day is the best way to lose weight, be free of degenerative diseases, and live to a ripe old age. Excluded are: refined sugars, all fats, all dairy, all meat from dead murdered animals.."

    Stealth is incorrect. High carb diets are horrible for your insulin levels which then lead to obesity and diabetes. "all meat from dead murdered animals", nice try vegan. Parts of the SAD diet lead to obesity, and I agree about cutting sugar but not animal meat/fat. There is nothing wrong with it and it doesn't raise all cause mortality.

    http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(17)32252-3/abstract

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5475232/

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/26268692/

    The Lancet article, while an observational study, lends strong credence to the claim that high fat is not harmful (while the other citations I have provided buttress the point).

    "The Pritikin diet is the best example, and is now used widely as a cure for Type Two diabetes (which is entirely a lifestyle disease)."

    Low carb high fat diets are best for type II diabetics.

    "Most everything in a modern grocery store is bad for you. If it comes out of a can, a box, cellophane rapped packet, bag……..it’s likely filled with chemicals and preservatives and harmful to the body you are trapped in. You want your coronaries to resemble sludge filled sink traps and your joints falling apart at age 50, than partake of the modern american diet."

    Are you aware that dietary fat doesn't cause arterial clogging, but carbohydrates do, increasing saturated fatty acid levels in the blood. Carbs are the culprit, not sat fat itself.

    https://www.livescience.com/48969-heart-disease-diabetes-risks-carbohydrate-saturated-fat.html

    The modern American diet (SAD; standard American Diet) is horrible, but that doesn't mean that all aspects of it are (meat and animal fat) while a majority is bad (constantly eating, high carb, high fat, high sugar, hyperpalatable foods).
    , @JL

    The Pritikin diet is the best example, and is now used widely as a cure for Type Two diabetes
     
    Do you have any citations to back up this claim?

    From Wiki:

    "The Pritikin Diet has been categorized as a fad diet with possible disadvantages including a boring food choice, flatulence, and the risk of feeling too hungry."

    Sign me up!

    meat from dead murdered animals.
     
    Surely eating meat from dead murdered animals is more humane than eating them while they're still alive! In all seriousness, the moral vegan argument only works if you carry it to its extreme and don't procreate yourself, per David Benatar.

    As for the eat less, move more theory of weight control, I've found that its proponents have never been overweight themselves, or directly responsible for helping treat the overweight/metabolically deranged.
    , @Simon Tugmutton
    Despite my handle, I have adopted a whole-food, plant-based diet and suggest that anyone concerned about his health should at least look into it. Things have moved on since Pritikin. A good introductory presentation is given here:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-u4YnfcTf0

    Dr Lim works under Dr John McDougall; Dr Michael Greger takes a slightly different approach, though all proponents of this diet essentially sing from the same hymn-sheet. His website is here:

    https://nutritionfacts.org/

    Other pioneers in this field are Joel Fuhrman, Caldwell Esselstyn and Neal Barnard. All the information you need is on the internet (including lots of YouTube videos); this is a 'diet' in the original sense of the Greek word, meaning a 'way of life', with permanent and sustainable benefits – including, amazingly, the reversal of heart disease.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. res says:
    @James Thompson
    On the thermodynamic not being relevant argument, I simply do not understand the point being made. Bodies are heat machines.
    The other, more detailed account, had interesting points.

    This is a bit cute and vulgar for my taste, but has a surprising amount of good information about the calories in/out (CICO) argument: http://physiqonomics.com/calories/

    This argument actually reminds me of the IQ heritability argument. It is a classic false dichotomy with the (IMHO) first order effects of thermodynamics and genetic inheritance being incorrectly dichotomized to all or none. The existence of second order effects does not make the first order effects irrelevant.

    Bodies are heat machines, but all foods and metabolic pathways are not created equal. Some instances where the apparent external thermodynamic reality is either incomplete or less important:
    - Not all food is digested. See “availability” at link above. For example, fiber contains calories but they are not digestible.
    - Not all metabolic pathways are the same. Efficiency and the number of conversions matter. RR’s final link goes into some detail concerning fat storage as a third compartment (it is worth noting that the First Law of Thermodynamics refers to closed systems, which the body is, 2,3,4 or however many compartments).
    - Perhaps the best example of efficiency is aerobic vs. anaerobic metabolism for converting glucose to ATP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_respiration (~18x difference in efficiency! http://www.uwyo.edu/bio1000skh/lecture15.htm )
    - Another example of efficiency is the conversion of fat/protein/carbohydrates into glucose (or fat, muscle, etc.).
    - Still another example of efficiency is converting between forms of F/P/C. For example, simple vs. complex carbohydrates or conversion between amino acids (e.g. phenylalanine to tyrosine) or Omega 3/6 fats metabolic pathways.
    - Then there is the issue of burning fat vs. carbohydrate as metabolic fuel: https://ultrarunning.com/features/metabolic-efficiency-becoming-a-better-butter-burner/ These are different metabolic pathways and relative use may vary because of a number of factors (e.g. intensity, genetics, training).
    - It does not affect thermodynamics, but satiety and tendency to induce cravings (e.g. by taste, glucose spiking/crashing, or addiction type responses) are IMHO key to weight loss in the real world.

    RaceRealist88 is making some good points against CICO (the false dichotomy version of CICO where it is the only thing that matters), but his statements “And calories in/out? Don’t make me laugh. A calorie is not a calorie and saying so is fallacious. ” and “The First Law of Thermodynamics are irrelevant to human physiology.” are IMHO just him being hyperbolic. Which I think is what you are reacting to?

    I have gotten kind of tired of the hyperbole, but the underlying good points make his comments worth reading IMHO. The hyperbole does affect my willingness to engage though.

    TLDR: “Calories out” is a surprisingly complicated subject.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    "This is a bit cute and vulgar for my taste, but has a surprising amount of good information about the calories in/out (CICO) argument: http://physiqonomics.com/calories/"

    This is a pretty good article but it took a turn for the worse at the end there. Mark Haub? See the article I cited in my previous comment about him.

    Though if people in the CICO camp want to use one person as an example then I can too. Look at Sam Feltam who ate over 5000 kcal per day on a low carb high fat diet and gained hardly any weight.

    Sam Feltham ate +5,000 kcal per day for 21 days and only gained 1.3 kg when he should have gained 7.3 kg based on the amount of kcal he ate.

    http://live.smashthefat.com/why-i-didnt-get-fat/

    This is even seen in large scale studies. People eating the same diet for one month all gain/lose differing amounts of weight. If the CICO paradigm held true, then everyone should have gained exactly 27 pounds at the end of this study, however there was wide variation in weight gain. Quoting Dr. Sandra Aamodt's 2016 book Why Diets Make Us Fat

    Like nearsightedness, environmental influences on weight also mostly affect the genetically vulnerable, although we understand the details of the process in only rare cases. Fitness gains on a standardized exercise program vary from one person to another largely because of differences in their genes. When identical twins, men in their early twenties, were fed an extra thousand calories per day for about three months, each pair showed similar weight gains . In contrast, the gain varied across twin pairs, ranging from nine to twenty-nine pounds, even though the caloric imbalance was the same for everyone. An individual’s genes also influence weight loss. When another group of identical twins burned a thousand more calories per day through exercise while maintaining a stable food intake in an in-patient facility, their losses ranged from two to eighteen pounds and were even more similar within twin pairs than weight gain. (Aamodt, 2016 pg. 138)

    That destroys the CICO paradigm right there. Here is the reference: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9164270

    "This argument actually reminds me of the IQ heritability argument. It is a classic false dichotomy with the (IMHO) first order effects of thermodynamics and genetic inheritance being incorrectly dichotomized to all or none. The existence of second order effects does not make the first order effects irrelevant."

    True. It's like the nature/nurture false dichotomy as well (which also comes into play in this discussion).

    "- Not all metabolic pathways are the same. Efficiency and the number of conversions matter. RR’s final link goes into some detail concerning fat storage as a third compartment (it is worth noting that the First Law of Thermodynamics refers to closed systems, which the body is, 2,3,4 or however many compartments)."

    Correct. That shows why invoking the second law is fallacious. Human bodies, furthermore, are not bomb calorimeters. So putting in 200 kcal doesn't mean that the out will be 200 kcal as well, since the thermic effects of food (TEF) comes into play along with other factors that affect the out part of the equation. The 'in' can be held constant (attempted to, at least) while the out is at the mercy of human physiology and the brain.

    "- Perhaps the best example of efficiency is aerobic vs. anaerobic metabolism for converting glucose to ATP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_respiration (~18x difference in efficiency! http://www.uwyo.edu/bio1000skh/lecture15.htm )"

    Yes. This is best shown in black vs white muscle fibers and how they show elite differences in sprinting (West Africans). Blacks have more type II fibers on average so they will convert more glucose into ATP, they will also produce ATP faster as well as regenerate it. ATP powers all cellular functioning. (I'd personally put ATP high up in the chain of causality in biology.)

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/12/30/malaria-the-sickle-cell-trait-and-fast-twitch-muscle-fibers/

    "- Then there is the issue of burning fat vs. carbohydrate as metabolic fuel: https://ultrarunning.com/features/metabolic-efficiency-becoming-a-better-butter-burner/ These are different metabolic pathways and relative use may vary because of a number of factors (e.g. intensity, genetics, training)."

    Differences in 'exercise' would produce the effect. Whether or not you do anaerobic or aerobic exercise dictates which pathways your body uses energy from.

    "- It does not affect thermodynamics, but satiety and tendency to induce cravings (e.g. by taste, glucose spiking/crashing, or addiction type responses) are IMHO key to weight loss in the real world."

    Which is why low carb high fat diets are best. They're best for satiety and insulin sensitivity.

    "RaceRealist88 is making some good points against CICO (the false dichotomy version of CICO where it is the only thing that matters), but his statements “And calories in/out? Don’t make me laugh. A calorie is not a calorie and saying so is fallacious. ” and “The First Law of Thermodynamics are irrelevant to human physiology.” are IMHO just him being hyperbolic."

    See my reply to Dr. Thompson. I clarified my position. First Law is irrelevant because it tells us nothing about causation; invoking the Second Law is fallacious due to, as you discussed in your comment, how food is processed through different metabolic pathways among other things. That paper by Feinman and Fine is really good.

    Yes, the out part of the equation is extremely complicated, more complicated then CICO purists would allow.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. @res

    You can’t ‘willpower’ your way to lasting weight loss.

     

    My experience is you can 'willpower' your way to changing diet long enough to ingrain new habits. YMMV. Also don't underestimate the importance of willpower in combating those toxic environments. It is hard to be the odd person.

    I agree that they’re not mutually exclusive, but I think that it’s something along these lines. You can also change behaviors. What do you think of cognitive behavior therapy?
     
    Most of my complaints in this debate center around people regarding different explanations as being mutually exclusive. CBT seems like a great idea to me, but for some reason I've never had much success doing it formally. I do think incorporating aspects of it in everyday life is useful.

    “My experience is you can ‘willpower’ your way to changing diet long enough to ingrain new habits. YMMV. Also don’t underestimate the importance of willpower in combating those toxic environments. It is hard to be the odd person.”

    “Willpower” is a finite resource, so if you’re using it to stay away from certain foods, you’re still using it in your everyday life so eventually one will give in. Look into Traci Mann’s work.

    https://www.thecut.com/2015/05/willpower-is-the-wrong-way-to-think-about-weight.html

    I agree that it’s hard on combatting certain environments, but that falls on society as a whole (which I think needs a complete overhaul but that’s another story).

    “Most of my complaints in this debate center around people regarding different explanations as being mutually exclusive. CBT seems like a great idea to me, but for some reason I’ve never had much success doing it formally. I do think incorporating aspects of it in everyday life is useful.”

    In my experience it works well for people. Though longterm studies show that the effect goes away after one stops CBT. And you can make ‘conscious’ choices to diet and exercise, contra JayMan, but most people don’t know what to do and they need to be educated on it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. @James Thompson
    On the thermodynamic not being relevant argument, I simply do not understand the point being made. Bodies are heat machines.
    The other, more detailed account, had interesting points.

    I should have clarified. The first law only states that if one eats more then they burn then they gain weight. It doesn’t tell us anything about causation, it tells us about how, not why.

    In all actuality, it’s just reversing the cause of obesity. People assume that eating more leads to obesity, but what if causality is reversed? Obesity leads to one eating more. Invoking the first law of thermodynamics in discussions about obesity and its causes are meaningless, and eventually becomes tautological.

    A classic example from Gary Taubes is this: imagine a crowded room. People leaving and entering the room cause differences in the number of people in the room. Sure. But it doesn’t tell you WHY people are entering and leaving the room. Maybe there’s a fire, a performer is around, etc but stating that ‘the room gained more people because more people walked in doesn’t say anything about causation. So people eat more, they become obese. OK, but what does it tell us about preventing it? Eating less and moving more doesn’t work as I’ve shown, so the underplay must be hormonal.

    Similarly, when someone tells me so-and-so is obese because he eats more than he expends, I say, “of course he does…you’re just re-stating the First Law.” What I want to know is, WHY did he eat more calories than he burned? If we don’t understand this point, how can we treat this condition?

    http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/revisit-the-causality-of-obesity

    Regarding the second law, stating that a calorie is a calorie violates it:

    “The second law of thermodynamics says that variation of efficiency for different metabolic pathways is to be expected. Thus, ironically the dictum that a “calorie is a calorie” violates the second law of thermodynamics, as a matter of principle.”

    https://nutritionj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1475-2891-3-9

    It’s fallacious. So both of people’s ‘thermodynamic weapons’, if you will, have detailed physiological arguments against them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    People assume that eating more leads to obesity, but what if causality is reversed? Obesity leads to one eating more.
     
    To my mind that is another false dichotomy. I think what makes obesity such a troublesome issue is that both directions of causality are present. In other words, we have a vicious cycle. The question then becomes how to convert that into the opposing virtuous cycle.

    On another note, since we are talking about thermodynamics, how about our increasingly climate controlled environments as a contributing factor to obesity? I primarily mean the heating side--think of all those calories not required to keep our bodies at 98.6 degrees.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. @res
    This is a bit cute and vulgar for my taste, but has a surprising amount of good information about the calories in/out (CICO) argument: http://physiqonomics.com/calories/

    This argument actually reminds me of the IQ heritability argument. It is a classic false dichotomy with the (IMHO) first order effects of thermodynamics and genetic inheritance being incorrectly dichotomized to all or none. The existence of second order effects does not make the first order effects irrelevant.

    Bodies are heat machines, but all foods and metabolic pathways are not created equal. Some instances where the apparent external thermodynamic reality is either incomplete or less important:
    - Not all food is digested. See "availability" at link above. For example, fiber contains calories but they are not digestible.
    - Not all metabolic pathways are the same. Efficiency and the number of conversions matter. RR's final link goes into some detail concerning fat storage as a third compartment (it is worth noting that the First Law of Thermodynamics refers to closed systems, which the body is, 2,3,4 or however many compartments).
    - Perhaps the best example of efficiency is aerobic vs. anaerobic metabolism for converting glucose to ATP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_respiration (~18x difference in efficiency! http://www.uwyo.edu/bio1000skh/lecture15.htm )
    - Another example of efficiency is the conversion of fat/protein/carbohydrates into glucose (or fat, muscle, etc.).
    - Still another example of efficiency is converting between forms of F/P/C. For example, simple vs. complex carbohydrates or conversion between amino acids (e.g. phenylalanine to tyrosine) or Omega 3/6 fats metabolic pathways.
    - Then there is the issue of burning fat vs. carbohydrate as metabolic fuel: https://ultrarunning.com/features/metabolic-efficiency-becoming-a-better-butter-burner/ These are different metabolic pathways and relative use may vary because of a number of factors (e.g. intensity, genetics, training).
    - It does not affect thermodynamics, but satiety and tendency to induce cravings (e.g. by taste, glucose spiking/crashing, or addiction type responses) are IMHO key to weight loss in the real world.

    RaceRealist88 is making some good points against CICO (the false dichotomy version of CICO where it is the only thing that matters), but his statements "And calories in/out? Don't make me laugh. A calorie is not a calorie and saying so is fallacious. " and "The First Law of Thermodynamics are irrelevant to human physiology." are IMHO just him being hyperbolic. Which I think is what you are reacting to?

    I have gotten kind of tired of the hyperbole, but the underlying good points make his comments worth reading IMHO. The hyperbole does affect my willingness to engage though.

    TLDR: "Calories out" is a surprisingly complicated subject.

    “This is a bit cute and vulgar for my taste, but has a surprising amount of good information about the calories in/out (CICO) argument: http://physiqonomics.com/calories/”

    This is a pretty good article but it took a turn for the worse at the end there. Mark Haub? See the article I cited in my previous comment about him.

    Though if people in the CICO camp want to use one person as an example then I can too. Look at Sam Feltam who ate over 5000 kcal per day on a low carb high fat diet and gained hardly any weight.

    Sam Feltham ate +5,000 kcal per day for 21 days and only gained 1.3 kg when he should have gained 7.3 kg based on the amount of kcal he ate.

    http://live.smashthefat.com/why-i-didnt-get-fat/

    This is even seen in large scale studies. People eating the same diet for one month all gain/lose differing amounts of weight. If the CICO paradigm held true, then everyone should have gained exactly 27 pounds at the end of this study, however there was wide variation in weight gain. Quoting Dr. Sandra Aamodt’s 2016 book Why Diets Make Us Fat

    Like nearsightedness, environmental influences on weight also mostly affect the genetically vulnerable, although we understand the details of the process in only rare cases. Fitness gains on a standardized exercise program vary from one person to another largely because of differences in their genes. When identical twins, men in their early twenties, were fed an extra thousand calories per day for about three months, each pair showed similar weight gains . In contrast, the gain varied across twin pairs, ranging from nine to twenty-nine pounds, even though the caloric imbalance was the same for everyone. An individual’s genes also influence weight loss. When another group of identical twins burned a thousand more calories per day through exercise while maintaining a stable food intake in an in-patient facility, their losses ranged from two to eighteen pounds and were even more similar within twin pairs than weight gain. (Aamodt, 2016 pg. 138)

    That destroys the CICO paradigm right there. Here is the reference: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9164270

    “This argument actually reminds me of the IQ heritability argument. It is a classic false dichotomy with the (IMHO) first order effects of thermodynamics and genetic inheritance being incorrectly dichotomized to all or none. The existence of second order effects does not make the first order effects irrelevant.”

    True. It’s like the nature/nurture false dichotomy as well (which also comes into play in this discussion).

    “- Not all metabolic pathways are the same. Efficiency and the number of conversions matter. RR’s final link goes into some detail concerning fat storage as a third compartment (it is worth noting that the First Law of Thermodynamics refers to closed systems, which the body is, 2,3,4 or however many compartments).”

    Correct. That shows why invoking the second law is fallacious. Human bodies, furthermore, are not bomb calorimeters. So putting in 200 kcal doesn’t mean that the out will be 200 kcal as well, since the thermic effects of food (TEF) comes into play along with other factors that affect the out part of the equation. The ‘in’ can be held constant (attempted to, at least) while the out is at the mercy of human physiology and the brain.

    “- Perhaps the best example of efficiency is aerobic vs. anaerobic metabolism for converting glucose to ATP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_respiration (~18x difference in efficiency! http://www.uwyo.edu/bio1000skh/lecture15.htm )”

    Yes. This is best shown in black vs white muscle fibers and how they show elite differences in sprinting (West Africans). Blacks have more type II fibers on average so they will convert more glucose into ATP, they will also produce ATP faster as well as regenerate it. ATP powers all cellular functioning. (I’d personally put ATP high up in the chain of causality in biology.)

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/12/30/malaria-the-sickle-cell-trait-and-fast-twitch-muscle-fibers/

    “- Then there is the issue of burning fat vs. carbohydrate as metabolic fuel: https://ultrarunning.com/features/metabolic-efficiency-becoming-a-better-butter-burner/ These are different metabolic pathways and relative use may vary because of a number of factors (e.g. intensity, genetics, training).”

    Differences in ‘exercise’ would produce the effect. Whether or not you do anaerobic or aerobic exercise dictates which pathways your body uses energy from.

    “- It does not affect thermodynamics, but satiety and tendency to induce cravings (e.g. by taste, glucose spiking/crashing, or addiction type responses) are IMHO key to weight loss in the real world.”

    Which is why low carb high fat diets are best. They’re best for satiety and insulin sensitivity.

    “RaceRealist88 is making some good points against CICO (the false dichotomy version of CICO where it is the only thing that matters), but his statements “And calories in/out? Don’t make me laugh. A calorie is not a calorie and saying so is fallacious. ” and “The First Law of Thermodynamics are irrelevant to human physiology.” are IMHO just him being hyperbolic.”

    See my reply to Dr. Thompson. I clarified my position. First Law is irrelevant because it tells us nothing about causation; invoking the Second Law is fallacious due to, as you discussed in your comment, how food is processed through different metabolic pathways among other things. That paper by Feinman and Fine is really good.

    Yes, the out part of the equation is extremely complicated, more complicated then CICO purists would allow.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    I have just spent some time diverted to and via the link to
    the "notpoliticallycorrect" site wrt sickle cells and I see a number of articles by RaceRealist that seem pretty good (also AfroSapiens who has made brief appearances here) and so I seek confirmation that you are both that RaceRealist as well as RaceRealist88 on UR??????
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. “The total daily calorific intake was 2000-3000 calories, resulting in a mean weight gain of 12.39 kilos over 53 days, a daily gain of 234 grams, or 1.64 kilos (3.6 pounds) a week. That is in fact a reasonable estimate of the weight gains made by a totally sedentary person who eats a 3000 calorie diet.”

    Dr. Thompson, in your 1974 paper you say that weight gain over the weeks was .9 to 3.3 kg. I’m not able to access the paper. Is it possible for you to provide the individual weight gain and kcal consumed? Though the circumstances are different, I’d like to compare to another overeating study done on Vermont prisoners:

    https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/77a2/4c741388e67192aac52d8b442deabad865f9.pdf

    So, with a combination of scientific curiosity and loose ethical control (hello – informed consent?), some people were made to eat upwards of 10,000 calories/day. 10,000 calories per day! One man only gained 10 pounds with all that. However, most people did gain upwards of 20% of body weight. What happened to their energy expenditure? Metabolism, or Total Energy Expenditure (TEE) increased by 50%.

    https://idmprogram.com/the-astonishing-overeating-paradox-calories-part-x/

    Is data like that provided in your paper?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  41. @nsa
    Stealth is correct. A high carb plant based diet mixed with walking a couple miles a day is the best way to lose weight, be free of degenerative diseases, and live to a ripe old age. Excluded are: refined sugars, all fats, all dairy, all meat from dead murdered animals. The Pritikin diet is the best example, and is now used widely as a cure for Type Two diabetes (which is entirely a lifestyle disease). Most everything in a modern grocery store is bad for you. If it comes out of a can, a box, cellophane rapped packet, bag........it's likely filled with chemicals and preservatives and harmful to the body you are trapped in. You want your coronaries to resemble sludge filled sink traps and your joints falling apart at age 50, than partake of the modern american diet.

    “Stealth is correct. A high carb plant based diet mixed with walking a couple miles a day is the best way to lose weight, be free of degenerative diseases, and live to a ripe old age. Excluded are: refined sugars, all fats, all dairy, all meat from dead murdered animals..”

    Stealth is incorrect. High carb diets are horrible for your insulin levels which then lead to obesity and diabetes. “all meat from dead murdered animals”, nice try vegan. Parts of the SAD diet lead to obesity, and I agree about cutting sugar but not animal meat/fat. There is nothing wrong with it and it doesn’t raise all cause mortality.

    http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(17)32252-3/abstract

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5475232/

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/26268692/

    The Lancet article, while an observational study, lends strong credence to the claim that high fat is not harmful (while the other citations I have provided buttress the point).

    “The Pritikin diet is the best example, and is now used widely as a cure for Type Two diabetes (which is entirely a lifestyle disease).”

    Low carb high fat diets are best for type II diabetics.

    “Most everything in a modern grocery store is bad for you. If it comes out of a can, a box, cellophane rapped packet, bag……..it’s likely filled with chemicals and preservatives and harmful to the body you are trapped in. You want your coronaries to resemble sludge filled sink traps and your joints falling apart at age 50, than partake of the modern american diet.”

    Are you aware that dietary fat doesn’t cause arterial clogging, but carbohydrates do, increasing saturated fatty acid levels in the blood. Carbs are the culprit, not sat fat itself.

    https://www.livescience.com/48969-heart-disease-diabetes-risks-carbohydrate-saturated-fat.html

    The modern American diet (SAD; standard American Diet) is horrible, but that doesn’t mean that all aspects of it are (meat and animal fat) while a majority is bad (constantly eating, high carb, high fat, high sugar, hyperpalatable foods).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stealth
    "Stealth is incorrect. High carb diets are horrible for your insulin levels which then lead to obesity and diabetes."

    Animal protein causes insulin to rise, too, something that is conveniently forgotten - or just not known in the first place - by advocates of the Atkins diet. If meat and dairy are so good for you, then why are the longest lived peoples on Earth largely vegetarian? You could tell me the Seventh Day Adventists live to their late eighties because they don't smoke and drink, but at the very least that means that the diet itself isn't less healthy than the Atkins Diet*. Are you going to tell me next that they would live to a hundred and twenty if they just stayed in ketosis?

    Go to nutritionfacts.org. I don't feel like getting into an NIH link war, so I'll just send you there. Every article and video has citations.

    *I derisively call any high fat/low carb regimen the Atkins Diet. The guy had a lot of copycats who recycled his ideas, adding cosmetic differences, to sell their own books.

    , @Alden
    Thanks for the information from medical sources not just frauds wanting to sell books

    My motto in life is the old French proverb “don’t listen to what he says, watch what he does”

    Since about 1980 every food faddist and scam artist has preached high carb low protein is the cure for obesity.
    And since 1980 Americans who follow the low protein high carb health food diets get fatter and fatter.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. res says:
    @RaceRealist88
    I should have clarified. The first law only states that if one eats more then they burn then they gain weight. It doesn't tell us anything about causation, it tells us about how, not why.

    In all actuality, it's just reversing the cause of obesity. People assume that eating more leads to obesity, but what if causality is reversed? Obesity leads to one eating more. Invoking the first law of thermodynamics in discussions about obesity and its causes are meaningless, and eventually becomes tautological.

    A classic example from Gary Taubes is this: imagine a crowded room. People leaving and entering the room cause differences in the number of people in the room. Sure. But it doesn't tell you WHY people are entering and leaving the room. Maybe there's a fire, a performer is around, etc but stating that 'the room gained more people because more people walked in doesn't say anything about causation. So people eat more, they become obese. OK, but what does it tell us about preventing it? Eating less and moving more doesn't work as I've shown, so the underplay must be hormonal.

    Similarly, when someone tells me so-and-so is obese because he eats more than he expends, I say, “of course he does…you’re just re-stating the First Law.” What I want to know is, WHY did he eat more calories than he burned? If we don’t understand this point, how can we treat this condition?

    http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/revisit-the-causality-of-obesity

    Regarding the second law, stating that a calorie is a calorie violates it:

    "The second law of thermodynamics says that variation of efficiency for different metabolic pathways is to be expected. Thus, ironically the dictum that a “calorie is a calorie” violates the second law of thermodynamics, as a matter of principle."

    https://nutritionj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1475-2891-3-9

    It's fallacious. So both of people's 'thermodynamic weapons', if you will, have detailed physiological arguments against them.

    People assume that eating more leads to obesity, but what if causality is reversed? Obesity leads to one eating more.

    To my mind that is another false dichotomy. I think what makes obesity such a troublesome issue is that both directions of causality are present. In other words, we have a vicious cycle. The question then becomes how to convert that into the opposing virtuous cycle.

    On another note, since we are talking about thermodynamics, how about our increasingly climate controlled environments as a contributing factor to obesity? I primarily mean the heating side–think of all those calories not required to keep our bodies at 98.6 degrees.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    "To my mind that is another false dichotomy."

    Not really because if one gets bigger then they must consume more energy to maintain their weight,

    "I think what makes obesity such a troublesome issue is that both directions of causality are present. In other words, we have a vicious cycle. The question then becomes how to convert that into the opposing virtuous cycle."

    The vicious cycle is insulin spikes spiking blood glucose which then lead to a vicious cycle of insulin causing insulin resistance, because the body is insulin resistant which then causes the body to produce more insulin due to its extreme resistance. That's the vicious cycle.

    "On another note, since we are talking about thermodynamics, how about our increasingly climate controlled environments as a contributing factor to obesity? I primarily mean the heating side–think of all those calories not required to keep our bodies at 98.6 degrees."

    Sounds intriguing. One paper I just came across:

    As ambient temperature decreases, energy expenditure (and energy intake) must increase to maintain thermal homeostasis.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3975627/

    Though that's obvious. And the body's physiology is homeodynamic, not homeostatic.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12805697

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0895717794901899

    , @JL
    Evolutionary discordance is omnipresent; not just climate control, but things like artificial lighting and toilet seats.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. @res

    People assume that eating more leads to obesity, but what if causality is reversed? Obesity leads to one eating more.
     
    To my mind that is another false dichotomy. I think what makes obesity such a troublesome issue is that both directions of causality are present. In other words, we have a vicious cycle. The question then becomes how to convert that into the opposing virtuous cycle.

    On another note, since we are talking about thermodynamics, how about our increasingly climate controlled environments as a contributing factor to obesity? I primarily mean the heating side--think of all those calories not required to keep our bodies at 98.6 degrees.

    “To my mind that is another false dichotomy.”

    Not really because if one gets bigger then they must consume more energy to maintain their weight,

    “I think what makes obesity such a troublesome issue is that both directions of causality are present. In other words, we have a vicious cycle. The question then becomes how to convert that into the opposing virtuous cycle.”

    The vicious cycle is insulin spikes spiking blood glucose which then lead to a vicious cycle of insulin causing insulin resistance, because the body is insulin resistant which then causes the body to produce more insulin due to its extreme resistance. That’s the vicious cycle.

    “On another note, since we are talking about thermodynamics, how about our increasingly climate controlled environments as a contributing factor to obesity? I primarily mean the heating side–think of all those calories not required to keep our bodies at 98.6 degrees.”

    Sounds intriguing. One paper I just came across:

    As ambient temperature decreases, energy expenditure (and energy intake) must increase to maintain thermal homeostasis.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3975627/

    Though that’s obvious. And the body’s physiology is homeodynamic, not homeostatic.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12805697

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0895717794901899

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    Decades ago before HVAC, workplaces were warm in winter

    But the environmentalist liberals forced all buildings to install HVAC

    So every workplace is now freezing cold with cold wind blowing from ventilators every 3 feet in the ceiling, floor and in the walls.

    So workplaces are much colder than they were before 1975.
    , @Dr. Krieger
    Freezing to death will burn some serious calories, to be sure. I wonder if anyone has researched how much faster one could lose weight in winter by keeping the house at 60° rather than 70°.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. JL says:
    @nsa
    Stealth is correct. A high carb plant based diet mixed with walking a couple miles a day is the best way to lose weight, be free of degenerative diseases, and live to a ripe old age. Excluded are: refined sugars, all fats, all dairy, all meat from dead murdered animals. The Pritikin diet is the best example, and is now used widely as a cure for Type Two diabetes (which is entirely a lifestyle disease). Most everything in a modern grocery store is bad for you. If it comes out of a can, a box, cellophane rapped packet, bag........it's likely filled with chemicals and preservatives and harmful to the body you are trapped in. You want your coronaries to resemble sludge filled sink traps and your joints falling apart at age 50, than partake of the modern american diet.

    The Pritikin diet is the best example, and is now used widely as a cure for Type Two diabetes

    Do you have any citations to back up this claim?

    From Wiki:

    “The Pritikin Diet has been categorized as a fad diet with possible disadvantages including a boring food choice, flatulence, and the risk of feeling too hungry.”

    Sign me up!

    meat from dead murdered animals.

    Surely eating meat from dead murdered animals is more humane than eating them while they’re still alive! In all seriousness, the moral vegan argument only works if you carry it to its extreme and don’t procreate yourself, per David Benatar.

    As for the eat less, move more theory of weight control, I’ve found that its proponents have never been overweight themselves, or directly responsible for helping treat the overweight/metabolically deranged.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    "As for the eat less, move more theory of weight control, I’ve found that its proponents have never been overweight themselves, or directly responsible for helping treat the overweight/metabolically deranged."

    This. It's a cop-out, people talk about this because they hear things repeatedly said while having no experience working with people, seeing how hard it is for people to lose weight.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. JL says:
    @res

    People assume that eating more leads to obesity, but what if causality is reversed? Obesity leads to one eating more.
     
    To my mind that is another false dichotomy. I think what makes obesity such a troublesome issue is that both directions of causality are present. In other words, we have a vicious cycle. The question then becomes how to convert that into the opposing virtuous cycle.

    On another note, since we are talking about thermodynamics, how about our increasingly climate controlled environments as a contributing factor to obesity? I primarily mean the heating side--think of all those calories not required to keep our bodies at 98.6 degrees.

    Evolutionary discordance is omnipresent; not just climate control, but things like artificial lighting and toilet seats.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    The biggest driver of obesity is our evolutionary novel environments---our obesogenic environments.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/25928754/

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/28449616/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. Most of this thread has focused on whether IQ can control obesity. Let us consider anorexia. I have had two female relatives who have been through this. Both were clearly of well above average intelligence. They could not rally the will power to eat (or perhaps overcome the will power not to eat) despite knowing intellectually that they were severely underweight. One was never treated and never really recovered. The other had the best that one of the UK’s top treatment centres could throw at her. She moved on. So treatment works. Anorexics often have very good academic track records implying high IQ, so we can conclude that high IQ fails as protection against anorexia, perhaps even predisposes. Should we expect more from IQ for the obese or potentially obese?

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    Diseases like that are more complicated than 'IQ'.
    , @James Thompson
    I have been discussing a general link between obesity and low intelligence. Anorexia is a rare condition, with a likely genetic component, and I doubt that intelligence is protective in those cases, not that I have data on that.
    , @James Thompson
    I have been discussing a general link between obesity and low intelligence. Anorexia is a rare condition, with a likely genetic component, and I doubt that intelligence is protective in those cases, not that I have data on that.
    , @Daniel Chieh
    My wife suffered from the same issue and also scored in the above-120 percentile in school-administered IQ-tests. I suspect its pretty much a dysmorphic issue related to perception, and has little to do with intellectual awareness. Indeed, she mostly used her intelligence to better find ways that essentially hurt herself.

    She has also recovered after therapy.
    , @RaceRealist88
    I'd also like to add that this is more proof thst cognitive behavioral therapy works. IQ, in my opinion, is a non-factor here. But in regard to obesity, people need better education and our shitty guidelines need to go into the trash to reverse the obesity epidemic.
    , @Santoculto
    Maybe we are talking about the deliberated use of pattern recognition to helps ourselves or to people help themselves to become more healthy and not just "have a higher IQ". Higher IQ is great to hyper justify in sophisticated ways self inflicted bad behaviors as anorexia. "Higher IQ" may can work for both extreme ends: To over justify bad habits in very convincing ways and to use pattern recognition to find solutions.
    , @dearieme
    Anorexia is a mental illness. Nobody claimss, do they, that the intelligent are immune to mental illness?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. @Philip Owen
    Most of this thread has focused on whether IQ can control obesity. Let us consider anorexia. I have had two female relatives who have been through this. Both were clearly of well above average intelligence. They could not rally the will power to eat (or perhaps overcome the will power not to eat) despite knowing intellectually that they were severely underweight. One was never treated and never really recovered. The other had the best that one of the UK's top treatment centres could throw at her. She moved on. So treatment works. Anorexics often have very good academic track records implying high IQ, so we can conclude that high IQ fails as protection against anorexia, perhaps even predisposes. Should we expect more from IQ for the obese or potentially obese?

    Diseases like that are more complicated than ‘IQ’.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Philip Owen
    That's my point. Obesity is not just an IQ issue. Try to see the spaces.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. @JL

    The Pritikin diet is the best example, and is now used widely as a cure for Type Two diabetes
     
    Do you have any citations to back up this claim?

    From Wiki:

    "The Pritikin Diet has been categorized as a fad diet with possible disadvantages including a boring food choice, flatulence, and the risk of feeling too hungry."

    Sign me up!

    meat from dead murdered animals.
     
    Surely eating meat from dead murdered animals is more humane than eating them while they're still alive! In all seriousness, the moral vegan argument only works if you carry it to its extreme and don't procreate yourself, per David Benatar.

    As for the eat less, move more theory of weight control, I've found that its proponents have never been overweight themselves, or directly responsible for helping treat the overweight/metabolically deranged.

    “As for the eat less, move more theory of weight control, I’ve found that its proponents have never been overweight themselves, or directly responsible for helping treat the overweight/metabolically deranged.”

    This. It’s a cop-out, people talk about this because they hear things repeatedly said while having no experience working with people, seeing how hard it is for people to lose weight.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. @Philip Owen
    Most of this thread has focused on whether IQ can control obesity. Let us consider anorexia. I have had two female relatives who have been through this. Both were clearly of well above average intelligence. They could not rally the will power to eat (or perhaps overcome the will power not to eat) despite knowing intellectually that they were severely underweight. One was never treated and never really recovered. The other had the best that one of the UK's top treatment centres could throw at her. She moved on. So treatment works. Anorexics often have very good academic track records implying high IQ, so we can conclude that high IQ fails as protection against anorexia, perhaps even predisposes. Should we expect more from IQ for the obese or potentially obese?

    I have been discussing a general link between obesity and low intelligence. Anorexia is a rare condition, with a likely genetic component, and I doubt that intelligence is protective in those cases, not that I have data on that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Philip Owen
    Your position suggests that obesity is a choice not a disease. But for T2 diabetics at least, there is some evidence that the insulin resistance comes before the weight gain. Taubes has sources. I gained weight in a boarding school without my own tuck box which I chose not to have. So on the whole, I ate less than the others.

    If obesity is a choice then low IQ is, as you suggest, an issue. So we need to protect such people with training. so far I don't think we know enough. If obesity is a disease, not necessarily a mirror image of anorexia (anorexia/OCD, obesity/depression), we need to modify the environment and perhaps not just the food supply.

    For the record, these days, I blame wheat intolerance for my weight gain. I now have a Flash Glucose Meter. I can monitor BS minute by minute. The smallest amount of wheat and my BS shoots up and stays up until excretion. A bowlful of rice and it goes up and down in 45 minutes as it should. more or less. But that is a discussion for somewhere else. Can you suggest any researchers in South Wales who might be studying triggers for insulin intolerance?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. @Philip Owen
    Most of this thread has focused on whether IQ can control obesity. Let us consider anorexia. I have had two female relatives who have been through this. Both were clearly of well above average intelligence. They could not rally the will power to eat (or perhaps overcome the will power not to eat) despite knowing intellectually that they were severely underweight. One was never treated and never really recovered. The other had the best that one of the UK's top treatment centres could throw at her. She moved on. So treatment works. Anorexics often have very good academic track records implying high IQ, so we can conclude that high IQ fails as protection against anorexia, perhaps even predisposes. Should we expect more from IQ for the obese or potentially obese?

    I have been discussing a general link between obesity and low intelligence. Anorexia is a rare condition, with a likely genetic component, and I doubt that intelligence is protective in those cases, not that I have data on that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    From what I've read on anorexia and IQ, they have an average 110 IQ. I'll get references later.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. The brain and peripheral nervous system is just like any other biological system which we no have total control over it. It’s just like our stomach or our intestine. They react based on the type of food we give to them, in the case of brain, ”meme-food”. It’s about quality-control as well intensity//quantity of ideas/thoughts and subsequent guidelines as well our capacity to patronize them.

    So would be interesting if we are capable to think about brain and our control over it as well we think about other organs… but with ”free will” and universal implicit human megalomania…

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    "So would be interesting if we are capable to think about brain and our control over it as well we think about other organs… but with ”free will” and universal implicit human megalomania…"

    I can make conscious choices to either continue eating well or eat garbage. The choice is on me (as well as the knowledge I have on nutrition). People do have a choice, the question is this: do people have the correct knowledge to apply things to themselves? No, because they get shit advice, like eat less and move more, a calorie is a calorie, and that when in a caloric deficit it doesn't matter if one eats 65 percent of their diet from carbs are not because 'all calories are the same' (which I've disproven with my citation from Feinman and Fine, 2004).

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. @res

    The difference is the food.
     
    I think that is mostly true between Europeans and Americans (or between Americans in 1917 and 2017) as you said. But within Americans in 2017 I think genetics plays a large role. Genetics is important in obesity both for first order reasons (how the body responds to a given food intake) and for many more reasons (e.g. willpower, desire for/response to exercise).

    Given all the IQ related discussion we have here about within and between population differences and the relative importance of genetic and environmental factors I think obesity and other food/gene related issues make an interesting and timely tie in. One interesting aspect of that connection is that intelligence and obesity seem to have somewhat similar heritability:
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2570383/
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20816022
    The first paper (title Human Obesity: A Heritable Neurobehavioral Disorder That Is Highly Sensitive to Environmental Conditions) has some discussion of the possibility that heritability is changing over time.

    And yes, finding a diet that works for oneself is something of an IQ test (and a willpower test as well). I actually think Steve Sailer gave some of the best nutritional advice I have ever seen. Look at what diets work for others in your family (i.e. genetically close). I think that also applies at a larger population level (i.e. ethnicity, especially people who seem otherwise phenotypically similar).

    Happy New Year to all!

    Alas a diet that works for me is low-carb, high-veg and high-protein (mostly fish).

    Trouble is I love a doorstep slice of malted granary bread. Or three. Preferably slathered in butter.

    Diabetes does bad things to the veins in your legs, and if you’re elderly you can end up with open sores that are difficult to heal.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. @Philip Owen
    Most of this thread has focused on whether IQ can control obesity. Let us consider anorexia. I have had two female relatives who have been through this. Both were clearly of well above average intelligence. They could not rally the will power to eat (or perhaps overcome the will power not to eat) despite knowing intellectually that they were severely underweight. One was never treated and never really recovered. The other had the best that one of the UK's top treatment centres could throw at her. She moved on. So treatment works. Anorexics often have very good academic track records implying high IQ, so we can conclude that high IQ fails as protection against anorexia, perhaps even predisposes. Should we expect more from IQ for the obese or potentially obese?

    My wife suffered from the same issue and also scored in the above-120 percentile in school-administered IQ-tests. I suspect its pretty much a dysmorphic issue related to perception, and has little to do with intellectual awareness. Indeed, she mostly used her intelligence to better find ways that essentially hurt herself.

    She has also recovered after therapy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. @James Thompson
    I have been discussing a general link between obesity and low intelligence. Anorexia is a rare condition, with a likely genetic component, and I doubt that intelligence is protective in those cases, not that I have data on that.

    From what I’ve read on anorexia and IQ, they have an average 110 IQ. I’ll get references later.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. @Philip Owen
    Most of this thread has focused on whether IQ can control obesity. Let us consider anorexia. I have had two female relatives who have been through this. Both were clearly of well above average intelligence. They could not rally the will power to eat (or perhaps overcome the will power not to eat) despite knowing intellectually that they were severely underweight. One was never treated and never really recovered. The other had the best that one of the UK's top treatment centres could throw at her. She moved on. So treatment works. Anorexics often have very good academic track records implying high IQ, so we can conclude that high IQ fails as protection against anorexia, perhaps even predisposes. Should we expect more from IQ for the obese or potentially obese?

    I’d also like to add that this is more proof thst cognitive behavioral therapy works. IQ, in my opinion, is a non-factor here. But in regard to obesity, people need better education and our shitty guidelines need to go into the trash to reverse the obesity epidemic.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Philip Owen
    Agree
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. @JL
    Evolutionary discordance is omnipresent; not just climate control, but things like artificial lighting and toilet seats.

    The biggest driver of obesity is our evolutionary novel environments—our obesogenic environments.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/25928754/

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/28449616/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. @Santoculto
    The brain and peripheral nervous system is just like any other biological system which we no have total control over it. It's just like our stomach or our intestine. They react based on the type of food we give to them, in the case of brain, ''meme-food''. It's about quality-control as well intensity//quantity of ideas/thoughts and subsequent guidelines as well our capacity to patronize them.

    So would be interesting if we are capable to think about brain and our control over it as well we think about other organs... but with ''free will'' and universal implicit human megalomania...

    “So would be interesting if we are capable to think about brain and our control over it as well we think about other organs… but with ”free will” and universal implicit human megalomania…”

    I can make conscious choices to either continue eating well or eat garbage. The choice is on me (as well as the knowledge I have on nutrition). People do have a choice, the question is this: do people have the correct knowledge to apply things to themselves? No, because they get shit advice, like eat less and move more, a calorie is a calorie, and that when in a caloric deficit it doesn’t matter if one eats 65 percent of their diet from carbs are not because ‘all calories are the same’ (which I’ve disproven with my citation from Feinman and Fine, 2004).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    I have absolute certainty that you no have free choice to most things as well most people, "even" me. You believe you have this choice but it's a illusion, you only have the capacity to choice among things your brain already choose for you. And... I doubt low caloric diet is so bad as you are suggesting. You already have a historical of chronic incompetence to understand the role of abstractions in our factual understanding. And of course I will expect a equally ad hominean comment by yourself.

    The choice is on me...

    Or

    The choice often start and finish on my instincts.

    Exactly..

    I tried to speculate that maybe would be interesting if not just correct we start to think about out brains in the same way we think about our stomach... We have the illusion that "we are our brains", it's too but it's doesn't mean what our brains decide it's what we want. We always want, correctly or not so, our well being. So a person with anorexia it's thinking s/he is doing the best for itself. When a person have lower or even avg self consciousness s/he tend to think s/he is its brain, but... MAYBE not.

    About low caloric diet, well people is often different. For some people low caloric diet may work well than for other. Some people may are adapted to low caloric diet.

    Yes a confusedly fragmented comment. I don't care, I'm not writing a book.

    Jesus,
    I mean, some tormented soul may have understood my comment. Amen.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. res,

    A new genetic study lends credence to the Carbohydrate-Insulin Model.

    https://medium.com/@davidludwigmd/genetic-study-supports-carbohydrate-insulin-model-of-obesity-327d84be6d2b

    Mendelian randomization analyses provide evidence for a causal relationship of glucose-stimulated insulin secretion on body weight, consistent with the carbohydrate–insulin model of obesity.

    In summary, we found that genetic predisposition to higher glucose-stimulated insulin secretion was associated with higher BMI. This finding supports the carbohydrate–insulin model of obesity. These results underscore the need for adequately powered clinical trials and mechanistic studies of sufficient duration to explore how individuals with low vs high insulin secretion status respond to diets differing in glycemic load.

    http://clinchem.aaccjnls.org/content/64/1/192

    I’m really excited about this paper as it lends credence to the hypothesis that I’ve been pushing in this thread. What a great start to the new year to have genetic evidence for the Carbohydrate-Insulin Model of obesity.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    res,

    Also note the small effect sizes:

    ... accounted for 0.9%, 0.05%, and 1.1% of the phenotypic variance in insulin-30, respectively, compared with 0.6%, 9.0%, and 0.7% in the MAGIC consortium.

    I don't care about the small effect sizes though. Because this is the first actual evidence for the hypothesis beyond verbal argumentation of the body's physiological system.

    Also note:

    Genetic predisposition to higher levels of glucose-stimulated insulin secretion predicted higher adult BMI, whereas the reverse hypothesis—that genetic predisposition to obesity would predict higher levels of glucose-stimulated insulin secretion—did not hold true.

    , @res
    Interesting link. Thanks.

    I confess to being a bit baffled by this being considered so important (isn't it obvious?):

    In an article published today in Clinical Chemistry’s Special Issue on Obesity, my colleagues in Boston and I used MR to test whether higher insulin secretion throughout one’s life (the exposure) is related to higher body weight (the outcome)— a key assumption of the CIM.
     
    Especially given that the association would hold under either direction of causation they discussed.

    Regarding insulin, it seems to me there are two obvious effects of insulin in play:
    - Increasing cell nutrient uptake.
    - High glycemic index foods causing insulin spikes followed by glucose crashes causing increased food intake.

    Any thoughts on which of these (or other effects) is most important?

    Do you use blood glucose, HbA1c, and/or insulin measures in your nutritional practice? Anything else?
    , @Alden
    So this study shows that carbs cause obesity ?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. @Philip Owen
    Most of this thread has focused on whether IQ can control obesity. Let us consider anorexia. I have had two female relatives who have been through this. Both were clearly of well above average intelligence. They could not rally the will power to eat (or perhaps overcome the will power not to eat) despite knowing intellectually that they were severely underweight. One was never treated and never really recovered. The other had the best that one of the UK's top treatment centres could throw at her. She moved on. So treatment works. Anorexics often have very good academic track records implying high IQ, so we can conclude that high IQ fails as protection against anorexia, perhaps even predisposes. Should we expect more from IQ for the obese or potentially obese?

    Maybe we are talking about the deliberated use of pattern recognition to helps ourselves or to people help themselves to become more healthy and not just “have a higher IQ”. Higher IQ is great to hyper justify in sophisticated ways self inflicted bad behaviors as anorexia. “Higher IQ” may can work for both extreme ends: To over justify bad habits in very convincing ways and to use pattern recognition to find solutions.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    The effect there is education. More educated people know the right choices to make because they're knowledgeable on it. Just saying what and what not to eat isn't enough for most people. This is why 'IQ' is related here, only because IQ is related to education.
    , @Philip Owen
    Yes. People of lower IQ can be protected by training. Religion used to do this, even in the dietary area with fasts, special feasts and forbidden foods. We do not all have to work everything out from scratch, although this is what modern society expects.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. @RaceRealist88
    "So would be interesting if we are capable to think about brain and our control over it as well we think about other organs… but with ”free will” and universal implicit human megalomania…"

    I can make conscious choices to either continue eating well or eat garbage. The choice is on me (as well as the knowledge I have on nutrition). People do have a choice, the question is this: do people have the correct knowledge to apply things to themselves? No, because they get shit advice, like eat less and move more, a calorie is a calorie, and that when in a caloric deficit it doesn't matter if one eats 65 percent of their diet from carbs are not because 'all calories are the same' (which I've disproven with my citation from Feinman and Fine, 2004).

    I have absolute certainty that you no have free choice to most things as well most people, “even” me. You believe you have this choice but it’s a illusion, you only have the capacity to choice among things your brain already choose for you. And… I doubt low caloric diet is so bad as you are suggesting. You already have a historical of chronic incompetence to understand the role of abstractions in our factual understanding. And of course I will expect a equally ad hominean comment by yourself.

    The choice is on me…

    Or

    The choice often start and finish on my instincts.

    Exactly..

    I tried to speculate that maybe would be interesting if not just correct we start to think about out brains in the same way we think about our stomach… We have the illusion that “we are our brains”, it’s too but it’s doesn’t mean what our brains decide it’s what we want. We always want, correctly or not so, our well being. So a person with anorexia it’s thinking s/he is doing the best for itself. When a person have lower or even avg self consciousness s/he tend to think s/he is its brain, but… MAYBE not.

    About low caloric diet, well people is often different. For some people low caloric diet may work well than for other. Some people may are adapted to low caloric diet.

    Yes a confusedly fragmented comment. I don’t care, I’m not writing a book.

    Jesus,
    I mean, some tormented soul may have understood my comment. Amen.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Philip Owen
    "When a person have lower or even avg self consciousness s/he tend to think s/he is its brain, but… MAYBE not."

    It is interesting that my blood glucose level (metered by a flash meter) changes BEFORE I decide to change activity. My BG/Insulin is anticipating (or controlling) my activity level. Direction of change doesn't seem to matter.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. @RaceRealist88
    res,

    A new genetic study lends credence to the Carbohydrate-Insulin Model.

    https://medium.com/@davidludwigmd/genetic-study-supports-carbohydrate-insulin-model-of-obesity-327d84be6d2b

    Mendelian randomization analyses provide evidence for a causal relationship of glucose-stimulated insulin secretion on body weight, consistent with the carbohydrate–insulin model of obesity.

    ...

    In summary, we found that genetic predisposition to higher glucose-stimulated insulin secretion was associated with higher BMI. This finding supports the carbohydrate–insulin model of obesity. These results underscore the need for adequately powered clinical trials and mechanistic studies of sufficient duration to explore how individuals with low vs high insulin secretion status respond to diets differing in glycemic load.

    http://clinchem.aaccjnls.org/content/64/1/192

    I'm really excited about this paper as it lends credence to the hypothesis that I've been pushing in this thread. What a great start to the new year to have genetic evidence for the Carbohydrate-Insulin Model of obesity.

    res,

    Also note the small effect sizes:

    … accounted for 0.9%, 0.05%, and 1.1% of the phenotypic variance in insulin-30, respectively, compared with 0.6%, 9.0%, and 0.7% in the MAGIC consortium.

    I don’t care about the small effect sizes though. Because this is the first actual evidence for the hypothesis beyond verbal argumentation of the body’s physiological system.

    Also note:

    Genetic predisposition to higher levels of glucose-stimulated insulin secretion predicted higher adult BMI, whereas the reverse hypothesis—that genetic predisposition to obesity would predict higher levels of glucose-stimulated insulin secretion—did not hold true.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. @Santoculto
    Maybe we are talking about the deliberated use of pattern recognition to helps ourselves or to people help themselves to become more healthy and not just "have a higher IQ". Higher IQ is great to hyper justify in sophisticated ways self inflicted bad behaviors as anorexia. "Higher IQ" may can work for both extreme ends: To over justify bad habits in very convincing ways and to use pattern recognition to find solutions.

    The effect there is education. More educated people know the right choices to make because they’re knowledgeable on it. Just saying what and what not to eat isn’t enough for most people. This is why ‘IQ’ is related here, only because IQ is related to education.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    There is a big difference between being educated and believing the latest fads and superstitions about food.

    Anyone old enough to remember when chocolate caused acne and pimples?

    What I find interesting is that about 5 years after all the health experts and educated people started believing that low protein, high carb diets were the healthiest obesity rose and rose.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. dearieme says:
    @Philip Owen
    Most of this thread has focused on whether IQ can control obesity. Let us consider anorexia. I have had two female relatives who have been through this. Both were clearly of well above average intelligence. They could not rally the will power to eat (or perhaps overcome the will power not to eat) despite knowing intellectually that they were severely underweight. One was never treated and never really recovered. The other had the best that one of the UK's top treatment centres could throw at her. She moved on. So treatment works. Anorexics often have very good academic track records implying high IQ, so we can conclude that high IQ fails as protection against anorexia, perhaps even predisposes. Should we expect more from IQ for the obese or potentially obese?

    Anorexia is a mental illness. Nobody claimss, do they, that the intelligent are immune to mental illness?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. res says:
    @RaceRealist88
    res,

    A new genetic study lends credence to the Carbohydrate-Insulin Model.

    https://medium.com/@davidludwigmd/genetic-study-supports-carbohydrate-insulin-model-of-obesity-327d84be6d2b

    Mendelian randomization analyses provide evidence for a causal relationship of glucose-stimulated insulin secretion on body weight, consistent with the carbohydrate–insulin model of obesity.

    ...

    In summary, we found that genetic predisposition to higher glucose-stimulated insulin secretion was associated with higher BMI. This finding supports the carbohydrate–insulin model of obesity. These results underscore the need for adequately powered clinical trials and mechanistic studies of sufficient duration to explore how individuals with low vs high insulin secretion status respond to diets differing in glycemic load.

    http://clinchem.aaccjnls.org/content/64/1/192

    I'm really excited about this paper as it lends credence to the hypothesis that I've been pushing in this thread. What a great start to the new year to have genetic evidence for the Carbohydrate-Insulin Model of obesity.

    Interesting link. Thanks.

    I confess to being a bit baffled by this being considered so important (isn’t it obvious?):

    In an article published today in Clinical Chemistry’s Special Issue on Obesity, my colleagues in Boston and I used MR to test whether higher insulin secretion throughout one’s life (the exposure) is related to higher body weight (the outcome)— a key assumption of the CIM.

    Especially given that the association would hold under either direction of causation they discussed.

    Regarding insulin, it seems to me there are two obvious effects of insulin in play:
    - Increasing cell nutrient uptake.
    - High glycemic index foods causing insulin spikes followed by glucose crashes causing increased food intake.

    Any thoughts on which of these (or other effects) is most important?

    Do you use blood glucose, HbA1c, and/or insulin measures in your nutritional practice? Anything else?

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    "I confess to being a bit baffled by this being considered so important (isn’t it obvious?)"

    It is obvious but it lends credence to the carbohydrate-insulin model of obesity.

    "Especially given that the association would hold under either direction of causation they discussed."

    They tested the other model (genetic predisposition to obesity didn't predict high insulin) and it didn't hold. The causation goes 'genetic predisposition' for elevated insulin. Glucose-stimulated insulin secretion is causally related to BMI.

    "Regarding insulin, it seems to me there are two obvious effects of insulin in play:
    - Increasing cell nutrient uptake.
    - High glycemic index foods causing insulin spikes followed by glucose crashes causing increased food intake.

    Any thoughts on which of these (or other effects) is most important?"

    More important regarding obesity? It's because elevated insulin causes insulin resistance which causes elevated insulin since the body is already insulin resistant which makes the body more insulin resistant etc. It's a vicious cycle. When insulin is high, fat cannot be unlocked from the adipocyte, as the body has glucose from carbohydrate consumption to use for energy and it leaves the fat cells untouched. The physiological effect of insulin effectively 'locking' the fat cell is one of the most important factors, along with perpetually elevated insulin levels.

    "Do you use blood glucose, HbA1c, and/or insulin measures in your nutritional practice? Anything else?"

    Fasting blood glucose is most important to identify diabetes/pre-diabetes. HbA1c (glucose control) is critical too. Exercise and LCHF/LCKD helps with this (see the cites in my first comment).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. Stealth says:
    @RaceRealist88
    "Stealth is correct. A high carb plant based diet mixed with walking a couple miles a day is the best way to lose weight, be free of degenerative diseases, and live to a ripe old age. Excluded are: refined sugars, all fats, all dairy, all meat from dead murdered animals.."

    Stealth is incorrect. High carb diets are horrible for your insulin levels which then lead to obesity and diabetes. "all meat from dead murdered animals", nice try vegan. Parts of the SAD diet lead to obesity, and I agree about cutting sugar but not animal meat/fat. There is nothing wrong with it and it doesn't raise all cause mortality.

    http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(17)32252-3/abstract

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5475232/

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/26268692/

    The Lancet article, while an observational study, lends strong credence to the claim that high fat is not harmful (while the other citations I have provided buttress the point).

    "The Pritikin diet is the best example, and is now used widely as a cure for Type Two diabetes (which is entirely a lifestyle disease)."

    Low carb high fat diets are best for type II diabetics.

    "Most everything in a modern grocery store is bad for you. If it comes out of a can, a box, cellophane rapped packet, bag……..it’s likely filled with chemicals and preservatives and harmful to the body you are trapped in. You want your coronaries to resemble sludge filled sink traps and your joints falling apart at age 50, than partake of the modern american diet."

    Are you aware that dietary fat doesn't cause arterial clogging, but carbohydrates do, increasing saturated fatty acid levels in the blood. Carbs are the culprit, not sat fat itself.

    https://www.livescience.com/48969-heart-disease-diabetes-risks-carbohydrate-saturated-fat.html

    The modern American diet (SAD; standard American Diet) is horrible, but that doesn't mean that all aspects of it are (meat and animal fat) while a majority is bad (constantly eating, high carb, high fat, high sugar, hyperpalatable foods).

    “Stealth is incorrect. High carb diets are horrible for your insulin levels which then lead to obesity and diabetes.”

    Animal protein causes insulin to rise, too, something that is conveniently forgotten – or just not known in the first place – by advocates of the Atkins diet. If meat and dairy are so good for you, then why are the longest lived peoples on Earth largely vegetarian? You could tell me the Seventh Day Adventists live to their late eighties because they don’t smoke and drink, but at the very least that means that the diet itself isn’t less healthy than the Atkins Diet*. Are you going to tell me next that they would live to a hundred and twenty if they just stayed in ketosis?

    Go to nutritionfacts.org. I don’t feel like getting into an NIH link war, so I’ll just send you there. Every article and video has citations.

    *I derisively call any high fat/low carb regimen the Atkins Diet. The guy had a lot of copycats who recycled his ideas, adding cosmetic differences, to sell their own books.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    "Animal protein causes insulin to rise, too, something that is conveniently forgotten – or just not known in the first place – by advocates of the Atkins diet."

    I am aware. I like high protein diet for relatively sedentary people (compared to people who weightlift/strength train).

    "If meat and dairy are so good for you, then why are the longest lived peoples on Earth largely vegetarian? You could tell me the Seventh Day Adventists live to their late eighties because they don’t smoke and drink, but at the very least that means that the diet itself isn’t less healthy than the Atkins Diet*. Are you going to tell me next that they would live to a hundred and twenty if they just stayed in ketosis?"

    No I won't tell you that they'd live to 120 if they stayed in ketosis. Seventh Day Adventists are mutliethnic, but after controlling for ethnicity, physical acitivity, etc, vegans had a lower BMI etc than nonvegetarians.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2671114/

    This can be attributed to the nonvegans' SAD (Standard American Diet) diet, full of processed carbs. Studies that compare these diets and show all of these negative things about meat consumption are only observational studies. For instance SAD dieters are more likely to be smokers and not exercise. People who take their health and lifestyles seriously live longer. It's not shocking.

    "*I derisively call any high fat/low carb regimen the Atkins Diet. The guy had a lot of copycats who recycled his ideas, adding cosmetic differences, to sell their own books."

    Any examples?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. Alden says:

    I stopped reading after the first 2 paragraphs.

    I couldn’t figure out what he is writing about. Is it diabetes? Obesity? Healthy diets in general? The latest health food propaganda? Who sponsored the studies he cites? Is it another Pillsbury Mills and Wheat, corn and grain famers of America study that proves eggs cause heart attacks and people can avoid heart attacks by eating cereal and bread for breakfast?

    I wish all these food propagandists would acknowledge that diabetes is a disease and people with diabetes need different diets than people who don’t have diabetes.

    Since everyone is sharing their personal experiences with food and weight I will share mine.

    After I got home after a year in hospitals, nursing homes and assisted living*, I though I’d get meals on wheels rather than get a driver to take me food shopping as I really couldn’t walk through a supermarket anyway. Also my blood pressure was lower than normal which means I can’t walk or stand up sometimes.

    Meals on Wheels purports to be the perfect FDA approved, low calorie, healthy type, ideal food according to the latest fads and fancies.

    1. It’s low salt because as we all know, all old people suffer from high blood pressure and if they have salt they will die of heart attacks.

    2. Low calorie. I estimate the 3 meals were about 1,800 calories instead of 2,000.

    3. Low protein because meat causes heart attacks and obesity doesn’t it? That’s what all the experts and nutriotionists say isn’t it. FDA and nutritionist experts say 3 ounces a day is about right for protein. To me, that’s a vegetarian diet. But the experts know more than I of course Personally I think it was less than 3 ounces of meat a day

    4. Only 2 eggs a week because eggs cause cholesterol and eggs cause heart attacks and old people shouldn’t eat eggs. Guess the anti egg people don’t know that cholesterol is an endocrine secretion secreted by one’s own body.

    5. High, very high, healthy carbs. There was no white rice, white bread, white cereal, even white noodles. The rice was brown and the other carbs were whole wheat in accordance with the latest nutrition myths and fables.

    6. vast amounts of vegetables and fruits. 5 servings of them a day according to the latest nutrition myths and fables. Much of the fruit was canned, but it was canned in water, not syrup so it was low calories.

    7 deserts only about once a week and they were one and all those weird tasting diabetes cakes, pies and ice cream.

    So there I was, no food in the house other than a nutritionally perfect low calorie, low protein, low unhealthy carbs, high healthy carbs and fruits and vegetables meals on wheels diet.

    SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

    What happened? First month I gained 10 pounds. Second month 12 pounds. At which point my clothes were too tight.

    So I went back to my usual diet: about 18 or 20 eggs a week, 2 eggs cooked in butter for breakfast and often boiled eggs for another meal. Lots of meat, like at 10 or 12 ounces of meat at dinner. White rice when I have curry. White bread because it has fewer calories than whole wheat bread but with lots of butter. Real ice cream instead of the diabetes ice cream that came with meals on wheels.

    I fasted 3 days a month after getting rid of meals on wheels. unfortunately fasting brings my blood pressure way, way down. But I got rid of those 22 pounds in 3 weeks. And haven’t gained them back although I do fast 3 days a couple of times a month

    One thing I enjoy is people gasping when I salt my food. “Your blood pressure they gasp” “It’s too low I reply” “But salt is bad for blood pressure”

    Anyway, that’s my method for being a healthy thin old person; eggs and meat.

    *courtesy of our nations’s immigration policy

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    I've noticed that nutrition has an weird obsession with heart attacks to the exclusion of all other medical concerns. As you noted, it leads to some interesting conclusions such as focusing on blood pressure when you have low blood pressure and therefore if anything, could use the additional sodium.
    , @Santoculto
    It's mean people as you are expensive to the ideal balance between ''man'' and nature...

    Less ''carnivorous'' [expensive energetic people] would be good, even i believe ''bacon-lovers'' tend to be more prone to be less empathetic, more psychopathic, ... stupid...

    lack of empathy

    or lack of understanding of empathy, combined with reason ...

    and the result is this current nightmare whole world is living thanks for the white trash xtrians and neo-messionics und jewish megalomaniacal retards...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. @Alden
    I stopped reading after the first 2 paragraphs.

    I couldn't figure out what he is writing about. Is it diabetes? Obesity? Healthy diets in general? The latest health food propaganda? Who sponsored the studies he cites? Is it another Pillsbury Mills and Wheat, corn and grain famers of America study that proves eggs cause heart attacks and people can avoid heart attacks by eating cereal and bread for breakfast?

    I wish all these food propagandists would acknowledge that diabetes is a disease and people with diabetes need different diets than people who don't have diabetes.

    Since everyone is sharing their personal experiences with food and weight I will share mine.

    After I got home after a year in hospitals, nursing homes and assisted living*, I though I'd get meals on wheels rather than get a driver to take me food shopping as I really couldn't walk through a supermarket anyway. Also my blood pressure was lower than normal which means I can't walk or stand up sometimes.

    Meals on Wheels purports to be the perfect FDA approved, low calorie, healthy type, ideal food according to the latest fads and fancies.

    1. It's low salt because as we all know, all old people suffer from high blood pressure and if they have salt they will die of heart attacks.

    2. Low calorie. I estimate the 3 meals were about 1,800 calories instead of 2,000.

    3. Low protein because meat causes heart attacks and obesity doesn't it? That's what all the experts and nutriotionists say isn't it. FDA and nutritionist experts say 3 ounces a day is about right for protein. To me, that's a vegetarian diet. But the experts know more than I of course Personally I think it was less than 3 ounces of meat a day

    4. Only 2 eggs a week because eggs cause cholesterol and eggs cause heart attacks and old people shouldn't eat eggs. Guess the anti egg people don't know that cholesterol is an endocrine secretion secreted by one's own body.

    5. High, very high, healthy carbs. There was no white rice, white bread, white cereal, even white noodles. The rice was brown and the other carbs were whole wheat in accordance with the latest nutrition myths and fables.

    6. vast amounts of vegetables and fruits. 5 servings of them a day according to the latest nutrition myths and fables. Much of the fruit was canned, but it was canned in water, not syrup so it was low calories.

    7 deserts only about once a week and they were one and all those weird tasting diabetes cakes, pies and ice cream.

    So there I was, no food in the house other than a nutritionally perfect low calorie, low protein, low unhealthy carbs, high healthy carbs and fruits and vegetables meals on wheels diet.


    SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

    What happened? First month I gained 10 pounds. Second month 12 pounds. At which point my clothes were too tight.

    So I went back to my usual diet: about 18 or 20 eggs a week, 2 eggs cooked in butter for breakfast and often boiled eggs for another meal. Lots of meat, like at 10 or 12 ounces of meat at dinner. White rice when I have curry. White bread because it has fewer calories than whole wheat bread but with lots of butter. Real ice cream instead of the diabetes ice cream that came with meals on wheels.

    I fasted 3 days a month after getting rid of meals on wheels. unfortunately fasting brings my blood pressure way, way down. But I got rid of those 22 pounds in 3 weeks. And haven't gained them back although I do fast 3 days a couple of times a month

    One thing I enjoy is people gasping when I salt my food. "Your blood pressure they gasp" "It's too low I reply" "But salt is bad for blood pressure"

    Anyway, that's my method for being a healthy thin old person; eggs and meat.

    *courtesy of our nations's immigration policy

    I’ve noticed that nutrition has an weird obsession with heart attacks to the exclusion of all other medical concerns. As you noted, it leads to some interesting conclusions such as focusing on blood pressure when you have low blood pressure and therefore if anything, could use the additional sodium.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. Alden says:
    @RaceRealist88
    The effect there is education. More educated people know the right choices to make because they're knowledgeable on it. Just saying what and what not to eat isn't enough for most people. This is why 'IQ' is related here, only because IQ is related to education.

    There is a big difference between being educated and believing the latest fads and superstitions about food.

    Anyone old enough to remember when chocolate caused acne and pimples?

    What I find interesting is that about 5 years after all the health experts and educated people started believing that low protein, high carb diets were the healthiest obesity rose and rose.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    The rise in obesity started during the late 70s, after fat was demonized and carbs were championed. It's something in the environment that occurred around that time to cause this. Which is the introduction of high sugar, high carb, highly processed, calorie dense foods.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. Biff says:

    If you want to lose weight go on a soup only diet, and dispose of all utensils in your house except chopsticks. It’ll work. Trust me.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    excellent!!!. At one time there was a thing where you could get your teeth wired together so you couldn’t chew.

    Idea was just sip liquid food through a straw. Like so many food fads, it’s disappeared.
    , @RaceRealist88
    "If you want to lose weight go on a soup only diet, and dispose of all utensils in your house except chopsticks. It’ll work. Trust me."

    Or just fast a few times a week (read Jason Fung on fasting) and eat sensibly (not too much processed food). It'll work. Trust me.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. @nsa
    Stealth is correct. A high carb plant based diet mixed with walking a couple miles a day is the best way to lose weight, be free of degenerative diseases, and live to a ripe old age. Excluded are: refined sugars, all fats, all dairy, all meat from dead murdered animals. The Pritikin diet is the best example, and is now used widely as a cure for Type Two diabetes (which is entirely a lifestyle disease). Most everything in a modern grocery store is bad for you. If it comes out of a can, a box, cellophane rapped packet, bag........it's likely filled with chemicals and preservatives and harmful to the body you are trapped in. You want your coronaries to resemble sludge filled sink traps and your joints falling apart at age 50, than partake of the modern american diet.

    Despite my handle, I have adopted a whole-food, plant-based diet and suggest that anyone concerned about his health should at least look into it. Things have moved on since Pritikin. A good introductory presentation is given here:

    Dr Lim works under Dr John McDougall; Dr Michael Greger takes a slightly different approach, though all proponents of this diet essentially sing from the same hymn-sheet. His website is here:

    https://nutritionfacts.org/

    Other pioneers in this field are Joel Fuhrman, Caldwell Esselstyn and Neal Barnard. All the information you need is on the internet (including lots of YouTube videos); this is a ‘diet’ in the original sense of the Greek word, meaning a ‘way of life’, with permanent and sustainable benefits – including, amazingly, the reversal of heart disease.

    Read More
    • Replies: @nsa
    Familiar with most the people you mention. Notice the hostility here when you introduce a little common sense. The USA is now overrun with degenerative disease, most of which is easily preventable with a shred of self-control and education. Hip and knee replacement, coronaries than resemble sink traps, diabetes....all are diet related and preventable. The average adult american female now weighs 180 lbs. If you want to go on a whale watching expedition, than visit a local walmart. The truth is that most the stuff in an american grocery store is unhealthy or downright poisonous. If it comes in a can, box, bag, cellophane, or bottle ...do not eat or drink it.
    Again, this is very simple. Eat plant based whole foods and fruit when you can obtain it. Avoid all fats, dairy, refined sugar (poison), refined anything, and especially murdered animal parts. Stay away from MDs and do not ingest anything they prescribe. Walk a couple miles a day. You want a friend to walk with, get a doggy pal. As to Adventists, most of them refuse to "eat anything with a pulse"....the ones I know look disgustingly healthy and they all live long lives free of degenerative disease.
    , @Alden
    Ah yes, eat certain foods, avoid other foods and you won’t have a heart attack.

    I wonder what farmers paid for those books to be written.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. Hunsdon says:
    @anon
    This is a huge and difficult subject. But to get you started -
    Avoid polyunsaturated vegetable oils
    Cook at home instead of eating out.Avoid fast foods.
    Use good saturated fats - butter, ghee, olive oil, beef fat, fish oils (salmon, sardines, herring, etc.), coconut oil, palm kernel oil
    Practice intermittent fasting - eat meals during an 8 hour period each day and don't eat the rest of the time until the next day's 8 hour period.
    Eat carbs only moderately - potatoes, sweet potatoes, rice. Avoid wheat and all grains except for white rice. You're still damaged by the other grains, even if you don't have a celiac condition or gluten sensitivity. The antinutrients in grain are bad for everyone, symptomatic or not.
    Avoid legumes and beans.
    Eat good meats, fish, seafood, vegetables and some fruits.
    Take (only some needed ones) supplements to make sure you get all the nutrients you need.

    Tired of me already, right? The folks who tell you it's simple are wrong, but they are easy to follow and they give you simple, easily remembered rules.
    And following them is why you're fat and diabetic or headed in that direction.

    I think your advice is pretty simple. But it works.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. nsa says:
    @Simon Tugmutton
    Despite my handle, I have adopted a whole-food, plant-based diet and suggest that anyone concerned about his health should at least look into it. Things have moved on since Pritikin. A good introductory presentation is given here:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-u4YnfcTf0

    Dr Lim works under Dr John McDougall; Dr Michael Greger takes a slightly different approach, though all proponents of this diet essentially sing from the same hymn-sheet. His website is here:

    https://nutritionfacts.org/

    Other pioneers in this field are Joel Fuhrman, Caldwell Esselstyn and Neal Barnard. All the information you need is on the internet (including lots of YouTube videos); this is a 'diet' in the original sense of the Greek word, meaning a 'way of life', with permanent and sustainable benefits – including, amazingly, the reversal of heart disease.

    Familiar with most the people you mention. Notice the hostility here when you introduce a little common sense. The USA is now overrun with degenerative disease, most of which is easily preventable with a shred of self-control and education. Hip and knee replacement, coronaries than resemble sink traps, diabetes….all are diet related and preventable. The average adult american female now weighs 180 lbs. If you want to go on a whale watching expedition, than visit a local walmart. The truth is that most the stuff in an american grocery store is unhealthy or downright poisonous. If it comes in a can, box, bag, cellophane, or bottle …do not eat or drink it.
    Again, this is very simple. Eat plant based whole foods and fruit when you can obtain it. Avoid all fats, dairy, refined sugar (poison), refined anything, and especially murdered animal parts. Stay away from MDs and do not ingest anything they prescribe. Walk a couple miles a day. You want a friend to walk with, get a doggy pal. As to Adventists, most of them refuse to “eat anything with a pulse”….the ones I know look disgustingly healthy and they all live long lives free of degenerative disease.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Simon Tugmutton

    Stay away from MDs and do not ingest anything they prescribe.
     
    Greger estimates the annual mortality in inpatients from iatrogenic causes in the US to be about 200,000, with another 199,000 from the side-effects of prescription drugs. Add to this the reduced vitality – and productivity – of the vastly greater number of medical survivors and you begin to see why things have reached this pass.

    Unfortunately the FDA has a dual role: to advise on a healthy lifestyle and to promote the interests of US agribusiness. #2 takes precedence, simply because of lobbying. And of course it is very much in the interests of the medical and pharmaceutical sectors to have a sickly population, just as it is in the interests of law-enforcement to have plenty of miscreants to play with.
    , @nsa
    Corrections before the spelling nazis show up: "than" to "that", "than" to "then".
    , @Alden
    Who goes to Walmart? Never been to one in my life.
    , @Alden
    Ummm by the time carbs, any carbs including fruits and vegetables get through the GI tract into the blood steam they are one and all turned into glucose.

    Glucose is glucose, whether it enters the mouth as plain white or brown sugar, a cheap or expensive candy bar, or an organic pesticide free raised vegetable or whole grain bread from a health food store.

    Take a physiology course. Protein builds and repairs muscles, bones and blood. Glucose builds fat and the brain.

    All carbs from lettuce to sugar turn into glucose in the intestines and create fat.

    All protein turns into iron in the intestines and builds muscles, blood and bones.
    , @Jasper Been
    Once again you have stated "avoid all fats."

    Good luck with that!!!
    , @RaceRealist88
    "Avoid all fats"

    Why?

    "especially murdered animal parts"

    Can you hide your true intentions better? You were doing pretty good until this. I bet you hate Nina Teicholz.

    "Stay away from MDs and do not ingest anything they prescribe."

    ...

    Eating things 'with a pulse' is good. Christmas and Thanksgiving are great because of the turkey. I love turkey.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. @nsa
    Familiar with most the people you mention. Notice the hostility here when you introduce a little common sense. The USA is now overrun with degenerative disease, most of which is easily preventable with a shred of self-control and education. Hip and knee replacement, coronaries than resemble sink traps, diabetes....all are diet related and preventable. The average adult american female now weighs 180 lbs. If you want to go on a whale watching expedition, than visit a local walmart. The truth is that most the stuff in an american grocery store is unhealthy or downright poisonous. If it comes in a can, box, bag, cellophane, or bottle ...do not eat or drink it.
    Again, this is very simple. Eat plant based whole foods and fruit when you can obtain it. Avoid all fats, dairy, refined sugar (poison), refined anything, and especially murdered animal parts. Stay away from MDs and do not ingest anything they prescribe. Walk a couple miles a day. You want a friend to walk with, get a doggy pal. As to Adventists, most of them refuse to "eat anything with a pulse"....the ones I know look disgustingly healthy and they all live long lives free of degenerative disease.

    Stay away from MDs and do not ingest anything they prescribe.

    Greger estimates the annual mortality in inpatients from iatrogenic causes in the US to be about 200,000, with another 199,000 from the side-effects of prescription drugs. Add to this the reduced vitality – and productivity – of the vastly greater number of medical survivors and you begin to see why things have reached this pass.

    Unfortunately the FDA has a dual role: to advise on a healthy lifestyle and to promote the interests of US agribusiness. #2 takes precedence, simply because of lobbying. And of course it is very much in the interests of the medical and pharmaceutical sectors to have a sickly population, just as it is in the interests of law-enforcement to have plenty of miscreants to play with.

    Read More
    • LOL: Alden
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. AaronB says:

    Nutrition is one of those fields we know very little about. We know almost no more than we knew a hundred years ago.

    It’s amusing to see so many people write so much bullshit about it with such confidence. Gary Taubes writes massive learned tomes about it, but his theories don’t match up with reality.

    Not that he cares – reality is no match for a simple, elegant theory that doesn’t work. That’s how our elites think today. It’s like IQ.

    The most intelligent thing to do would be to look at countries where people are thin, and at traditional diets, and consider ALL the facts.

    No one ever looks at psychological factors in weight gain – our materialism says that it has to be some chemichal in our food. Something physical.

    But maybe anxiety makes people overeat, maybe hopelessness, maybe a culture that tells you to enjoy yourself without limit, maybe even materialism makes people overeat.

    Countries where people are thin, Japan, France, etc, do seem to have some peculiar cultural features that fat Anglo cultures don’t have.

    We should look into it, but we won’t, because we suffer from a bad case of learned stupidity, and we’ll just continue to argue about carbs and protein and other sciency sounding chemicals.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    The most intelligent thing to do would be to look at countries where people are thin, and at traditional diets, and consider ALL the facts.
     
    Good idea. Might also look at one's own country in the same way.

    I mean, is it really any wonder that Americans are the fattest people in the world with the rest of the Anglosphere doing their best to catch up, when so manyl spend so much time stuffing their guts with hamburgers, French fries, and fudge sundaes, washed down with Coke or Pepsi, then, to fill the gaps, going to the supermarket for a cartload of the cheapest food commodities processed by the addition of water, fructose syrup and a few dozen thickening, coloring, flavoring and texturizing chemicals, the products beautifully packaged and priced ten thousand percent over the price of the basic ingredients, and paid for at a check-out set beside a spread of candy bars plus the National Enquirer to insure the total obliteration of both bodily and mental health.

    But obesity, and general stupidity, is the price of feminism. No way now that women are going back to the kitchen, to prepare healthy meals from fresh vegetables, unprocessed meat and home-preserved fruit, home-made bread, etc.

    , @Alden
    Thank you Aaron, a voice of reason and
    and skeptism in a sea of the naive and credulous who believe any thing they read about food.

    I think a lot of this healthy eating is just snobbery. “ I eat healthy according to the latest fads and fables, therefore I am superior to the proles and peasants who eat unhealthy”

    I admit I’m disdainful of food propaganda. It’s probably because I live in California and have been lectured about food all my life by the naive and credulous.
    , @Bardon Kaldian

    Nutrition is one of those fields we know very little about. We know almost no more than we knew a hundred years ago.
     
    True. But, more than that- only food freaks & fanatics obsess over food. Man is more than what he eats.
    , @RaceRealist88
    "It’s amusing to see so many people write so much bullshit about it with such confidence. Gary Taubes writes massive learned tomes about it, but his theories don’t match up with reality."

    Examples?

    "No one ever looks at psychological factors in weight gain – our materialism says that it has to be some chemichal in our food. Something physical."

    Traci Mann wrote a book on it chroniciling 20 years of her research.

    "Countries where people are thin, Japan, France, etc, do seem to have some peculiar cultural features that fat Anglo cultures don’t have."

    East Asian countries are explainable through the CIM. Percent of carbohydrate intake is nowhere near as important as the absolute amount of carbohydrates consumed.

    http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/how-do-some-cultures-stay-lean-while-still-consuming-high-amounts-of-carbohydrates

    "We should look into it, but we won’t, because we suffer from a bad case of learned stupidity, and we’ll just continue to argue about carbs and protein and other sciency sounding chemicals."

    Because it matters. China is now currently leading in childhood obesity.

    http://www.scmp.com/lifestyle/health-beauty/article/1938620/explosion-childhood-obesity-china-worst-ever-expert-says-new

    One in four Chinese children expected to be overweight by 2030.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/12/one-four-china-children-expected-overweight-2030-amid-obesity/

    Why is that? The Western Diet. It is a scourge.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. nsa says:
    @nsa
    Familiar with most the people you mention. Notice the hostility here when you introduce a little common sense. The USA is now overrun with degenerative disease, most of which is easily preventable with a shred of self-control and education. Hip and knee replacement, coronaries than resemble sink traps, diabetes....all are diet related and preventable. The average adult american female now weighs 180 lbs. If you want to go on a whale watching expedition, than visit a local walmart. The truth is that most the stuff in an american grocery store is unhealthy or downright poisonous. If it comes in a can, box, bag, cellophane, or bottle ...do not eat or drink it.
    Again, this is very simple. Eat plant based whole foods and fruit when you can obtain it. Avoid all fats, dairy, refined sugar (poison), refined anything, and especially murdered animal parts. Stay away from MDs and do not ingest anything they prescribe. Walk a couple miles a day. You want a friend to walk with, get a doggy pal. As to Adventists, most of them refuse to "eat anything with a pulse"....the ones I know look disgustingly healthy and they all live long lives free of degenerative disease.

    Corrections before the spelling nazis show up: “than” to “that”, “than” to “then”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Johann Ricke

    Again, this is very simple. Eat plant based whole foods and fruit when you can obtain it. Avoid all fats, dairy, refined sugar (poison), refined anything, and especially murdered animal parts.
     
    Actually, it's even simpler than that. Much simpler. Americans have been eating the things they eat today throughout most of the 20th century. The issue is portion control. People are eating too much, and need to cut down.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @AaronB
    Nutrition is one of those fields we know very little about. We know almost no more than we knew a hundred years ago.

    It's amusing to see so many people write so much bullshit about it with such confidence. Gary Taubes writes massive learned tomes about it, but his theories don't match up with reality.

    Not that he cares - reality is no match for a simple, elegant theory that doesn't work. That's how our elites think today. It's like IQ.

    The most intelligent thing to do would be to look at countries where people are thin, and at traditional diets, and consider ALL the facts.

    No one ever looks at psychological factors in weight gain - our materialism says that it has to be some chemichal in our food. Something physical.

    But maybe anxiety makes people overeat, maybe hopelessness, maybe a culture that tells you to enjoy yourself without limit, maybe even materialism makes people overeat.

    Countries where people are thin, Japan, France, etc, do seem to have some peculiar cultural features that fat Anglo cultures don't have.

    We should look into it, but we won't, because we suffer from a bad case of learned stupidity, and we'll just continue to argue about carbs and protein and other sciency sounding chemicals.

    The most intelligent thing to do would be to look at countries where people are thin, and at traditional diets, and consider ALL the facts.

    Good idea. Might also look at one’s own country in the same way.

    I mean, is it really any wonder that Americans are the fattest people in the world with the rest of the Anglosphere doing their best to catch up, when so manyl spend so much time stuffing their guts with hamburgers, French fries, and fudge sundaes, washed down with Coke or Pepsi, then, to fill the gaps, going to the supermarket for a cartload of the cheapest food commodities processed by the addition of water, fructose syrup and a few dozen thickening, coloring, flavoring and texturizing chemicals, the products beautifully packaged and priced ten thousand percent over the price of the basic ingredients, and paid for at a check-out set beside a spread of candy bars plus the National Enquirer to insure the total obliteration of both bodily and mental health.

    But obesity, and general stupidity, is the price of feminism. No way now that women are going back to the kitchen, to prepare healthy meals from fresh vegetables, unprocessed meat and home-preserved fruit, home-made bread, etc.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    So why can’t men, especially all the single men who don’t live with women learn to make jam, can fruit and vegetables, make homemade bread, soup from scratch, and avoid all those foods that come in packages?

    I mean, what’s to stop them?

    The fast food industry's most faithful customers are men who don’t want to cook. So is take out, especially pizza which has a zillion calories a slice.

    They wouldn’t even have to buy a cook book. They could find all the recipes they need on their cell phones.
    , @AaronB
    Well, you have to wonder why Americans eat so much. Other countries don't.

    There's plenty of junk food in Japan, and classic french dishes like steak frites is not so different from a hamburger and fries.

    I know plenty of vegetarians and home cookers who are fat.

    I think it's not so much the food as the culture and psychology. Something is wrong with us on that level.
    , @Leslie Jacobs
    "But obesity, and general stupidity, is the price of feminism."

    The whole gender role business is a survival strategy that has repeatedly worked rather well. That is why the greatest civilisations all had this as a major social construct; these were the groups that survived the great disasters. All really literate people with several millennia of written experience to go by know that one golden rule of survival is understanding that all empires and usury bubbles collapse within a few centuries at most, and in the most intensely urban societies this produces vast death tolls every time it goes down. However, if half the population is kept out of the trade/money economy and in the home, then when the crash comes those families will still have food put away, small gardens and flocks to live on.

    The Bible is very clear about ordering the people to keep women stickily at home and out of the marketplace, and the Jews who run our world know this very well. However, they use the ancient text as a template of temptations that they can sell to the gentiles, and feminism is a classic example of using a classic temptation to undermine ones enemies. Since tradition bans many practices, the secular Jews can sell those forbidden items, like prostitution and pornography, to the gentiles. Go ask Google who owns the porn industry, and you will see long articles by secular Jews bragging about how this has always been their industry and still is today. The entire feminist project in America would never have happened had the Jews not been allowed to run Hollywood and the newspapers, the internet and pop music.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @anon
    This is a huge and difficult subject. But to get you started -
    Avoid polyunsaturated vegetable oils
    Cook at home instead of eating out.Avoid fast foods.
    Use good saturated fats - butter, ghee, olive oil, beef fat, fish oils (salmon, sardines, herring, etc.), coconut oil, palm kernel oil
    Practice intermittent fasting - eat meals during an 8 hour period each day and don't eat the rest of the time until the next day's 8 hour period.
    Eat carbs only moderately - potatoes, sweet potatoes, rice. Avoid wheat and all grains except for white rice. You're still damaged by the other grains, even if you don't have a celiac condition or gluten sensitivity. The antinutrients in grain are bad for everyone, symptomatic or not.
    Avoid legumes and beans.
    Eat good meats, fish, seafood, vegetables and some fruits.
    Take (only some needed ones) supplements to make sure you get all the nutrients you need.

    Tired of me already, right? The folks who tell you it's simple are wrong, but they are easy to follow and they give you simple, easily remembered rules.
    And following them is why you're fat and diabetic or headed in that direction.

    I thought legumes are beans were supposed to be healthy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    Depends on which of the latest fables, myths, superstitions and fads you believe.

    Food advertising is both overt positive advertising for a product and covert negative propaganda against rival products.

    Example positive: chicken is low calorie cheap and prevents heart attacks.

    Negative: beef and pork are fattening, expensive and cause heart attacks and high blood pressure.

    Both are the result of “studies” by the chicken producers
    , @CanSpeccy

    I thought legumes are beans were supposed to be healthy.
     
    Fava beans contain inhibitors of various digestive enzymes, including alpha-amylase, trypsin and chymotrypsin – as do other pulses and legumes, including peas and soybeans. However, the inhibitors are largely eliminated or destroyed by either soaking or cooking or both.

    Fava beans also contain an inhibitor of glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase, which can cause jaundice (that is, the inhibitor can cause jaundice, not the enzyme) in individuals with a genetically determined deficiency in the enzyme. Such deficiency is particularly common in the Mediterranean region, Africa and southern Asia.

    The Greeks were generally wary about beans and Pythagoras banned their consumption among his followers, possibly because he considered farting a distraction while considering a mathematical problem in depth.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. Spend the holidays in a former communist country where the food and drink are often still horrible and you will lose weight. The endless hours of torturous airline travel to get there and back will further reduce your caloric intake.

    I just got home and found out I lost five pounds.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  79. Alden says:
    @CanSpeccy

    The most intelligent thing to do would be to look at countries where people are thin, and at traditional diets, and consider ALL the facts.
     
    Good idea. Might also look at one's own country in the same way.

    I mean, is it really any wonder that Americans are the fattest people in the world with the rest of the Anglosphere doing their best to catch up, when so manyl spend so much time stuffing their guts with hamburgers, French fries, and fudge sundaes, washed down with Coke or Pepsi, then, to fill the gaps, going to the supermarket for a cartload of the cheapest food commodities processed by the addition of water, fructose syrup and a few dozen thickening, coloring, flavoring and texturizing chemicals, the products beautifully packaged and priced ten thousand percent over the price of the basic ingredients, and paid for at a check-out set beside a spread of candy bars plus the National Enquirer to insure the total obliteration of both bodily and mental health.

    But obesity, and general stupidity, is the price of feminism. No way now that women are going back to the kitchen, to prepare healthy meals from fresh vegetables, unprocessed meat and home-preserved fruit, home-made bread, etc.

    So why can’t men, especially all the single men who don’t live with women learn to make jam, can fruit and vegetables, make homemade bread, soup from scratch, and avoid all those foods that come in packages?

    I mean, what’s to stop them?

    The fast food industry’s most faithful customers are men who don’t want to cook. So is take out, especially pizza which has a zillion calories a slice.

    They wouldn’t even have to buy a cook book. They could find all the recipes they need on their cell phones.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    So why can’t men, especially all the single men who don’t live with women learn to make jam, can fruit and vegetables, make homemade bread, soup from scratch, and avoid all those foods that come in packages?

    I mean, what’s to stop them?
     

    Well maybe some do it. But mostly single males are doing what single males have to do: fighting to climb the ladder of wealth, power and social status, when they're not free to feed some girl with chocolates or a hamburger and coke.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. Alden says:
    @Anonymous
    I thought legumes are beans were supposed to be healthy.

    Depends on which of the latest fables, myths, superstitions and fads you believe.

    Food advertising is both overt positive advertising for a product and covert negative propaganda against rival products.

    Example positive: chicken is low calorie cheap and prevents heart attacks.

    Negative: beef and pork are fattening, expensive and cause heart attacks and high blood pressure.

    Both are the result of “studies” by the chicken producers

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Anonymous
    I thought legumes are beans were supposed to be healthy.

    I thought legumes are beans were supposed to be healthy.

    Fava beans contain inhibitors of various digestive enzymes, including alpha-amylase, trypsin and chymotrypsin – as do other pulses and legumes, including peas and soybeans. However, the inhibitors are largely eliminated or destroyed by either soaking or cooking or both.

    Fava beans also contain an inhibitor of glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase, which can cause jaundice (that is, the inhibitor can cause jaundice, not the enzyme) in individuals with a genetically determined deficiency in the enzyme. Such deficiency is particularly common in the Mediterranean region, Africa and southern Asia.

    The Greeks were generally wary about beans and Pythagoras banned their consumption among his followers, possibly because he considered farting a distraction while considering a mathematical problem in depth.

    Read More
    • LOL: Alden
    • Replies: @utu
    Except of fava beans there was no beans in "pre-Columbian" Europe. Out of legumes Europeans had peas, lentils and chick peas plus some lupin beans.

    Everything in moderation. Beans are good for you in moderation.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Alden
    So why can’t men, especially all the single men who don’t live with women learn to make jam, can fruit and vegetables, make homemade bread, soup from scratch, and avoid all those foods that come in packages?

    I mean, what’s to stop them?

    The fast food industry's most faithful customers are men who don’t want to cook. So is take out, especially pizza which has a zillion calories a slice.

    They wouldn’t even have to buy a cook book. They could find all the recipes they need on their cell phones.

    So why can’t men, especially all the single men who don’t live with women learn to make jam, can fruit and vegetables, make homemade bread, soup from scratch, and avoid all those foods that come in packages?

    I mean, what’s to stop them?

    Well maybe some do it. But mostly single males are doing what single males have to do: fighting to climb the ladder of wealth, power and social status, when they’re not free to feed some girl with chocolates or a hamburger and coke.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    They still have to eat. And why should they have to depend on a live in woman to cook for them?

    Here is a recipe for homemade tomato soup. Buy a big can of tomato juice. Dump in a pot. Boil for a few minutes. Taste. Add some salt and pepper if you want. To be a real gourmet, add some garlic salt and dry basil or oregano.

    Dinner

    Stick a potato in microwave. Push button Put a steak or pork chop in a frying pan. Turn on burner. Cook till done. Chop up lettuce.

    Eat dinner.
    , @Alden
    So women who have hard jobs and work long hours should make home made bread, can vegetables, make jam and jelly, cook everything from scratch but it’s perfectky ok for men who have the same demanding jobs to live on pizza and Burger King?

    Single men are the biggest consumers of fast food.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. Alden says:
    @AaronB
    Nutrition is one of those fields we know very little about. We know almost no more than we knew a hundred years ago.

    It's amusing to see so many people write so much bullshit about it with such confidence. Gary Taubes writes massive learned tomes about it, but his theories don't match up with reality.

    Not that he cares - reality is no match for a simple, elegant theory that doesn't work. That's how our elites think today. It's like IQ.

    The most intelligent thing to do would be to look at countries where people are thin, and at traditional diets, and consider ALL the facts.

    No one ever looks at psychological factors in weight gain - our materialism says that it has to be some chemichal in our food. Something physical.

    But maybe anxiety makes people overeat, maybe hopelessness, maybe a culture that tells you to enjoy yourself without limit, maybe even materialism makes people overeat.

    Countries where people are thin, Japan, France, etc, do seem to have some peculiar cultural features that fat Anglo cultures don't have.

    We should look into it, but we won't, because we suffer from a bad case of learned stupidity, and we'll just continue to argue about carbs and protein and other sciency sounding chemicals.

    Thank you Aaron, a voice of reason and
    and skeptism in a sea of the naive and credulous who believe any thing they read about food.

    I think a lot of this healthy eating is just snobbery. “ I eat healthy according to the latest fads and fables, therefore I am superior to the proles and peasants who eat unhealthy”

    I admit I’m disdainful of food propaganda. It’s probably because I live in California and have been lectured about food all my life by the naive and credulous.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    Maybe you are propagandist of

    so-called

    ''meat''
    , @AaronB
    Some of it is snobbery, you're right, but I think there is a general sense that something is wrong with us and no one knows quite what.

    Since we're materialists, we look at physical things for an explanation, and food is an obvious place to look.

    I think our obsession with food is really about our general unhappiness.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. Alden says:
    @CanSpeccy

    So why can’t men, especially all the single men who don’t live with women learn to make jam, can fruit and vegetables, make homemade bread, soup from scratch, and avoid all those foods that come in packages?

    I mean, what’s to stop them?
     

    Well maybe some do it. But mostly single males are doing what single males have to do: fighting to climb the ladder of wealth, power and social status, when they're not free to feed some girl with chocolates or a hamburger and coke.

    They still have to eat. And why should they have to depend on a live in woman to cook for them?

    Here is a recipe for homemade tomato soup. Buy a big can of tomato juice. Dump in a pot. Boil for a few minutes. Taste. Add some salt and pepper if you want. To be a real gourmet, add some garlic salt and dry basil or oregano.

    Dinner

    Stick a potato in microwave. Push button Put a steak or pork chop in a frying pan. Turn on burner. Cook till done. Chop up lettuce.

    Eat dinner.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    Hey, that's exactly what I do! And last time I checked, I was still losing weight.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. @AaronB
    Nutrition is one of those fields we know very little about. We know almost no more than we knew a hundred years ago.

    It's amusing to see so many people write so much bullshit about it with such confidence. Gary Taubes writes massive learned tomes about it, but his theories don't match up with reality.

    Not that he cares - reality is no match for a simple, elegant theory that doesn't work. That's how our elites think today. It's like IQ.

    The most intelligent thing to do would be to look at countries where people are thin, and at traditional diets, and consider ALL the facts.

    No one ever looks at psychological factors in weight gain - our materialism says that it has to be some chemichal in our food. Something physical.

    But maybe anxiety makes people overeat, maybe hopelessness, maybe a culture that tells you to enjoy yourself without limit, maybe even materialism makes people overeat.

    Countries where people are thin, Japan, France, etc, do seem to have some peculiar cultural features that fat Anglo cultures don't have.

    We should look into it, but we won't, because we suffer from a bad case of learned stupidity, and we'll just continue to argue about carbs and protein and other sciency sounding chemicals.

    Nutrition is one of those fields we know very little about. We know almost no more than we knew a hundred years ago.

    True. But, more than that- only food freaks & fanatics obsess over food. Man is more than what he eats.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    Absolutely agree.
    , @AaronB
    Exactly. We are materialists, so we obsess over food and health. Even health shouldn't be our prime concern, not beyond a certain minimal point.

    But of course, we're materialists, do what could be more important than physical health.
    , @CanSpeccy
    Re:

    Nutrition is one of those fields we know very little about. We know almost no more than we knew a hundred years ago.
     
    Actually, a hundred years ago almost nothing was known about nutrition. For example, it was not until the 1920's that there was much progress on identification of vitamins. Now we know almost everything there is to be known about nutrition except possibly the role of certain trace elements.

    Amazingly, as knowledge about nutrition has advanced, the adequacy of Western diets, as driven by commercial interests, has seriously deteriorated. Most Europeans and North Americans, for example, are magnesium deficient, a result of changes in water supplies, in the mineral content of intensively cultivated fruit and vegetables, and the increased dependence on processed and fast foods.

    Most probably in large part as a result of magnesium deficiency (possibly aggravated by excess consumption of calcium in dairy products) most Americans are more or less nuts and half of them take anti-depressants or anti-psychotics, which is tremendously profitable for Big Pharma.

    , @RaceRealist88
    "Man is more than what he eats."

    One of the most untrue statements I've ever seen.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. Alden says:
    @Simon Tugmutton
    Despite my handle, I have adopted a whole-food, plant-based diet and suggest that anyone concerned about his health should at least look into it. Things have moved on since Pritikin. A good introductory presentation is given here:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-u4YnfcTf0

    Dr Lim works under Dr John McDougall; Dr Michael Greger takes a slightly different approach, though all proponents of this diet essentially sing from the same hymn-sheet. His website is here:

    https://nutritionfacts.org/

    Other pioneers in this field are Joel Fuhrman, Caldwell Esselstyn and Neal Barnard. All the information you need is on the internet (including lots of YouTube videos); this is a 'diet' in the original sense of the Greek word, meaning a 'way of life', with permanent and sustainable benefits – including, amazingly, the reversal of heart disease.

    Ah yes, eat certain foods, avoid other foods and you won’t have a heart attack.

    I wonder what farmers paid for those books to be written.

    Read More
    • Agree: RaceRealist88
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    "Study says soda doesn't cause weight gain.!!*"

    * Based on the flawed twin model and funded by Coca-Cola.

    That's most of these studies. They just get paid by Coke/Big Food to 'find the result' they want. "Extra kcal in the form sugar doesn't cause weight gain, trust us."'
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. Alden says:
    @Biff
    If you want to lose weight go on a soup only diet, and dispose of all utensils in your house except chopsticks. It’ll work. Trust me.

    excellent!!!. At one time there was a thing where you could get your teeth wired together so you couldn’t chew.

    Idea was just sip liquid food through a straw. Like so many food fads, it’s disappeared.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. @RaceRealist88
    Diseases like that are more complicated than 'IQ'.

    That’s my point. Obesity is not just an IQ issue. Try to see the spaces.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    It's largely an obesogenic environment issue.

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/02/19/an-evolutionary-look-at-obesity/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. Alden says:

    The title of this article should be

    “Diet as a Test of Credulity”

    Credulous comes from the 16th-century Latin credulus, or “easily believes.” A synonym for credulous is gullible, and both terms describe a person who accepts something willingly without a lot of supporting facts. Calling someone credulous can imply that the person is naive and simple.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  90. Alden says:
    @Bardon Kaldian

    Nutrition is one of those fields we know very little about. We know almost no more than we knew a hundred years ago.
     
    True. But, more than that- only food freaks & fanatics obsess over food. Man is more than what he eats.

    Absolutely agree.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. @James Thompson
    I have been discussing a general link between obesity and low intelligence. Anorexia is a rare condition, with a likely genetic component, and I doubt that intelligence is protective in those cases, not that I have data on that.

    Your position suggests that obesity is a choice not a disease. But for T2 diabetics at least, there is some evidence that the insulin resistance comes before the weight gain. Taubes has sources. I gained weight in a boarding school without my own tuck box which I chose not to have. So on the whole, I ate less than the others.

    If obesity is a choice then low IQ is, as you suggest, an issue. So we need to protect such people with training. so far I don’t think we know enough. If obesity is a disease, not necessarily a mirror image of anorexia (anorexia/OCD, obesity/depression), we need to modify the environment and perhaps not just the food supply.

    For the record, these days, I blame wheat intolerance for my weight gain. I now have a Flash Glucose Meter. I can monitor BS minute by minute. The smallest amount of wheat and my BS shoots up and stays up until excretion. A bowlful of rice and it goes up and down in 45 minutes as it should. more or less. But that is a discussion for somewhere else. Can you suggest any researchers in South Wales who might be studying triggers for insulin intolerance?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. @RaceRealist88
    I'd also like to add that this is more proof thst cognitive behavioral therapy works. IQ, in my opinion, is a non-factor here. But in regard to obesity, people need better education and our shitty guidelines need to go into the trash to reverse the obesity epidemic.

    Agree

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. @Santoculto
    Maybe we are talking about the deliberated use of pattern recognition to helps ourselves or to people help themselves to become more healthy and not just "have a higher IQ". Higher IQ is great to hyper justify in sophisticated ways self inflicted bad behaviors as anorexia. "Higher IQ" may can work for both extreme ends: To over justify bad habits in very convincing ways and to use pattern recognition to find solutions.

    Yes. People of lower IQ can be protected by training. Religion used to do this, even in the dietary area with fasts, special feasts and forbidden foods. We do not all have to work everything out from scratch, although this is what modern society expects.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. @Santoculto
    I have absolute certainty that you no have free choice to most things as well most people, "even" me. You believe you have this choice but it's a illusion, you only have the capacity to choice among things your brain already choose for you. And... I doubt low caloric diet is so bad as you are suggesting. You already have a historical of chronic incompetence to understand the role of abstractions in our factual understanding. And of course I will expect a equally ad hominean comment by yourself.

    The choice is on me...

    Or

    The choice often start and finish on my instincts.

    Exactly..

    I tried to speculate that maybe would be interesting if not just correct we start to think about out brains in the same way we think about our stomach... We have the illusion that "we are our brains", it's too but it's doesn't mean what our brains decide it's what we want. We always want, correctly or not so, our well being. So a person with anorexia it's thinking s/he is doing the best for itself. When a person have lower or even avg self consciousness s/he tend to think s/he is its brain, but... MAYBE not.

    About low caloric diet, well people is often different. For some people low caloric diet may work well than for other. Some people may are adapted to low caloric diet.

    Yes a confusedly fragmented comment. I don't care, I'm not writing a book.

    Jesus,
    I mean, some tormented soul may have understood my comment. Amen.

    “When a person have lower or even avg self consciousness s/he tend to think s/he is its brain, but… MAYBE not.”

    It is interesting that my blood glucose level (metered by a flash meter) changes BEFORE I decide to change activity. My BG/Insulin is anticipating (or controlling) my activity level. Direction of change doesn’t seem to matter.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. Alden says:
    @nsa
    Familiar with most the people you mention. Notice the hostility here when you introduce a little common sense. The USA is now overrun with degenerative disease, most of which is easily preventable with a shred of self-control and education. Hip and knee replacement, coronaries than resemble sink traps, diabetes....all are diet related and preventable. The average adult american female now weighs 180 lbs. If you want to go on a whale watching expedition, than visit a local walmart. The truth is that most the stuff in an american grocery store is unhealthy or downright poisonous. If it comes in a can, box, bag, cellophane, or bottle ...do not eat or drink it.
    Again, this is very simple. Eat plant based whole foods and fruit when you can obtain it. Avoid all fats, dairy, refined sugar (poison), refined anything, and especially murdered animal parts. Stay away from MDs and do not ingest anything they prescribe. Walk a couple miles a day. You want a friend to walk with, get a doggy pal. As to Adventists, most of them refuse to "eat anything with a pulse"....the ones I know look disgustingly healthy and they all live long lives free of degenerative disease.

    Who goes to Walmart? Never been to one in my life.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. Eat less/move more does not work.

    I dunno. I lost 90 pounds by eating less and moving more. YMMV, of course.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Philip Owen
    I think it depends on your hormonal balance at the time. Mostly Move More does nothing for me but I have had two dramatic weight loss events that were linked to move more or accurately, Lift More. But this was at a very intense level, once training to row at inter university level and once during another intensive exercise bout where I switched from cardio to gym. OTOH training for and running marathons did nothing. For me, it has to be high intensity anaerobic exercise.
    , @RaceRealist88
    "I dunno. I lost 90 pounds by eating less and moving more. YMMV, of course."

    n=1

    Eat less/move more implies that 'a calorie is a calorie' and it doesn't matter where the food comes from. Exercise does not induce weight loss.

    http://nymag.com/news/sports/38001/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. @Alden
    I stopped reading after the first 2 paragraphs.

    I couldn't figure out what he is writing about. Is it diabetes? Obesity? Healthy diets in general? The latest health food propaganda? Who sponsored the studies he cites? Is it another Pillsbury Mills and Wheat, corn and grain famers of America study that proves eggs cause heart attacks and people can avoid heart attacks by eating cereal and bread for breakfast?

    I wish all these food propagandists would acknowledge that diabetes is a disease and people with diabetes need different diets than people who don't have diabetes.

    Since everyone is sharing their personal experiences with food and weight I will share mine.

    After I got home after a year in hospitals, nursing homes and assisted living*, I though I'd get meals on wheels rather than get a driver to take me food shopping as I really couldn't walk through a supermarket anyway. Also my blood pressure was lower than normal which means I can't walk or stand up sometimes.

    Meals on Wheels purports to be the perfect FDA approved, low calorie, healthy type, ideal food according to the latest fads and fancies.

    1. It's low salt because as we all know, all old people suffer from high blood pressure and if they have salt they will die of heart attacks.

    2. Low calorie. I estimate the 3 meals were about 1,800 calories instead of 2,000.

    3. Low protein because meat causes heart attacks and obesity doesn't it? That's what all the experts and nutriotionists say isn't it. FDA and nutritionist experts say 3 ounces a day is about right for protein. To me, that's a vegetarian diet. But the experts know more than I of course Personally I think it was less than 3 ounces of meat a day

    4. Only 2 eggs a week because eggs cause cholesterol and eggs cause heart attacks and old people shouldn't eat eggs. Guess the anti egg people don't know that cholesterol is an endocrine secretion secreted by one's own body.

    5. High, very high, healthy carbs. There was no white rice, white bread, white cereal, even white noodles. The rice was brown and the other carbs were whole wheat in accordance with the latest nutrition myths and fables.

    6. vast amounts of vegetables and fruits. 5 servings of them a day according to the latest nutrition myths and fables. Much of the fruit was canned, but it was canned in water, not syrup so it was low calories.

    7 deserts only about once a week and they were one and all those weird tasting diabetes cakes, pies and ice cream.

    So there I was, no food in the house other than a nutritionally perfect low calorie, low protein, low unhealthy carbs, high healthy carbs and fruits and vegetables meals on wheels diet.


    SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

    What happened? First month I gained 10 pounds. Second month 12 pounds. At which point my clothes were too tight.

    So I went back to my usual diet: about 18 or 20 eggs a week, 2 eggs cooked in butter for breakfast and often boiled eggs for another meal. Lots of meat, like at 10 or 12 ounces of meat at dinner. White rice when I have curry. White bread because it has fewer calories than whole wheat bread but with lots of butter. Real ice cream instead of the diabetes ice cream that came with meals on wheels.

    I fasted 3 days a month after getting rid of meals on wheels. unfortunately fasting brings my blood pressure way, way down. But I got rid of those 22 pounds in 3 weeks. And haven't gained them back although I do fast 3 days a couple of times a month

    One thing I enjoy is people gasping when I salt my food. "Your blood pressure they gasp" "It's too low I reply" "But salt is bad for blood pressure"

    Anyway, that's my method for being a healthy thin old person; eggs and meat.

    *courtesy of our nations's immigration policy

    It’s mean people as you are expensive to the ideal balance between ”man” and nature…

    Less ”carnivorous” [expensive energetic people] would be good, even i believe ”bacon-lovers” tend to be more prone to be less empathetic, more psychopathic, … stupid…

    lack of empathy

    or lack of understanding of empathy, combined with reason …

    and the result is this current nightmare whole world is living thanks for the white trash xtrians and neo-messionics und jewish megalomaniacal retards…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    I admit to mo empathy for the food propaganda created by Jolly Green Giant, Pillsbury Mills, and the wheat and grain farmers .

    Some people will believe anything.
    , @Alden
    Mean people, meat people, Jewish retards expensive balance between man and nature? Psycopathetic lack of empathy?

    Is your post a result of google translate?

    Or are your eating habits some kind of weirdo religion instead of food?

    If you think it’s a sin to eat meat, fine, that’s your religion. Promulgate it all you want. But don’t expect a mass conversion.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. @Alden
    Thank you Aaron, a voice of reason and
    and skeptism in a sea of the naive and credulous who believe any thing they read about food.

    I think a lot of this healthy eating is just snobbery. “ I eat healthy according to the latest fads and fables, therefore I am superior to the proles and peasants who eat unhealthy”

    I admit I’m disdainful of food propaganda. It’s probably because I live in California and have been lectured about food all my life by the naive and credulous.

    Maybe you are propagandist of

    so-called

    ”meat”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    Not at all. I just noticed how much weight I gained on that high carb low protein low sodium no sugar FDA approved meals on wheels diet.
    , @RaceRealist88
    People with such extreme biases against meat-eaters are not logical at all.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. Alden says:
    @RaceRealist88
    "To my mind that is another false dichotomy."

    Not really because if one gets bigger then they must consume more energy to maintain their weight,

    "I think what makes obesity such a troublesome issue is that both directions of causality are present. In other words, we have a vicious cycle. The question then becomes how to convert that into the opposing virtuous cycle."

    The vicious cycle is insulin spikes spiking blood glucose which then lead to a vicious cycle of insulin causing insulin resistance, because the body is insulin resistant which then causes the body to produce more insulin due to its extreme resistance. That's the vicious cycle.

    "On another note, since we are talking about thermodynamics, how about our increasingly climate controlled environments as a contributing factor to obesity? I primarily mean the heating side–think of all those calories not required to keep our bodies at 98.6 degrees."

    Sounds intriguing. One paper I just came across:

    As ambient temperature decreases, energy expenditure (and energy intake) must increase to maintain thermal homeostasis.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3975627/

    Though that's obvious. And the body's physiology is homeodynamic, not homeostatic.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12805697

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0895717794901899

    Decades ago before HVAC, workplaces were warm in winter

    But the environmentalist liberals forced all buildings to install HVAC

    So every workplace is now freezing cold with cold wind blowing from ventilators every 3 feet in the ceiling, floor and in the walls.

    So workplaces are much colder than they were before 1975.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. Alden says:
    @RaceRealist88
    "Stealth is correct. A high carb plant based diet mixed with walking a couple miles a day is the best way to lose weight, be free of degenerative diseases, and live to a ripe old age. Excluded are: refined sugars, all fats, all dairy, all meat from dead murdered animals.."

    Stealth is incorrect. High carb diets are horrible for your insulin levels which then lead to obesity and diabetes. "all meat from dead murdered animals", nice try vegan. Parts of the SAD diet lead to obesity, and I agree about cutting sugar but not animal meat/fat. There is nothing wrong with it and it doesn't raise all cause mortality.

    http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(17)32252-3/abstract

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5475232/

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/26268692/

    The Lancet article, while an observational study, lends strong credence to the claim that high fat is not harmful (while the other citations I have provided buttress the point).

    "The Pritikin diet is the best example, and is now used widely as a cure for Type Two diabetes (which is entirely a lifestyle disease)."

    Low carb high fat diets are best for type II diabetics.

    "Most everything in a modern grocery store is bad for you. If it comes out of a can, a box, cellophane rapped packet, bag……..it’s likely filled with chemicals and preservatives and harmful to the body you are trapped in. You want your coronaries to resemble sludge filled sink traps and your joints falling apart at age 50, than partake of the modern american diet."

    Are you aware that dietary fat doesn't cause arterial clogging, but carbohydrates do, increasing saturated fatty acid levels in the blood. Carbs are the culprit, not sat fat itself.

    https://www.livescience.com/48969-heart-disease-diabetes-risks-carbohydrate-saturated-fat.html

    The modern American diet (SAD; standard American Diet) is horrible, but that doesn't mean that all aspects of it are (meat and animal fat) while a majority is bad (constantly eating, high carb, high fat, high sugar, hyperpalatable foods).

    Thanks for the information from medical sources not just frauds wanting to sell books

    My motto in life is the old French proverb “don’t listen to what he says, watch what he does”

    Since about 1980 every food faddist and scam artist has preached high carb low protein is the cure for obesity.
    And since 1980 Americans who follow the low protein high carb health food diets get fatter and fatter.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. Alden says:

    Why this puritanical obsession with what other people eat?

    Why this puritanical obsession with other people’s weight?

    Why this puritanical obsession with other people.?

    Isn’t going around bragging about what one eats a symptom of narcissism or snobbery or arrogance or something?

    Maybr people brag about what they eat because they have nothing else to brag about.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  102. Alden says:
    @CanSpeccy

    So why can’t men, especially all the single men who don’t live with women learn to make jam, can fruit and vegetables, make homemade bread, soup from scratch, and avoid all those foods that come in packages?

    I mean, what’s to stop them?
     

    Well maybe some do it. But mostly single males are doing what single males have to do: fighting to climb the ladder of wealth, power and social status, when they're not free to feed some girl with chocolates or a hamburger and coke.

    So women who have hard jobs and work long hours should make home made bread, can vegetables, make jam and jelly, cook everything from scratch but it’s perfectky ok for men who have the same demanding jobs to live on pizza and Burger King?

    Single men are the biggest consumers of fast food.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. AaronB says:
    @CanSpeccy

    The most intelligent thing to do would be to look at countries where people are thin, and at traditional diets, and consider ALL the facts.
     
    Good idea. Might also look at one's own country in the same way.

    I mean, is it really any wonder that Americans are the fattest people in the world with the rest of the Anglosphere doing their best to catch up, when so manyl spend so much time stuffing their guts with hamburgers, French fries, and fudge sundaes, washed down with Coke or Pepsi, then, to fill the gaps, going to the supermarket for a cartload of the cheapest food commodities processed by the addition of water, fructose syrup and a few dozen thickening, coloring, flavoring and texturizing chemicals, the products beautifully packaged and priced ten thousand percent over the price of the basic ingredients, and paid for at a check-out set beside a spread of candy bars plus the National Enquirer to insure the total obliteration of both bodily and mental health.

    But obesity, and general stupidity, is the price of feminism. No way now that women are going back to the kitchen, to prepare healthy meals from fresh vegetables, unprocessed meat and home-preserved fruit, home-made bread, etc.

    Well, you have to wonder why Americans eat so much. Other countries don’t.

    There’s plenty of junk food in Japan, and classic french dishes like steak frites is not so different from a hamburger and fries.

    I know plenty of vegetarians and home cookers who are fat.

    I think it’s not so much the food as the culture and psychology. Something is wrong with us on that level.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    Well, in Japan, the quantities are much smaller. At some point in the US, fast food went into a signaling spiral with cheap and large quantities of food that has had definitely negative results.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Alden
    They still have to eat. And why should they have to depend on a live in woman to cook for them?

    Here is a recipe for homemade tomato soup. Buy a big can of tomato juice. Dump in a pot. Boil for a few minutes. Taste. Add some salt and pepper if you want. To be a real gourmet, add some garlic salt and dry basil or oregano.

    Dinner

    Stick a potato in microwave. Push button Put a steak or pork chop in a frying pan. Turn on burner. Cook till done. Chop up lettuce.

    Eat dinner.

    Hey, that’s exactly what I do! And last time I checked, I was still losing weight.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    Just add a big blob of that jillion calorie a teaspoon salad dressing to the lettuce and you’ll gain weight.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. AaronB says:
    @Alden
    Thank you Aaron, a voice of reason and
    and skeptism in a sea of the naive and credulous who believe any thing they read about food.

    I think a lot of this healthy eating is just snobbery. “ I eat healthy according to the latest fads and fables, therefore I am superior to the proles and peasants who eat unhealthy”

    I admit I’m disdainful of food propaganda. It’s probably because I live in California and have been lectured about food all my life by the naive and credulous.

    Some of it is snobbery, you’re right, but I think there is a general sense that something is wrong with us and no one knows quite what.

    Since we’re materialists, we look at physical things for an explanation, and food is an obvious place to look.

    I think our obsession with food is really about our general unhappiness.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. AaronB says:
    @Bardon Kaldian

    Nutrition is one of those fields we know very little about. We know almost no more than we knew a hundred years ago.
     
    True. But, more than that- only food freaks & fanatics obsess over food. Man is more than what he eats.

    Exactly. We are materialists, so we obsess over food and health. Even health shouldn’t be our prime concern, not beyond a certain minimal point.

    But of course, we’re materialists, do what could be more important than physical health.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. utu says:
    @anon
    Europeans are no more dedicated to health than Americans, and no harder working or harder playing than Americans. And they love food and drink just as much as Americans do. Yet they weigh less. The difference is the food.

    The difference is the food.

    Yes to some extent, but also daily movements.

    Smaller apartments, smaller refrigerators, frequent daily shopping of food in neighborhood stores.
    Old cities with narrow streets, less time spent in cars.
    Less mobility so several generations of people live near by and thus better social connections.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. utu says:
    @CanSpeccy

    I thought legumes are beans were supposed to be healthy.
     
    Fava beans contain inhibitors of various digestive enzymes, including alpha-amylase, trypsin and chymotrypsin – as do other pulses and legumes, including peas and soybeans. However, the inhibitors are largely eliminated or destroyed by either soaking or cooking or both.

    Fava beans also contain an inhibitor of glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase, which can cause jaundice (that is, the inhibitor can cause jaundice, not the enzyme) in individuals with a genetically determined deficiency in the enzyme. Such deficiency is particularly common in the Mediterranean region, Africa and southern Asia.

    The Greeks were generally wary about beans and Pythagoras banned their consumption among his followers, possibly because he considered farting a distraction while considering a mathematical problem in depth.

    Except of fava beans there was no beans in “pre-Columbian” Europe. Out of legumes Europeans had peas, lentils and chick peas plus some lupin beans.

    Everything in moderation. Beans are good for you in moderation.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  109. utu says:
    @anon
    This is a huge and difficult subject. But to get you started -
    Avoid polyunsaturated vegetable oils
    Cook at home instead of eating out.Avoid fast foods.
    Use good saturated fats - butter, ghee, olive oil, beef fat, fish oils (salmon, sardines, herring, etc.), coconut oil, palm kernel oil
    Practice intermittent fasting - eat meals during an 8 hour period each day and don't eat the rest of the time until the next day's 8 hour period.
    Eat carbs only moderately - potatoes, sweet potatoes, rice. Avoid wheat and all grains except for white rice. You're still damaged by the other grains, even if you don't have a celiac condition or gluten sensitivity. The antinutrients in grain are bad for everyone, symptomatic or not.
    Avoid legumes and beans.
    Eat good meats, fish, seafood, vegetables and some fruits.
    Take (only some needed ones) supplements to make sure you get all the nutrients you need.

    Tired of me already, right? The folks who tell you it's simple are wrong, but they are easy to follow and they give you simple, easily remembered rules.
    And following them is why you're fat and diabetic or headed in that direction.

    Another pseudo-scientific wacko!

    Grains are good for you. Moderation is even better for you. This includes beans in moderation.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  110. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Bardon Kaldian

    Nutrition is one of those fields we know very little about. We know almost no more than we knew a hundred years ago.
     
    True. But, more than that- only food freaks & fanatics obsess over food. Man is more than what he eats.

    Re:

    Nutrition is one of those fields we know very little about. We know almost no more than we knew a hundred years ago.

    Actually, a hundred years ago almost nothing was known about nutrition. For example, it was not until the 1920′s that there was much progress on identification of vitamins. Now we know almost everything there is to be known about nutrition except possibly the role of certain trace elements.

    Amazingly, as knowledge about nutrition has advanced, the adequacy of Western diets, as driven by commercial interests, has seriously deteriorated. Most Europeans and North Americans, for example, are magnesium deficient, a result of changes in water supplies, in the mineral content of intensively cultivated fruit and vegetables, and the increased dependence on processed and fast foods.

    Most probably in large part as a result of magnesium deficiency (possibly aggravated by excess consumption of calcium in dairy products) most Americans are more or less nuts and half of them take anti-depressants or anti-psychotics, which is tremendously profitable for Big Pharma.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    Most probably in large part as a result of magnesium deficiency (possibly aggravated by excess consumption of calcium in dairy products) most Americans are more or less nuts and half of them take anti-depressants or anti-psychotics, which is tremendously profitable for Big Pharma.

    I think you may have magnesium deficiency that explains your nuttiness. The nuttiness of our age is exemplified by the motto "you are what you eat." It is culture that determines what we are. You are what you read, what you hear, what you watch. And since you hear "you are what you eat" all the time you end up believing it.

    The weight loss or weight gain issue is simple and basic: if Energy_Spent ≥ Energy_Absorbed you are losing weight and if Energy_Spent ≤ Energy_Absorbed you are gaining weight.

    Anybody who does not believe it should put himself on Auschwitz KL or Kolyma GULAG regime diet and work plan.
    , @Dave Pinsen
    I heard a scientist on a late night radio show in the U.S. that dabbles in science as well paranormal stuff blame obesity on Edison. He said that before electric lighting, people used to burn a lot more wood, and then use the wood ashes to fertilize their gardens, and the ashes created more nutrient dense vegetables. He claimed that we eat more today because we're deprived of certain minerals are wood burning ancestors had a surfeit of.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  111. Alden says:
    @Santoculto
    Maybe you are propagandist of

    so-called

    ''meat''

    Not at all. I just noticed how much weight I gained on that high carb low protein low sodium no sugar FDA approved meals on wheels diet.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. Alden says:
    @Santoculto
    It's mean people as you are expensive to the ideal balance between ''man'' and nature...

    Less ''carnivorous'' [expensive energetic people] would be good, even i believe ''bacon-lovers'' tend to be more prone to be less empathetic, more psychopathic, ... stupid...

    lack of empathy

    or lack of understanding of empathy, combined with reason ...

    and the result is this current nightmare whole world is living thanks for the white trash xtrians and neo-messionics und jewish megalomaniacal retards...

    I admit to mo empathy for the food propaganda created by Jolly Green Giant, Pillsbury Mills, and the wheat and grain farmers .

    Some people will believe anything.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    Some people will believe anything.

    Including people who think their personal experience can be extrapolated into universal laws. I meant you.
    , @Hu Mi Yu

    Ummm by the time carbs, any carbs including fruits and vegetables get through the GI tract into the blood steam they are one and all turned into glucose.
     
    No. They are a mixture of maltose, glucose, fructose, and galactose when they are absorbed into the blood.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digestion#Carbohydrate_digestion

    Glucose is glucose, whether it enters the mouth as plain white or brown sugar, a cheap or expensive candy bar, or an organic pesticide free raised vegetable or whole grain bread from a health food store.
     
    Sugar is sucrose which is digested into 50% glucose and 50% fructose. A candy bar is mostly fat, and American bread contains sugar. All of these things matter.

    Take a physiology course.
     
    I did, along with biochemistry and biology. Because of genetic diversity, we each have different food intolerances. Those intolerances are what caused my diabetes. But my diet probably will not cure your diabetes. Vegan works for some, low-carb works for many, Mediterannean for others. I have to avoid fructose and galactose.

    The only diet that will cure everyone is starvation, and that has uh, unpleasant side effects.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. Alden says:
    @nsa
    Familiar with most the people you mention. Notice the hostility here when you introduce a little common sense. The USA is now overrun with degenerative disease, most of which is easily preventable with a shred of self-control and education. Hip and knee replacement, coronaries than resemble sink traps, diabetes....all are diet related and preventable. The average adult american female now weighs 180 lbs. If you want to go on a whale watching expedition, than visit a local walmart. The truth is that most the stuff in an american grocery store is unhealthy or downright poisonous. If it comes in a can, box, bag, cellophane, or bottle ...do not eat or drink it.
    Again, this is very simple. Eat plant based whole foods and fruit when you can obtain it. Avoid all fats, dairy, refined sugar (poison), refined anything, and especially murdered animal parts. Stay away from MDs and do not ingest anything they prescribe. Walk a couple miles a day. You want a friend to walk with, get a doggy pal. As to Adventists, most of them refuse to "eat anything with a pulse"....the ones I know look disgustingly healthy and they all live long lives free of degenerative disease.

    Ummm by the time carbs, any carbs including fruits and vegetables get through the GI tract into the blood steam they are one and all turned into glucose.

    Glucose is glucose, whether it enters the mouth as plain white or brown sugar, a cheap or expensive candy bar, or an organic pesticide free raised vegetable or whole grain bread from a health food store.

    Take a physiology course. Protein builds and repairs muscles, bones and blood. Glucose builds fat and the brain.

    All carbs from lettuce to sugar turn into glucose in the intestines and create fat.

    All protein turns into iron in the intestines and builds muscles, blood and bones.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    Glucose is glucose, whether it enters the mouth as plain white or brown sugar, a cheap or expensive candy bar, or an organic pesticide free raised vegetable or whole grain bread from a health food store.
     
    Are you familiar with the Glycemic Index idea? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycemic_index

    While skimming that link just now I found out something I did not know. Though highly correlated with GI, the insulin response can diverge from what one would expect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insulin_index

    high-protein foods and bakery products that are rich in fat and refined carbohydrates "elicit insulin responses that were disproportionately higher than their glycemic responses."
     
    , @JL

    All protein turns into iron in the intestines and builds muscles, blood and bones.
     
    Not so, your liver can convert protein into glucose via gluconeogenesis. It's one of the reasons protein intake should be limited. T2D sufferers, in particular, need to be especially careful on this front.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluconeogenesis

    I was initially skeptical of the diet/IQ link, but the posts of nsa and utu are leading to me reconsider that the theory actually has some merit.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. utu says:
    @CanSpeccy
    Re:

    Nutrition is one of those fields we know very little about. We know almost no more than we knew a hundred years ago.
     
    Actually, a hundred years ago almost nothing was known about nutrition. For example, it was not until the 1920's that there was much progress on identification of vitamins. Now we know almost everything there is to be known about nutrition except possibly the role of certain trace elements.

    Amazingly, as knowledge about nutrition has advanced, the adequacy of Western diets, as driven by commercial interests, has seriously deteriorated. Most Europeans and North Americans, for example, are magnesium deficient, a result of changes in water supplies, in the mineral content of intensively cultivated fruit and vegetables, and the increased dependence on processed and fast foods.

    Most probably in large part as a result of magnesium deficiency (possibly aggravated by excess consumption of calcium in dairy products) most Americans are more or less nuts and half of them take anti-depressants or anti-psychotics, which is tremendously profitable for Big Pharma.

    Most probably in large part as a result of magnesium deficiency (possibly aggravated by excess consumption of calcium in dairy products) most Americans are more or less nuts and half of them take anti-depressants or anti-psychotics, which is tremendously profitable for Big Pharma.

    I think you may have magnesium deficiency that explains your nuttiness. The nuttiness of our age is exemplified by the motto “you are what you eat.” It is culture that determines what we are. You are what you read, what you hear, what you watch. And since you hear “you are what you eat” all the time you end up believing it.

    The weight loss or weight gain issue is simple and basic: if Energy_Spent ≥ Energy_Absorbed you are losing weight and if Energy_Spent ≤ Energy_Absorbed you are gaining weight.

    Anybody who does not believe it should put himself on Auschwitz KL or Kolyma GULAG regime diet and work plan.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    Anybody who does not believe it should put himself on Auschwitz KL...
     
    LOL. Anyone who needs make reference to Auschwitz to prove the conservation of mass has to be some kind of nut, magnesium deficient or otherwise.
    , @RaceRealist88
    " if Energy_Spent ≥ Energy_Absorbed you are losing weight and if Energy_Spent ≤ Energy_Absorbed you are gaining weight."

    CICO is wrong. Food source matters too.

    "Anybody who does not believe it should put himself on Auschwitz KL or Kolyma GULAG regime diet and work plan."

    This was studied. See Ancel Keys's starvation experiment:

    Ancel Keys estimated that these subjects were eating roughly 3,200 calories per day. They were put onto a ‘semi-starvation’ diet of 1,560 calories per day with foods similar to those available in war-torn Europe at the time – potatoes, turnips, bread, and macaroni. They were then monitored for a further 20 weeks after the semi-starvation period.

    ...

    Resting metabolic rate dropped by 40%. Interestingly, this is not that far off of the previous study from 1917 that showed TEE decreased by 30%. In other words, the body was shutting down. Let’s think about this again from the body’s point of view. The body is accustomed to getting 3,200 calories per day and now it gets 1,560. In order to preserve itself, it implements across the board reductions in energy.


    https://idmprogram.com/the-biology-of-starvation-calories-part-v/

    Jason Fung decimates CI/CO. The starvation experiment proves that calories in/out are not independent of one another. (Keeping in mind that 1500 kcal per day is nowhere near starvation, so this wasn't even a true starvation experiment.)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  115. utu says:
    @Alden
    I admit to mo empathy for the food propaganda created by Jolly Green Giant, Pillsbury Mills, and the wheat and grain farmers .

    Some people will believe anything.

    Some people will believe anything.

    Including people who think their personal experience can be extrapolated into universal laws. I meant you.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    I never claimed my personal experience extrapolated into universal laws.

    But at least my personal experience of gaining 22 pounds in 2 months of low protein, low fat, fake sugar diabetic deserts and high “healthy” carbs incorporating all the latest fads in correct diets was an experience.

    It wasn’t a naive gullible credulous parroting of the latest food fads promulgated by food producers urging the gullible to eat their food A instead of a rival food B
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  116. @AaronB
    Well, you have to wonder why Americans eat so much. Other countries don't.

    There's plenty of junk food in Japan, and classic french dishes like steak frites is not so different from a hamburger and fries.

    I know plenty of vegetarians and home cookers who are fat.

    I think it's not so much the food as the culture and psychology. Something is wrong with us on that level.

    Well, in Japan, the quantities are much smaller. At some point in the US, fast food went into a signaling spiral with cheap and large quantities of food that has had definitely negative results.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AaronB
    Right, portions are much smaller. Also in France, btw.

    But this goes back to culture. Why do the Japanese prefer smaller portions. Why do the Japanese think small is beautiful, and Americans think the bigger the better.

    I believe it really goes back to first principles - ones attitude to ego, ones attitude to materialism, etc. It seems to me someone who likes to see himself as self assertive and strong and aggressive and cares only for material things will be prone to eating more, huge portions of steak, etc, he'll drive an SUV.

    I like to trace everything back to first principles. It's not a coincidence Anglo cultures are the fattest. These attitudes may seem to have nothing to do with eating, but everything is related.

    I admit tho the Mexican obesity rate doesn't fit my theory very well. Mexicans are warm chilled out people don't have huge egos.

    Maybe it's the anxiety of living so close to America.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. @RaceRealist88
    "This is a bit cute and vulgar for my taste, but has a surprising amount of good information about the calories in/out (CICO) argument: http://physiqonomics.com/calories/"

    This is a pretty good article but it took a turn for the worse at the end there. Mark Haub? See the article I cited in my previous comment about him.

    Though if people in the CICO camp want to use one person as an example then I can too. Look at Sam Feltam who ate over 5000 kcal per day on a low carb high fat diet and gained hardly any weight.

    Sam Feltham ate +5,000 kcal per day for 21 days and only gained 1.3 kg when he should have gained 7.3 kg based on the amount of kcal he ate.

    http://live.smashthefat.com/why-i-didnt-get-fat/

    This is even seen in large scale studies. People eating the same diet for one month all gain/lose differing amounts of weight. If the CICO paradigm held true, then everyone should have gained exactly 27 pounds at the end of this study, however there was wide variation in weight gain. Quoting Dr. Sandra Aamodt's 2016 book Why Diets Make Us Fat

    Like nearsightedness, environmental influences on weight also mostly affect the genetically vulnerable, although we understand the details of the process in only rare cases. Fitness gains on a standardized exercise program vary from one person to another largely because of differences in their genes. When identical twins, men in their early twenties, were fed an extra thousand calories per day for about three months, each pair showed similar weight gains . In contrast, the gain varied across twin pairs, ranging from nine to twenty-nine pounds, even though the caloric imbalance was the same for everyone. An individual’s genes also influence weight loss. When another group of identical twins burned a thousand more calories per day through exercise while maintaining a stable food intake in an in-patient facility, their losses ranged from two to eighteen pounds and were even more similar within twin pairs than weight gain. (Aamodt, 2016 pg. 138)

    That destroys the CICO paradigm right there. Here is the reference: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9164270

    "This argument actually reminds me of the IQ heritability argument. It is a classic false dichotomy with the (IMHO) first order effects of thermodynamics and genetic inheritance being incorrectly dichotomized to all or none. The existence of second order effects does not make the first order effects irrelevant."

    True. It's like the nature/nurture false dichotomy as well (which also comes into play in this discussion).

    "- Not all metabolic pathways are the same. Efficiency and the number of conversions matter. RR’s final link goes into some detail concerning fat storage as a third compartment (it is worth noting that the First Law of Thermodynamics refers to closed systems, which the body is, 2,3,4 or however many compartments)."

    Correct. That shows why invoking the second law is fallacious. Human bodies, furthermore, are not bomb calorimeters. So putting in 200 kcal doesn't mean that the out will be 200 kcal as well, since the thermic effects of food (TEF) comes into play along with other factors that affect the out part of the equation. The 'in' can be held constant (attempted to, at least) while the out is at the mercy of human physiology and the brain.

    "- Perhaps the best example of efficiency is aerobic vs. anaerobic metabolism for converting glucose to ATP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_respiration (~18x difference in efficiency! http://www.uwyo.edu/bio1000skh/lecture15.htm )"

    Yes. This is best shown in black vs white muscle fibers and how they show elite differences in sprinting (West Africans). Blacks have more type II fibers on average so they will convert more glucose into ATP, they will also produce ATP faster as well as regenerate it. ATP powers all cellular functioning. (I'd personally put ATP high up in the chain of causality in biology.)

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/12/30/malaria-the-sickle-cell-trait-and-fast-twitch-muscle-fibers/

    "- Then there is the issue of burning fat vs. carbohydrate as metabolic fuel: https://ultrarunning.com/features/metabolic-efficiency-becoming-a-better-butter-burner/ These are different metabolic pathways and relative use may vary because of a number of factors (e.g. intensity, genetics, training)."

    Differences in 'exercise' would produce the effect. Whether or not you do anaerobic or aerobic exercise dictates which pathways your body uses energy from.

    "- It does not affect thermodynamics, but satiety and tendency to induce cravings (e.g. by taste, glucose spiking/crashing, or addiction type responses) are IMHO key to weight loss in the real world."

    Which is why low carb high fat diets are best. They're best for satiety and insulin sensitivity.

    "RaceRealist88 is making some good points against CICO (the false dichotomy version of CICO where it is the only thing that matters), but his statements “And calories in/out? Don’t make me laugh. A calorie is not a calorie and saying so is fallacious. ” and “The First Law of Thermodynamics are irrelevant to human physiology.” are IMHO just him being hyperbolic."

    See my reply to Dr. Thompson. I clarified my position. First Law is irrelevant because it tells us nothing about causation; invoking the Second Law is fallacious due to, as you discussed in your comment, how food is processed through different metabolic pathways among other things. That paper by Feinman and Fine is really good.

    Yes, the out part of the equation is extremely complicated, more complicated then CICO purists would allow.

    I have just spent some time diverted to and via the link to
    the “notpoliticallycorrect” site wrt sickle cells and I see a number of articles by RaceRealist that seem pretty good (also AfroSapiens who has made brief appearances here) and so I seek confirmation that you are both that RaceRealist as well as RaceRealist88 on UR??????

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    'I have just spent some time diverted to and via the link to
    the “notpoliticallycorrect” site wrt sickle cells and I see a number of articles by RaceRealist that seem pretty good (also AfroSapiens who has made brief appearances here) and so I seek confirmation that you are both that RaceRealist as well as RaceRealist88 on UR??????"

    Yes that is me.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  118. I take Jame’s point about diet being an IQ test, because so many people do not believe that the fundamental laws of physics apply to the human body.

    My take, it’s not about IQ, diet is primarily a religious purity issue, whether the people giving diet advice realize they are religious or not.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    "I take Jame’s point about diet being an IQ test, because so many people do not believe that the fundamental laws of physics apply to the human body."

    Care to elaborate? I already discussed the First and Second Law. In case you didn't see:

    "So, as you reduce your caloric intake to 1200 calories in, the body is forced to reduce it’s metabolism to only 1200 calories. No energy is available anywhere else. This is precisely what happened on the Biggest Loser as seen in the study featured in the New York Times. This is also precisely what happens during any caloric reduction diet.

    That is why these diets are doomed to fail. Studies of this strategy estimate failure rates at 99%. Notice that the First Law of Thermodynamics is not being broken in any way. It is irrelevant."

    https://www.dietdoctor.com/first-law-thermodynamics-utterly-irrelevant

    The second law of thermodynamics says that variation of efficiency for different metabolic pathways is to be expected. Thus, ironically the dictum that a “calorie is a calorie” violates the second law of thermodynamics, as a matter of principle.

    https://nutritionj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1475-2891-3-9

    People who don't understand human physiology and think that calories in/out are independent of each other and that 'the first law is relevant' and 'a calorie is a calorie' are wrong and dogmatic in their views which ends up hurting people in the long run.

    "My take, it’s not about IQ, diet is primarily a religious purity issue, whether the people giving diet advice realize they are religious or not."

    You're aware this holds for pretty much everything, right? It seems that it's your religion to believe that the First Law is somehow relevant to human physiology. It's not.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. @nsa
    Familiar with most the people you mention. Notice the hostility here when you introduce a little common sense. The USA is now overrun with degenerative disease, most of which is easily preventable with a shred of self-control and education. Hip and knee replacement, coronaries than resemble sink traps, diabetes....all are diet related and preventable. The average adult american female now weighs 180 lbs. If you want to go on a whale watching expedition, than visit a local walmart. The truth is that most the stuff in an american grocery store is unhealthy or downright poisonous. If it comes in a can, box, bag, cellophane, or bottle ...do not eat or drink it.
    Again, this is very simple. Eat plant based whole foods and fruit when you can obtain it. Avoid all fats, dairy, refined sugar (poison), refined anything, and especially murdered animal parts. Stay away from MDs and do not ingest anything they prescribe. Walk a couple miles a day. You want a friend to walk with, get a doggy pal. As to Adventists, most of them refuse to "eat anything with a pulse"....the ones I know look disgustingly healthy and they all live long lives free of degenerative disease.

    Once again you have stated “avoid all fats.”

    Good luck with that!!!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  120. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Remember that death is the eventual result of too much living.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  121. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @utu
    Most probably in large part as a result of magnesium deficiency (possibly aggravated by excess consumption of calcium in dairy products) most Americans are more or less nuts and half of them take anti-depressants or anti-psychotics, which is tremendously profitable for Big Pharma.

    I think you may have magnesium deficiency that explains your nuttiness. The nuttiness of our age is exemplified by the motto "you are what you eat." It is culture that determines what we are. You are what you read, what you hear, what you watch. And since you hear "you are what you eat" all the time you end up believing it.

    The weight loss or weight gain issue is simple and basic: if Energy_Spent ≥ Energy_Absorbed you are losing weight and if Energy_Spent ≤ Energy_Absorbed you are gaining weight.

    Anybody who does not believe it should put himself on Auschwitz KL or Kolyma GULAG regime diet and work plan.

    Anybody who does not believe it should put himself on Auschwitz KL…

    LOL. Anyone who needs make reference to Auschwitz to prove the conservation of mass has to be some kind of nut, magnesium deficient or otherwise.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    Anyone who needs make reference to Auschwitz

    Actually I have spoken from a personal experience so I am not just anyone here. An aunt of my father was very overweight before the WWII. She survived Auschwitz where she lost a lot of weight and then "lived happily ever after." I remember her well. As a kid I sometimes heard "Auschwitz was good for her" spoken by my dad who had a peculiar sense of humor. (BTW, she was not the only family member who was in Auschwitz. Some others died there.) This was in times when the rigid narrative of Holocaust was not established yet and did not take over our brains, including the magnesium deficient ones like yours, that somehow made us lose ability to think soberly when the word Auschwitz is uttered. Anyway I would not blame magnesium for this rigidity. Or do you think Jews were particularly magnesium deficient after WWII? Anyway, I am for normalizing Auschwitz.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  122. res says:
    @Alden
    Ummm by the time carbs, any carbs including fruits and vegetables get through the GI tract into the blood steam they are one and all turned into glucose.

    Glucose is glucose, whether it enters the mouth as plain white or brown sugar, a cheap or expensive candy bar, or an organic pesticide free raised vegetable or whole grain bread from a health food store.

    Take a physiology course. Protein builds and repairs muscles, bones and blood. Glucose builds fat and the brain.

    All carbs from lettuce to sugar turn into glucose in the intestines and create fat.

    All protein turns into iron in the intestines and builds muscles, blood and bones.

    Glucose is glucose, whether it enters the mouth as plain white or brown sugar, a cheap or expensive candy bar, or an organic pesticide free raised vegetable or whole grain bread from a health food store.

    Are you familiar with the Glycemic Index idea? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycemic_index

    While skimming that link just now I found out something I did not know. Though highly correlated with GI, the insulin response can diverge from what one would expect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insulin_index

    high-protein foods and bakery products that are rich in fat and refined carbohydrates “elicit insulin responses that were disproportionately higher than their glycemic responses.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    Though highly correlated with GI, the insulin response can diverge from what one would expect
     
    Yes, depending on food source, blood glucose make spike rapidly and very high, or rise moderately but over a sustained period. The difference in outcome could be that between a medical emergency and the prolonged maintenance of a healthy energy level.
    , @RaceRealist88
    Insulin index > glycemic index. The insulin index has foods on it that are not on the glycemic index but spike blood glucose higher despite eliciting no insulin response.

    https://idmprogram.com/insulin-index/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @res

    Glucose is glucose, whether it enters the mouth as plain white or brown sugar, a cheap or expensive candy bar, or an organic pesticide free raised vegetable or whole grain bread from a health food store.
     
    Are you familiar with the Glycemic Index idea? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycemic_index

    While skimming that link just now I found out something I did not know. Though highly correlated with GI, the insulin response can diverge from what one would expect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insulin_index

    high-protein foods and bakery products that are rich in fat and refined carbohydrates "elicit insulin responses that were disproportionately higher than their glycemic responses."
     

    Though highly correlated with GI, the insulin response can diverge from what one would expect

    Yes, depending on food source, blood glucose make spike rapidly and very high, or rise moderately but over a sustained period. The difference in outcome could be that between a medical emergency and the prolonged maintenance of a healthy energy level.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    Gotta think of insulin, too. Insulin controls blood sugar. Spiking your blood sugar spikes insulin which leads to insulin resistance then diabesity.

    https://idmprogram.com/insulin-resistance-protects-insulin-t2d-26/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  124. utu says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Anybody who does not believe it should put himself on Auschwitz KL...
     
    LOL. Anyone who needs make reference to Auschwitz to prove the conservation of mass has to be some kind of nut, magnesium deficient or otherwise.

    Anyone who needs make reference to Auschwitz

    Actually I have spoken from a personal experience so I am not just anyone here. An aunt of my father was very overweight before the WWII. She survived Auschwitz where she lost a lot of weight and then “lived happily ever after.” I remember her well. As a kid I sometimes heard “Auschwitz was good for her” spoken by my dad who had a peculiar sense of humor. (BTW, she was not the only family member who was in Auschwitz. Some others died there.) This was in times when the rigid narrative of Holocaust was not established yet and did not take over our brains, including the magnesium deficient ones like yours, that somehow made us lose ability to think soberly when the word Auschwitz is uttered. Anyway I would not blame magnesium for this rigidity. Or do you think Jews were particularly magnesium deficient after WWII? Anyway, I am for normalizing Auschwitz.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    This was in times when the rigid narrative of Holocaust was not established yet and did not take over our brains, including the magnesium deficient ones like yours
     
    Sour and basically off the wall as usual. And hardly a rational explanation for your previous comments. Perhaps you have eaten too many beans.

    As for whether Jews are or were magnesium deficient, it's not the sort of question I worry about, or would even consider sensible to reflect upon.

    Bugger the Jews, I say. Why should everyone obsess about them? I wish them well, but I am more concerned about my own people than about them, just as they, for most part it would seem, are vastly more concerned about themselves than for anyone else.

    Glad your aunt survived Auschwitz, by the way.

    , @Dave Pinsen
    My guess is that the Holocaust selected for endomorphs, because it killed more of the ectomorphs.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. @bluestateblues

    Eat less/move more does not work.
     
    I dunno. I lost 90 pounds by eating less and moving more. YMMV, of course.

    I think it depends on your hormonal balance at the time. Mostly Move More does nothing for me but I have had two dramatic weight loss events that were linked to move more or accurately, Lift More. But this was at a very intense level, once training to row at inter university level and once during another intensive exercise bout where I switched from cardio to gym. OTOH training for and running marathons did nothing. For me, it has to be high intensity anaerobic exercise.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    Lifting more didn't help my body weight, but I was already diabetic when I started it. But I do think it's helped with controlling blood sugar.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  126. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @utu
    Anyone who needs make reference to Auschwitz

    Actually I have spoken from a personal experience so I am not just anyone here. An aunt of my father was very overweight before the WWII. She survived Auschwitz where she lost a lot of weight and then "lived happily ever after." I remember her well. As a kid I sometimes heard "Auschwitz was good for her" spoken by my dad who had a peculiar sense of humor. (BTW, she was not the only family member who was in Auschwitz. Some others died there.) This was in times when the rigid narrative of Holocaust was not established yet and did not take over our brains, including the magnesium deficient ones like yours, that somehow made us lose ability to think soberly when the word Auschwitz is uttered. Anyway I would not blame magnesium for this rigidity. Or do you think Jews were particularly magnesium deficient after WWII? Anyway, I am for normalizing Auschwitz.

    This was in times when the rigid narrative of Holocaust was not established yet and did not take over our brains, including the magnesium deficient ones like yours

    Sour and basically off the wall as usual. And hardly a rational explanation for your previous comments. Perhaps you have eaten too many beans.

    As for whether Jews are or were magnesium deficient, it’s not the sort of question I worry about, or would even consider sensible to reflect upon.

    Bugger the Jews, I say. Why should everyone obsess about them? I wish them well, but I am more concerned about my own people than about them, just as they, for most part it would seem, are vastly more concerned about themselves than for anyone else.

    Glad your aunt survived Auschwitz, by the way.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  127. AaronB says:
    @Daniel Chieh
    Well, in Japan, the quantities are much smaller. At some point in the US, fast food went into a signaling spiral with cheap and large quantities of food that has had definitely negative results.

    Right, portions are much smaller. Also in France, btw.

    But this goes back to culture. Why do the Japanese prefer smaller portions. Why do the Japanese think small is beautiful, and Americans think the bigger the better.

    I believe it really goes back to first principles – ones attitude to ego, ones attitude to materialism, etc. It seems to me someone who likes to see himself as self assertive and strong and aggressive and cares only for material things will be prone to eating more, huge portions of steak, etc, he’ll drive an SUV.

    I like to trace everything back to first principles. It’s not a coincidence Anglo cultures are the fattest. These attitudes may seem to have nothing to do with eating, but everything is related.

    I admit tho the Mexican obesity rate doesn’t fit my theory very well. Mexicans are warm chilled out people don’t have huge egos.

    Maybe it’s the anxiety of living so close to America.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    Supposedly the Mexican obesity rate is higher than America’s. Mexicans always ate rice beans and corn with just a little meat because they were poor.

    Americans didn’t get on the rice beans bread corn bread and potatoes diet until wages went down related to the cost of living in the 1970’s.

    At which point the government and liberals decided to make the best of it and told everybody that a poor people’s high carb diet was healthy

    After 20 years of high carb low protein obesity was high. 40 years after high carb low protein obesity was higher.

    40 years and 200 million obese people are the proof that high carb low protein causes obesity.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  128. @res
    Interesting link. Thanks.

    I confess to being a bit baffled by this being considered so important (isn't it obvious?):

    In an article published today in Clinical Chemistry’s Special Issue on Obesity, my colleagues in Boston and I used MR to test whether higher insulin secretion throughout one’s life (the exposure) is related to higher body weight (the outcome)— a key assumption of the CIM.
     
    Especially given that the association would hold under either direction of causation they discussed.

    Regarding insulin, it seems to me there are two obvious effects of insulin in play:
    - Increasing cell nutrient uptake.
    - High glycemic index foods causing insulin spikes followed by glucose crashes causing increased food intake.

    Any thoughts on which of these (or other effects) is most important?

    Do you use blood glucose, HbA1c, and/or insulin measures in your nutritional practice? Anything else?

    “I confess to being a bit baffled by this being considered so important (isn’t it obvious?)”

    It is obvious but it lends credence to the carbohydrate-insulin model of obesity.

    “Especially given that the association would hold under either direction of causation they discussed.”

    They tested the other model (genetic predisposition to obesity didn’t predict high insulin) and it didn’t hold. The causation goes ‘genetic predisposition’ for elevated insulin. Glucose-stimulated insulin secretion is causally related to BMI.

    “Regarding insulin, it seems to me there are two obvious effects of insulin in play:
    - Increasing cell nutrient uptake.
    - High glycemic index foods causing insulin spikes followed by glucose crashes causing increased food intake.

    Any thoughts on which of these (or other effects) is most important?”

    More important regarding obesity? It’s because elevated insulin causes insulin resistance which causes elevated insulin since the body is already insulin resistant which makes the body more insulin resistant etc. It’s a vicious cycle. When insulin is high, fat cannot be unlocked from the adipocyte, as the body has glucose from carbohydrate consumption to use for energy and it leaves the fat cells untouched. The physiological effect of insulin effectively ‘locking’ the fat cell is one of the most important factors, along with perpetually elevated insulin levels.

    “Do you use blood glucose, HbA1c, and/or insulin measures in your nutritional practice? Anything else?”

    Fasting blood glucose is most important to identify diabetes/pre-diabetes. HbA1c (glucose control) is critical too. Exercise and LCHF/LCKD helps with this (see the cites in my first comment).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  129. @Stealth
    "Stealth is incorrect. High carb diets are horrible for your insulin levels which then lead to obesity and diabetes."

    Animal protein causes insulin to rise, too, something that is conveniently forgotten - or just not known in the first place - by advocates of the Atkins diet. If meat and dairy are so good for you, then why are the longest lived peoples on Earth largely vegetarian? You could tell me the Seventh Day Adventists live to their late eighties because they don't smoke and drink, but at the very least that means that the diet itself isn't less healthy than the Atkins Diet*. Are you going to tell me next that they would live to a hundred and twenty if they just stayed in ketosis?

    Go to nutritionfacts.org. I don't feel like getting into an NIH link war, so I'll just send you there. Every article and video has citations.

    *I derisively call any high fat/low carb regimen the Atkins Diet. The guy had a lot of copycats who recycled his ideas, adding cosmetic differences, to sell their own books.

    “Animal protein causes insulin to rise, too, something that is conveniently forgotten – or just not known in the first place – by advocates of the Atkins diet.”

    I am aware. I like high protein diet for relatively sedentary people (compared to people who weightlift/strength train).

    “If meat and dairy are so good for you, then why are the longest lived peoples on Earth largely vegetarian? You could tell me the Seventh Day Adventists live to their late eighties because they don’t smoke and drink, but at the very least that means that the diet itself isn’t less healthy than the Atkins Diet*. Are you going to tell me next that they would live to a hundred and twenty if they just stayed in ketosis?”

    No I won’t tell you that they’d live to 120 if they stayed in ketosis. Seventh Day Adventists are mutliethnic, but after controlling for ethnicity, physical acitivity, etc, vegans had a lower BMI etc than nonvegetarians.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2671114/

    This can be attributed to the nonvegans’ SAD (Standard American Diet) diet, full of processed carbs. Studies that compare these diets and show all of these negative things about meat consumption are only observational studies. For instance SAD dieters are more likely to be smokers and not exercise. People who take their health and lifestyles seriously live longer. It’s not shocking.

    “*I derisively call any high fat/low carb regimen the Atkins Diet. The guy had a lot of copycats who recycled his ideas, adding cosmetic differences, to sell their own books.”

    Any examples?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stealth
    Sugarbusters, Paleo, South Beach, etc.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  130. @Alden
    There is a big difference between being educated and believing the latest fads and superstitions about food.

    Anyone old enough to remember when chocolate caused acne and pimples?

    What I find interesting is that about 5 years after all the health experts and educated people started believing that low protein, high carb diets were the healthiest obesity rose and rose.

    The rise in obesity started during the late 70s, after fat was demonized and carbs were championed. It’s something in the environment that occurred around that time to cause this. Which is the introduction of high sugar, high carb, highly processed, calorie dense foods.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    The high carb propaganda of the 1970s had a lot to do with wage stagnation and price inflation

    The average person just couldn’t afford a lot of meat and fish any more. So Americans were forced by necessity to go to the rice beans noodles tortillas bread and potatoes diets of the poor.

    The government FDA suddenly discovered that meat was unhealthy and a high carb diet was healthy.

    There was already plenty of processed and sugary food at the time Young Liberals being naive and gullible, decided a poor peasant diets was cool because it was different from the prosperous middle class meat and potatoes meals if their parents
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. @Biff
    If you want to lose weight go on a soup only diet, and dispose of all utensils in your house except chopsticks. It’ll work. Trust me.

    “If you want to lose weight go on a soup only diet, and dispose of all utensils in your house except chopsticks. It’ll work. Trust me.”

    Or just fast a few times a week (read Jason Fung on fasting) and eat sensibly (not too much processed food). It’ll work. Trust me.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  132. @nsa
    Familiar with most the people you mention. Notice the hostility here when you introduce a little common sense. The USA is now overrun with degenerative disease, most of which is easily preventable with a shred of self-control and education. Hip and knee replacement, coronaries than resemble sink traps, diabetes....all are diet related and preventable. The average adult american female now weighs 180 lbs. If you want to go on a whale watching expedition, than visit a local walmart. The truth is that most the stuff in an american grocery store is unhealthy or downright poisonous. If it comes in a can, box, bag, cellophane, or bottle ...do not eat or drink it.
    Again, this is very simple. Eat plant based whole foods and fruit when you can obtain it. Avoid all fats, dairy, refined sugar (poison), refined anything, and especially murdered animal parts. Stay away from MDs and do not ingest anything they prescribe. Walk a couple miles a day. You want a friend to walk with, get a doggy pal. As to Adventists, most of them refuse to "eat anything with a pulse"....the ones I know look disgustingly healthy and they all live long lives free of degenerative disease.

    “Avoid all fats”

    Why?

    “especially murdered animal parts”

    Can you hide your true intentions better? You were doing pretty good until this. I bet you hate Nina Teicholz.

    “Stay away from MDs and do not ingest anything they prescribe.”

    Eating things ‘with a pulse’ is good. Christmas and Thanksgiving are great because of the turkey. I love turkey.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  133. JL says:
    @Alden
    Ummm by the time carbs, any carbs including fruits and vegetables get through the GI tract into the blood steam they are one and all turned into glucose.

    Glucose is glucose, whether it enters the mouth as plain white or brown sugar, a cheap or expensive candy bar, or an organic pesticide free raised vegetable or whole grain bread from a health food store.

    Take a physiology course. Protein builds and repairs muscles, bones and blood. Glucose builds fat and the brain.

    All carbs from lettuce to sugar turn into glucose in the intestines and create fat.

    All protein turns into iron in the intestines and builds muscles, blood and bones.

    All protein turns into iron in the intestines and builds muscles, blood and bones.

    Not so, your liver can convert protein into glucose via gluconeogenesis. It’s one of the reasons protein intake should be limited. T2D sufferers, in particular, need to be especially careful on this front.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluconeogenesis

    I was initially skeptical of the diet/IQ link, but the posts of nsa and utu are leading to me reconsider that the theory actually has some merit.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    "Not so, your liver can convert protein into glucose via gluconeogenesis. It’s one of the reasons protein intake should be limited. T2D sufferers, in particular, need to be especially careful on this front."

    Yes. This is well known. It's why protein is kept low to moderate.

    https://idmprogram.com/how-much-protein-is-excessive/

    "I was initially skeptical of the diet/IQ link, but the posts of nsa and utu are leading to me reconsider that the theory actually has some merit."

    Be skeptical, because it's reaching.

    , @Alden
    The protein in blood doesn’t get to the liver because it all goes into building bones, muscles and blood.

    Physiology 101 and why orthopedic patients are given high protein diets.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  134. @AaronB
    Nutrition is one of those fields we know very little about. We know almost no more than we knew a hundred years ago.

    It's amusing to see so many people write so much bullshit about it with such confidence. Gary Taubes writes massive learned tomes about it, but his theories don't match up with reality.

    Not that he cares - reality is no match for a simple, elegant theory that doesn't work. That's how our elites think today. It's like IQ.

    The most intelligent thing to do would be to look at countries where people are thin, and at traditional diets, and consider ALL the facts.

    No one ever looks at psychological factors in weight gain - our materialism says that it has to be some chemichal in our food. Something physical.

    But maybe anxiety makes people overeat, maybe hopelessness, maybe a culture that tells you to enjoy yourself without limit, maybe even materialism makes people overeat.

    Countries where people are thin, Japan, France, etc, do seem to have some peculiar cultural features that fat Anglo cultures don't have.

    We should look into it, but we won't, because we suffer from a bad case of learned stupidity, and we'll just continue to argue about carbs and protein and other sciency sounding chemicals.

    “It’s amusing to see so many people write so much bullshit about it with such confidence. Gary Taubes writes massive learned tomes about it, but his theories don’t match up with reality.”

    Examples?

    “No one ever looks at psychological factors in weight gain – our materialism says that it has to be some chemichal in our food. Something physical.”

    Traci Mann wrote a book on it chroniciling 20 years of her research.

    “Countries where people are thin, Japan, France, etc, do seem to have some peculiar cultural features that fat Anglo cultures don’t have.”

    East Asian countries are explainable through the CIM. Percent of carbohydrate intake is nowhere near as important as the absolute amount of carbohydrates consumed.

    http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/how-do-some-cultures-stay-lean-while-still-consuming-high-amounts-of-carbohydrates

    “We should look into it, but we won’t, because we suffer from a bad case of learned stupidity, and we’ll just continue to argue about carbs and protein and other sciency sounding chemicals.”

    Because it matters. China is now currently leading in childhood obesity.

    http://www.scmp.com/lifestyle/health-beauty/article/1938620/explosion-childhood-obesity-china-worst-ever-expert-says-new

    One in four Chinese children expected to be overweight by 2030.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/12/one-four-china-children-expected-overweight-2030-amid-obesity/

    Why is that? The Western Diet. It is a scourge.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  135. @Bardon Kaldian

    Nutrition is one of those fields we know very little about. We know almost no more than we knew a hundred years ago.
     
    True. But, more than that- only food freaks & fanatics obsess over food. Man is more than what he eats.

    “Man is more than what he eats.”

    One of the most untrue statements I’ve ever seen.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  136. @Alden
    Ah yes, eat certain foods, avoid other foods and you won’t have a heart attack.

    I wonder what farmers paid for those books to be written.

    “Study says soda doesn’t cause weight gain.!!*”

    * Based on the flawed twin model and funded by Coca-Cola.

    That’s most of these studies. They just get paid by Coke/Big Food to ‘find the result’ they want. “Extra kcal in the form sugar doesn’t cause weight gain, trust us.”‘

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  137. @Philip Owen
    That's my point. Obesity is not just an IQ issue. Try to see the spaces.
    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  138. @bluestateblues

    Eat less/move more does not work.
     
    I dunno. I lost 90 pounds by eating less and moving more. YMMV, of course.

    “I dunno. I lost 90 pounds by eating less and moving more. YMMV, of course.”

    n=1

    Eat less/move more implies that ‘a calorie is a calorie’ and it doesn’t matter where the food comes from. Exercise does not induce weight loss.

    http://nymag.com/news/sports/38001/

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    Exercise does not induce weight loss.

    Why do you like to make nonsensical pronouncements? I have noticed that you seem to be attracted to iconoclastic ideas and the power of this attraction seems to kill your common sense. I am sure you might be fun at your aunt's dinner party but this schtick has no legs for a long distance run. I guess it is is partly because talking nonsense if free and safe and you get away with it more likely once you develop a reputation of a crank. I think you need a reality to hit you in the face.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  139. @Santoculto
    Maybe you are propagandist of

    so-called

    ''meat''

    People with such extreme biases against meat-eaters are not logical at all.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  140. @utu
    Most probably in large part as a result of magnesium deficiency (possibly aggravated by excess consumption of calcium in dairy products) most Americans are more or less nuts and half of them take anti-depressants or anti-psychotics, which is tremendously profitable for Big Pharma.

    I think you may have magnesium deficiency that explains your nuttiness. The nuttiness of our age is exemplified by the motto "you are what you eat." It is culture that determines what we are. You are what you read, what you hear, what you watch. And since you hear "you are what you eat" all the time you end up believing it.

    The weight loss or weight gain issue is simple and basic: if Energy_Spent ≥ Energy_Absorbed you are losing weight and if Energy_Spent ≤ Energy_Absorbed you are gaining weight.

    Anybody who does not believe it should put himself on Auschwitz KL or Kolyma GULAG regime diet and work plan.

    ” if Energy_Spent ≥ Energy_Absorbed you are losing weight and if Energy_Spent ≤ Energy_Absorbed you are gaining weight.”

    CICO is wrong. Food source matters too.

    “Anybody who does not believe it should put himself on Auschwitz KL or Kolyma GULAG regime diet and work plan.”

    This was studied. See Ancel Keys’s starvation experiment:

    Ancel Keys estimated that these subjects were eating roughly 3,200 calories per day. They were put onto a ‘semi-starvation’ diet of 1,560 calories per day with foods similar to those available in war-torn Europe at the time – potatoes, turnips, bread, and macaroni. They were then monitored for a further 20 weeks after the semi-starvation period.

    Resting metabolic rate dropped by 40%. Interestingly, this is not that far off of the previous study from 1917 that showed TEE decreased by 30%. In other words, the body was shutting down. Let’s think about this again from the body’s point of view. The body is accustomed to getting 3,200 calories per day and now it gets 1,560. In order to preserve itself, it implements across the board reductions in energy.

    https://idmprogram.com/the-biology-of-starvation-calories-part-v/

    Jason Fung decimates CI/CO. The starvation experiment proves that calories in/out are not independent of one another. (Keeping in mind that 1500 kcal per day is nowhere near starvation, so this wasn’t even a true starvation experiment.)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  141. @Wizard of Oz
    I have just spent some time diverted to and via the link to
    the "notpoliticallycorrect" site wrt sickle cells and I see a number of articles by RaceRealist that seem pretty good (also AfroSapiens who has made brief appearances here) and so I seek confirmation that you are both that RaceRealist as well as RaceRealist88 on UR??????

    ‘I have just spent some time diverted to and via the link to
    the “notpoliticallycorrect” site wrt sickle cells and I see a number of articles by RaceRealist that seem pretty good (also AfroSapiens who has made brief appearances here) and so I seek confirmation that you are both that RaceRealist as well as RaceRealist88 on UR??????”

    Yes that is me.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Thank you! I shall now pay more systematic attention to your UR comments - and hold you to.stringent standards :-)
    , @Wizard of Oz
    And, if it isn't seeking to encroach too far on Internet privacy tell me if I guess right about Afrosapiens with whom my civil exchanges include apparent agreement that the vast still underexplored genetic variety in Africa makes a lot of what has been said about Africans' inherited attributes premature at best. I guess/infer that Afrosapiens is male and of sufficent African ancestry to pass as black (if not a sanctified PoC :-)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  142. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    “Diet as IQ” suggest we are reasonable about our appetites. If our IQ is higher, our diets will be better (adjusting I suppose for the size of our wallets).

    But we diet not for reasonable reasons (health) but for other impulses: we are vain and want to look thin, or athletic. We are tired and just want a cookie and coffee, or two, or the whole box. Or we are happy and with friends and will have another drink, or two, or.. We are influentiable and easily gluttonous.

    The medievals, who held their afterlifes as a centrally important goal, could be fooled into spending their money on Church indulgences, as Chaucer’s very funny tale about the wily Pardoner shows. 

    What do we centrally value today? Who are the Pardoners of our time? Those who sell health. Diet books, diet supplements, diet plans, super foods, organic anything. Medical charlatans. Throw in whole the beauty industry.

    Here’s how the Pardoner riled up his crowd:

    Here, chaps! The three of us together now,

    Hold up your hands, like me, and we’ll be brothers 95 

    In this affair, and each defend the others,

    And we will kill this traitor Death, I say! 

    Away with him as he has made away

    With all our friends. God’s dignity! Tonight!”

    They made their bargain, swore with appetite, 

    These three, to live and die for one another

    As brother-born might swear to his born brother. 

    And up they started in their drunken rage,

    And made towards this village which the page 

    And publican had spoken of before.

    Many and grisly were the oaths they swore, 

    Tearing Christ’s blessed body to a shred;

    “If we can only catch him, Death is dead!”

    Nowadays they just swear a certain diet — heavy on blood screening and expensive supplements–, by some diet whiz will be our salvation from Chron’s or Hashimoto’s, and we are sold!! Human nature never changes.

    Read More
    • Agree: AaronB
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  143. @Lars Porsena
    I take Jame's point about diet being an IQ test, because so many people do not believe that the fundamental laws of physics apply to the human body.

    My take, it's not about IQ, diet is primarily a religious purity issue, whether the people giving diet advice realize they are religious or not.

    “I take Jame’s point about diet being an IQ test, because so many people do not believe that the fundamental laws of physics apply to the human body.”

    Care to elaborate? I already discussed the First and Second Law. In case you didn’t see:

    “So, as you reduce your caloric intake to 1200 calories in, the body is forced to reduce it’s metabolism to only 1200 calories. No energy is available anywhere else. This is precisely what happened on the Biggest Loser as seen in the study featured in the New York Times. This is also precisely what happens during any caloric reduction diet.

    That is why these diets are doomed to fail. Studies of this strategy estimate failure rates at 99%. Notice that the First Law of Thermodynamics is not being broken in any way. It is irrelevant.”

    https://www.dietdoctor.com/first-law-thermodynamics-utterly-irrelevant

    The second law of thermodynamics says that variation of efficiency for different metabolic pathways is to be expected. Thus, ironically the dictum that a “calorie is a calorie” violates the second law of thermodynamics, as a matter of principle.

    https://nutritionj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1475-2891-3-9

    People who don’t understand human physiology and think that calories in/out are independent of each other and that ‘the first law is relevant’ and ‘a calorie is a calorie’ are wrong and dogmatic in their views which ends up hurting people in the long run.

    “My take, it’s not about IQ, diet is primarily a religious purity issue, whether the people giving diet advice realize they are religious or not.”

    You’re aware this holds for pretty much everything, right? It seems that it’s your religion to believe that the First Law is somehow relevant to human physiology. It’s not.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    For good measure, see the Biggest Loser Study:

    Mean RMR after 6 years was ∼500 kcal/day lower than expected based on the measured body composition changes and the increased age of the subjects.

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/oby.21538/full

    The graphs on the metabolic slowdown for some of the biggest contestants are particularly shocking. It's metabolic adaptation; as you lose weight your body drops its metabolism to what you're eating. It's using the glucose from the carbs you eat (remember, a calorie is a calorie---supposedly) and leaving body fat untouched. CI/CO proponents are wrong.
    , @Alden
    I think you’re right.

    One reason I react badly to food fads is that it’s mostly a liberal thing. It’s the liberal Puritans wanting to control every aspect of our lives.

    If I lived in a cold climate I’d wear a fur coat to defy liberals. I only use White American men as drs, attorneys, accountants, mechanics contractors etc for the same reason.
    Liberals forbid me to hire White American men. So I do it to defy liberals.

    Resisting food fads is to resist liberals.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  144. @res

    Glucose is glucose, whether it enters the mouth as plain white or brown sugar, a cheap or expensive candy bar, or an organic pesticide free raised vegetable or whole grain bread from a health food store.
     
    Are you familiar with the Glycemic Index idea? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycemic_index

    While skimming that link just now I found out something I did not know. Though highly correlated with GI, the insulin response can diverge from what one would expect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insulin_index

    high-protein foods and bakery products that are rich in fat and refined carbohydrates "elicit insulin responses that were disproportionately higher than their glycemic responses."
     

    Insulin index > glycemic index. The insulin index has foods on it that are not on the glycemic index but spike blood glucose higher despite eliciting no insulin response.

    https://idmprogram.com/insulin-index/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  145. utu says:
    @RaceRealist88
    "I dunno. I lost 90 pounds by eating less and moving more. YMMV, of course."

    n=1

    Eat less/move more implies that 'a calorie is a calorie' and it doesn't matter where the food comes from. Exercise does not induce weight loss.

    http://nymag.com/news/sports/38001/

    Exercise does not induce weight loss.

    Why do you like to make nonsensical pronouncements? I have noticed that you seem to be attracted to iconoclastic ideas and the power of this attraction seems to kill your common sense. I am sure you might be fun at your aunt’s dinner party but this schtick has no legs for a long distance run. I guess it is is partly because talking nonsense if free and safe and you get away with it more likely once you develop a reputation of a crank. I think you need a reality to hit you in the face.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    Here. 12 weeks of HIIT for children did not reduce adiposity but they had better cardiorespiratory fitness.

    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40279-017-0777-0

    Can you explain how exercise would lead to weight loss and then how to circumvent the changes in the brain to offset what you did during exercise?
    , @anonymous

    Exercise does not induce weight loss.

    Why do you like to make nonsensical pronouncements?.... I am sure you might be fun at your aunt’s dinner party but this schtick has no legs for a long distance run.
     

    I was a dedicated runner for 35 years, and yet I became severely overweight in spite of huge amounts of exercise (running, weights, hiking...) and a supposedly "healthy" diet with lots of whole grains, lentils, beans, etc. After age 30 the exercise-mediated growth hormone response goes away, and exercise no longer works for weight control even in individuals for whom it worked previously. Past age 30 it's ALL diet, and most diet advice in our society is just dead wrong.

    I lost 55 lbs by doing an Atkins-like protocol -- low-carb/high-fat aka ketogenic diet -- and have kept it off effortlessly for several years now. Despite the fact that a weightlifting injury has severely impaired my ability to exercise.

    The science behind ketogenic diets is solid, unrefuted, and has been known since the 60s. Controlling insulin is the key to controlling fat, and limiting carbs is the only way that genetically susceptible people can control insulin... UNLESS they get 4-5 hours of exercise per day, which is great for the Amish or a Greek island centenarian but nobody with an urban job has time for that much. An hour a day in the gym or on the track is just not enough to counteract hyperinsulinemia genetics, you need to be active all day... or go low carb. If you have those genes your choices are, convert to Amish, go ketogenic, or be fat. Period, end of story.

    Oh, and diet is an IQ test.. Great. I have a PhD in chemistry. I won't quote my IQ here because you wouldn't believe me.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  146. @CanSpeccy

    Though highly correlated with GI, the insulin response can diverge from what one would expect
     
    Yes, depending on food source, blood glucose make spike rapidly and very high, or rise moderately but over a sustained period. The difference in outcome could be that between a medical emergency and the prolonged maintenance of a healthy energy level.

    Gotta think of insulin, too. Insulin controls blood sugar. Spiking your blood sugar spikes insulin which leads to insulin resistance then diabesity.

    https://idmprogram.com/insulin-resistance-protects-insulin-t2d-26/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  147. @JL

    All protein turns into iron in the intestines and builds muscles, blood and bones.
     
    Not so, your liver can convert protein into glucose via gluconeogenesis. It's one of the reasons protein intake should be limited. T2D sufferers, in particular, need to be especially careful on this front.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluconeogenesis

    I was initially skeptical of the diet/IQ link, but the posts of nsa and utu are leading to me reconsider that the theory actually has some merit.

    “Not so, your liver can convert protein into glucose via gluconeogenesis. It’s one of the reasons protein intake should be limited. T2D sufferers, in particular, need to be especially careful on this front.”

    Yes. This is well known. It’s why protein is kept low to moderate.

    https://idmprogram.com/how-much-protein-is-excessive/

    “I was initially skeptical of the diet/IQ link, but the posts of nsa and utu are leading to me reconsider that the theory actually has some merit.”

    Be skeptical, because it’s reaching.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JL

    This is well known.
     
    Sure, but not by the commenter, who, I take it, is diabetic. So I just thought I'd point it out.

    Be skeptical, because it’s reaching.
     
    That was an attempt at a moment of levity and a chance to take a dig at two of the most odious, imo, commenters here at Unz. That I find myself on the other end of the opinions of these two on the diet issue, like pretty much everything else, surprises me not in the least. I don't buy the IQ/diet argument, the author here seems to just be looking for evidence of some kind of all encompassing IQ-is-everything theory.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  148. @RaceRealist88
    "I take Jame’s point about diet being an IQ test, because so many people do not believe that the fundamental laws of physics apply to the human body."

    Care to elaborate? I already discussed the First and Second Law. In case you didn't see:

    "So, as you reduce your caloric intake to 1200 calories in, the body is forced to reduce it’s metabolism to only 1200 calories. No energy is available anywhere else. This is precisely what happened on the Biggest Loser as seen in the study featured in the New York Times. This is also precisely what happens during any caloric reduction diet.

    That is why these diets are doomed to fail. Studies of this strategy estimate failure rates at 99%. Notice that the First Law of Thermodynamics is not being broken in any way. It is irrelevant."

    https://www.dietdoctor.com/first-law-thermodynamics-utterly-irrelevant

    The second law of thermodynamics says that variation of efficiency for different metabolic pathways is to be expected. Thus, ironically the dictum that a “calorie is a calorie” violates the second law of thermodynamics, as a matter of principle.

    https://nutritionj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1475-2891-3-9

    People who don't understand human physiology and think that calories in/out are independent of each other and that 'the first law is relevant' and 'a calorie is a calorie' are wrong and dogmatic in their views which ends up hurting people in the long run.

    "My take, it’s not about IQ, diet is primarily a religious purity issue, whether the people giving diet advice realize they are religious or not."

    You're aware this holds for pretty much everything, right? It seems that it's your religion to believe that the First Law is somehow relevant to human physiology. It's not.

    For good measure, see the Biggest Loser Study:

    Mean RMR after 6 years was ∼500 kcal/day lower than expected based on the measured body composition changes and the increased age of the subjects.

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/oby.21538/full

    The graphs on the metabolic slowdown for some of the biggest contestants are particularly shocking. It’s metabolic adaptation; as you lose weight your body drops its metabolism to what you’re eating. It’s using the glucose from the carbs you eat (remember, a calorie is a calorie—supposedly) and leaving body fat untouched. CI/CO proponents are wrong.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  149. @utu
    Exercise does not induce weight loss.

    Why do you like to make nonsensical pronouncements? I have noticed that you seem to be attracted to iconoclastic ideas and the power of this attraction seems to kill your common sense. I am sure you might be fun at your aunt's dinner party but this schtick has no legs for a long distance run. I guess it is is partly because talking nonsense if free and safe and you get away with it more likely once you develop a reputation of a crank. I think you need a reality to hit you in the face.

    Here. 12 weeks of HIIT for children did not reduce adiposity but they had better cardiorespiratory fitness.

    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40279-017-0777-0

    Can you explain how exercise would lead to weight loss and then how to circumvent the changes in the brain to offset what you did during exercise?

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    Very simple. Because the condition

    Energy_Spent > Energy_Absorbed
     
    was not fulfilled.
    , @CanSpeccy
    Pay no attention to utu. He has some little bit of math which he thinks trumps all other knowledge. Yet the fact remains that exercise does, as you indicate, tend to cause weight increase in adolescents. During my school days, following an intensive, six-day-a-week regime of athletics, gymnastics, swimming and chasing a stupid oval ball, I consistently put on weight during term-time, despite an unappetizing school diet, whereas I generally lost weight during vacations when I dined, ad lib, on decent food.

    Presumably, the exercise increased appetite sufficiently to generate a surplus of intake over output, most likely accounted for at least in part by muscle development. During vacations, spent devoted to more intellectual pursuits, the muscle must have wasted away.

    Other explanations are possible, however. School food was high in cheap carbohydrates, bread, potatoes and porridge, whereas home food was richer in fats and protein. Some studies indicate that fats promote weight accumulation, i.e., greater input than output. However, if the ketogenic (i.e., high fat) diet causes weight loss, there must be something about it to cause output to exceed input — probably a reduction in sugar, which is an appetite stimulant.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  150. Alden says:
    @utu
    Some people will believe anything.

    Including people who think their personal experience can be extrapolated into universal laws. I meant you.

    I never claimed my personal experience extrapolated into universal laws.

    But at least my personal experience of gaining 22 pounds in 2 months of low protein, low fat, fake sugar diabetic deserts and high “healthy” carbs incorporating all the latest fads in correct diets was an experience.

    It wasn’t a naive gullible credulous parroting of the latest food fads promulgated by food producers urging the gullible to eat their food A instead of a rival food B

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  151. JL says:
    @RaceRealist88
    "Not so, your liver can convert protein into glucose via gluconeogenesis. It’s one of the reasons protein intake should be limited. T2D sufferers, in particular, need to be especially careful on this front."

    Yes. This is well known. It's why protein is kept low to moderate.

    https://idmprogram.com/how-much-protein-is-excessive/

    "I was initially skeptical of the diet/IQ link, but the posts of nsa and utu are leading to me reconsider that the theory actually has some merit."

    Be skeptical, because it's reaching.

    This is well known.

    Sure, but not by the commenter, who, I take it, is diabetic. So I just thought I’d point it out.

    Be skeptical, because it’s reaching.

    That was an attempt at a moment of levity and a chance to take a dig at two of the most odious, imo, commenters here at Unz. That I find myself on the other end of the opinions of these two on the diet issue, like pretty much everything else, surprises me not in the least. I don’t buy the IQ/diet argument, the author here seems to just be looking for evidence of some kind of all encompassing IQ-is-everything theory.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  152. Alden says:
    @RaceRealist88
    "I take Jame’s point about diet being an IQ test, because so many people do not believe that the fundamental laws of physics apply to the human body."

    Care to elaborate? I already discussed the First and Second Law. In case you didn't see:

    "So, as you reduce your caloric intake to 1200 calories in, the body is forced to reduce it’s metabolism to only 1200 calories. No energy is available anywhere else. This is precisely what happened on the Biggest Loser as seen in the study featured in the New York Times. This is also precisely what happens during any caloric reduction diet.

    That is why these diets are doomed to fail. Studies of this strategy estimate failure rates at 99%. Notice that the First Law of Thermodynamics is not being broken in any way. It is irrelevant."

    https://www.dietdoctor.com/first-law-thermodynamics-utterly-irrelevant

    The second law of thermodynamics says that variation of efficiency for different metabolic pathways is to be expected. Thus, ironically the dictum that a “calorie is a calorie” violates the second law of thermodynamics, as a matter of principle.

    https://nutritionj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1475-2891-3-9

    People who don't understand human physiology and think that calories in/out are independent of each other and that 'the first law is relevant' and 'a calorie is a calorie' are wrong and dogmatic in their views which ends up hurting people in the long run.

    "My take, it’s not about IQ, diet is primarily a religious purity issue, whether the people giving diet advice realize they are religious or not."

    You're aware this holds for pretty much everything, right? It seems that it's your religion to believe that the First Law is somehow relevant to human physiology. It's not.

    I think you’re right.

    One reason I react badly to food fads is that it’s mostly a liberal thing. It’s the liberal Puritans wanting to control every aspect of our lives.

    If I lived in a cold climate I’d wear a fur coat to defy liberals. I only use White American men as drs, attorneys, accountants, mechanics contractors etc for the same reason.
    Liberals forbid me to hire White American men. So I do it to defy liberals.

    Resisting food fads is to resist liberals.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  153. Alden says:
    @CanSpeccy
    Hey, that's exactly what I do! And last time I checked, I was still losing weight.

    Just add a big blob of that jillion calorie a teaspoon salad dressing to the lettuce and you’ll gain weight.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  154. utu says:
    @RaceRealist88
    Here. 12 weeks of HIIT for children did not reduce adiposity but they had better cardiorespiratory fitness.

    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40279-017-0777-0

    Can you explain how exercise would lead to weight loss and then how to circumvent the changes in the brain to offset what you did during exercise?

    Very simple. Because the condition

    Energy_Spent > Energy_Absorbed

    was not fulfilled.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    Take this example. Someone has a TDEE of 2200 kcal. They want to lose weight so drop to 1800 kcal. They lose weight then stall. Kcal gets decreased more and more. However, the body matches its metabolism to calories coming in. What happens then? Continue to decrease kcal? Keep in mind this is assuming that 'a calorie is a calorie'.

    If someone ate 66 percent carbs and another 66 percent fat, who would find compliance easier? Who would reach their goal weight?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  155. Sparkon says:

    Natural, unprocessed foods are best. Butter is much better than margarine, and sugar is much, much better than aspartame.

    Back in the 50s, we all drank sody pop like water, and nobody got fat. ‘Also ate candy bars virtually every day, but all those sweets were naturally flavored. Of course, we walked a lot, and rode our bikes, played sports, ran in the woods, even tried to dance when we got up the nerve.

    Did I mention that nobody was fat, and the gals all had great legs back then? And not a tattoo or nose ring to be seen.

    No wonder there is Boomer Envy. It did happen here, and now, it ain’t too pretty.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  156. Alden says:
    @Santoculto
    It's mean people as you are expensive to the ideal balance between ''man'' and nature...

    Less ''carnivorous'' [expensive energetic people] would be good, even i believe ''bacon-lovers'' tend to be more prone to be less empathetic, more psychopathic, ... stupid...

    lack of empathy

    or lack of understanding of empathy, combined with reason ...

    and the result is this current nightmare whole world is living thanks for the white trash xtrians and neo-messionics und jewish megalomaniacal retards...

    Mean people, meat people, Jewish retards expensive balance between man and nature? Psycopathetic lack of empathy?

    Is your post a result of google translate?

    Or are your eating habits some kind of weirdo religion instead of food?

    If you think it’s a sin to eat meat, fine, that’s your religion. Promulgate it all you want. But don’t expect a mass conversion.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  157. @reiner Tor
    Eating less works, but unless you can find a way to decrease your hunger, it’s just not sustainable. You cannot stay on semi-starvation all your life.

    Right, eating less doesn’t work because willpower can’t survive the first hunger pangs. But if you simply switch to the right diet, then you can eat all you want without ever getting hungry n still lose weight. Twice a year I switch to eating only meat for 8-10 days, nothing else. I eat all I want n never get hungry. I go into mild ketosis for the last couple of days, but that’s not what does the trick. Its not so much what I’m eating that does the trick, which is mostly fish. Its what I’m not eating: cakes, pies, carbs etc. I typically lose 10 lbs. If I want to lose more, I will eat normally for 2 weeks, then return to the diet for another 8-10 days. For me it works. And it’s much cheaper than buying a new wardrobe.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    Will power gets a boost from seeing results, but when the results stall, then it's tough to stick with a diet. That's been my experience with low carb diets. I may try fasting next. I like the idea that I don't have to put any foods off limits entirely on the days when I'm eating.
    , @RaceRealist88
    People focus on what or how to eat, but never *when to eat*. That's the biggest factor here.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  158. anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @utu
    Exercise does not induce weight loss.

    Why do you like to make nonsensical pronouncements? I have noticed that you seem to be attracted to iconoclastic ideas and the power of this attraction seems to kill your common sense. I am sure you might be fun at your aunt's dinner party but this schtick has no legs for a long distance run. I guess it is is partly because talking nonsense if free and safe and you get away with it more likely once you develop a reputation of a crank. I think you need a reality to hit you in the face.

    Exercise does not induce weight loss.

    Why do you like to make nonsensical pronouncements?…. I am sure you might be fun at your aunt’s dinner party but this schtick has no legs for a long distance run.

    I was a dedicated runner for 35 years, and yet I became severely overweight in spite of huge amounts of exercise (running, weights, hiking…) and a supposedly “healthy” diet with lots of whole grains, lentils, beans, etc. After age 30 the exercise-mediated growth hormone response goes away, and exercise no longer works for weight control even in individuals for whom it worked previously. Past age 30 it’s ALL diet, and most diet advice in our society is just dead wrong.

    I lost 55 lbs by doing an Atkins-like protocol — low-carb/high-fat aka ketogenic diet — and have kept it off effortlessly for several years now. Despite the fact that a weightlifting injury has severely impaired my ability to exercise.

    The science behind ketogenic diets is solid, unrefuted, and has been known since the 60s. Controlling insulin is the key to controlling fat, and limiting carbs is the only way that genetically susceptible people can control insulin… UNLESS they get 4-5 hours of exercise per day, which is great for the Amish or a Greek island centenarian but nobody with an urban job has time for that much. An hour a day in the gym or on the track is just not enough to counteract hyperinsulinemia genetics, you need to be active all day… or go low carb. If you have those genes your choices are, convert to Amish, go ketogenic, or be fat. Period, end of story.

    Oh, and diet is an IQ test.. Great. I have a PhD in chemistry. I won’t quote my IQ here because you wouldn’t believe me.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu

    I was a dedicated runner for 35 years, and yet I became severely overweight in spite of huge amounts of exercise
     
    You just ate too much for your exercise level.

    If you want to lose weight the necessary condition must be fulfilled:


    Energy_Spent≥Energy_Absorbed
     
    I hope your exorbitant IQ does not prevent you form understanding this inequality.

    The rate of weight loss will depend on foods you eat and type of exercises you do but as long as you manage to fulfill the inequality you will lose weight regardless of what food you eat and what you do. Gym and exercises are not really necessary. Work in your garden, clean you house, walk to store instead of driving will do. It is easier to keep your weight down if you live in European city than American city. Running and going to gym is just pointless burning energy unless somebody would pay you for it or your stationary bike had a dynamo so you could lower your energy bills.

    But if what you do works for you, keep doing what you are doing whether you eat spaghetti or steak Tartare, however do not put too much credence in all bio-chemistry explanations that you made yourself believe in.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  159. @RaceRealist88
    "To my mind that is another false dichotomy."

    Not really because if one gets bigger then they must consume more energy to maintain their weight,

    "I think what makes obesity such a troublesome issue is that both directions of causality are present. In other words, we have a vicious cycle. The question then becomes how to convert that into the opposing virtuous cycle."

    The vicious cycle is insulin spikes spiking blood glucose which then lead to a vicious cycle of insulin causing insulin resistance, because the body is insulin resistant which then causes the body to produce more insulin due to its extreme resistance. That's the vicious cycle.

    "On another note, since we are talking about thermodynamics, how about our increasingly climate controlled environments as a contributing factor to obesity? I primarily mean the heating side–think of all those calories not required to keep our bodies at 98.6 degrees."

    Sounds intriguing. One paper I just came across:

    As ambient temperature decreases, energy expenditure (and energy intake) must increase to maintain thermal homeostasis.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3975627/

    Though that's obvious. And the body's physiology is homeodynamic, not homeostatic.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12805697

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0895717794901899

    Freezing to death will burn some serious calories, to be sure. I wonder if anyone has researched how much faster one could lose weight in winter by keeping the house at 60° rather than 70°.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    I wonder if anyone has researched how much faster one could lose weight in winter by keeping the house at 60° rather than 70°.
     
    It would depend. With an appropriate change in clothing, thermal underwear, thick wool socks, etc., I cannot see that lowering the thermostat would make any difference. That's how everyone lived in wartime Britain — to the astonishment, so I have read, of important Americans visiting the mansions and palaces of the English aristocracy.
    , @Alden
    Supposedly living in cold causes fat to grow to insulate you from the cold.

    Back when mini skirts were in style, some idiot experts claimed that mini skirts caused the legs to get fat because the legs were exposed to the cold.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  160. utu says:
    @anonymous

    Exercise does not induce weight loss.

    Why do you like to make nonsensical pronouncements?.... I am sure you might be fun at your aunt’s dinner party but this schtick has no legs for a long distance run.
     

    I was a dedicated runner for 35 years, and yet I became severely overweight in spite of huge amounts of exercise (running, weights, hiking...) and a supposedly "healthy" diet with lots of whole grains, lentils, beans, etc. After age 30 the exercise-mediated growth hormone response goes away, and exercise no longer works for weight control even in individuals for whom it worked previously. Past age 30 it's ALL diet, and most diet advice in our society is just dead wrong.

    I lost 55 lbs by doing an Atkins-like protocol -- low-carb/high-fat aka ketogenic diet -- and have kept it off effortlessly for several years now. Despite the fact that a weightlifting injury has severely impaired my ability to exercise.

    The science behind ketogenic diets is solid, unrefuted, and has been known since the 60s. Controlling insulin is the key to controlling fat, and limiting carbs is the only way that genetically susceptible people can control insulin... UNLESS they get 4-5 hours of exercise per day, which is great for the Amish or a Greek island centenarian but nobody with an urban job has time for that much. An hour a day in the gym or on the track is just not enough to counteract hyperinsulinemia genetics, you need to be active all day... or go low carb. If you have those genes your choices are, convert to Amish, go ketogenic, or be fat. Period, end of story.

    Oh, and diet is an IQ test.. Great. I have a PhD in chemistry. I won't quote my IQ here because you wouldn't believe me.

    I was a dedicated runner for 35 years, and yet I became severely overweight in spite of huge amounts of exercise

    You just ate too much for your exercise level.

    If you want to lose weight the necessary condition must be fulfilled:

    Energy_Spent≥Energy_Absorbed

    I hope your exorbitant IQ does not prevent you form understanding this inequality.

    The rate of weight loss will depend on foods you eat and type of exercises you do but as long as you manage to fulfill the inequality you will lose weight regardless of what food you eat and what you do. Gym and exercises are not really necessary. Work in your garden, clean you house, walk to store instead of driving will do. It is easier to keep your weight down if you live in European city than American city. Running and going to gym is just pointless burning energy unless somebody would pay you for it or your stationary bike had a dynamo so you could lower your energy bills.

    But if what you do works for you, keep doing what you are doing whether you eat spaghetti or steak Tartare, however do not put too much credence in all bio-chemistry explanations that you made yourself believe in.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    Utu do you have any citations showing that exercise induces weight loss? I've already shown the fallacious logic behind assuming that the first law is relevant to human physiology. Do you think that a calorie is a calorie?
    , @anonymous


    I was a dedicated runner for 35 years, and yet I became severely overweight in spite of huge amounts of exercise
     
    You just ate too much for your exercise level.

    If you want to lose weight the necessary condition must be fulfilled:


    Energy_Spent≥Energy_Absorbed
     
    I hope your exorbitant IQ does not prevent you form understanding this inequality.

     

    *Sigh* Of course I know that. But there's something that you clearly do NOT know: there's a biochemical reason why you eat the amount that you do, and, if you artificially try to force yourself to just eat less, you will end up spending every waking moment in agonizing hunger pangs.

    Nobody can do this forever; sooner or later absolutely everyone eventually breaks down and eats enough to be satisfied. If you have hyperinsulinemia/metabolic syndrome/"famine genetics", then, your "satisfied" point is likely to be just a little bit over your actual caloric needs, and you'll slowly but steadily gain weight -- despite an incredibly intense exercise regimen. I worked harder at fitness than almost anyone else i know; if conventional wisdom were true, I should never have had a weight problem.

    The great secret of low-carb/high-fat or "ketogenic" eating, is that it's the only diet that gets you off the hyperinsulinemia roller-coaster and thereby shuts off the hunger pangs. Which means you end up eating less without trying, without being agonizingly hungry.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  161. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Dr. Krieger
    Freezing to death will burn some serious calories, to be sure. I wonder if anyone has researched how much faster one could lose weight in winter by keeping the house at 60° rather than 70°.

    I wonder if anyone has researched how much faster one could lose weight in winter by keeping the house at 60° rather than 70°.

    It would depend. With an appropriate change in clothing, thermal underwear, thick wool socks, etc., I cannot see that lowering the thermostat would make any difference. That’s how everyone lived in wartime Britain — to the astonishment, so I have read, of important Americans visiting the mansions and palaces of the English aristocracy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  162. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @RaceRealist88
    Here. 12 weeks of HIIT for children did not reduce adiposity but they had better cardiorespiratory fitness.

    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40279-017-0777-0

    Can you explain how exercise would lead to weight loss and then how to circumvent the changes in the brain to offset what you did during exercise?

    Pay no attention to utu. He has some little bit of math which he thinks trumps all other knowledge. Yet the fact remains that exercise does, as you indicate, tend to cause weight increase in adolescents. During my school days, following an intensive, six-day-a-week regime of athletics, gymnastics, swimming and chasing a stupid oval ball, I consistently put on weight during term-time, despite an unappetizing school diet, whereas I generally lost weight during vacations when I dined, ad lib, on decent food.

    Presumably, the exercise increased appetite sufficiently to generate a surplus of intake over output, most likely accounted for at least in part by muscle development. During vacations, spent devoted to more intellectual pursuits, the muscle must have wasted away.

    Other explanations are possible, however. School food was high in cheap carbohydrates, bread, potatoes and porridge, whereas home food was richer in fats and protein. Some studies indicate that fats promote weight accumulation, i.e., greater input than output. However, if the ketogenic (i.e., high fat) diet causes weight loss, there must be something about it to cause output to exceed input — probably a reduction in sugar, which is an appetite stimulant.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    But there are other angles to consider. Dietary intake does not equal uptake, therefore utu's equation is invalid, if energy absorbed is supposed to equal dietary intake. Another term is required, uptake efficiency. And uptake efficiency may well vary with exercise regime.

    In addition, gut flora will be modified by the composition of the diet, which in turn will likely affect uptake efficiency.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  163. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @CanSpeccy
    Pay no attention to utu. He has some little bit of math which he thinks trumps all other knowledge. Yet the fact remains that exercise does, as you indicate, tend to cause weight increase in adolescents. During my school days, following an intensive, six-day-a-week regime of athletics, gymnastics, swimming and chasing a stupid oval ball, I consistently put on weight during term-time, despite an unappetizing school diet, whereas I generally lost weight during vacations when I dined, ad lib, on decent food.

    Presumably, the exercise increased appetite sufficiently to generate a surplus of intake over output, most likely accounted for at least in part by muscle development. During vacations, spent devoted to more intellectual pursuits, the muscle must have wasted away.

    Other explanations are possible, however. School food was high in cheap carbohydrates, bread, potatoes and porridge, whereas home food was richer in fats and protein. Some studies indicate that fats promote weight accumulation, i.e., greater input than output. However, if the ketogenic (i.e., high fat) diet causes weight loss, there must be something about it to cause output to exceed input — probably a reduction in sugar, which is an appetite stimulant.

    But there are other angles to consider. Dietary intake does not equal uptake, therefore utu’s equation is invalid, if energy absorbed is supposed to equal dietary intake. Another term is required, uptake efficiency. And uptake efficiency may well vary with exercise regime.

    In addition, gut flora will be modified by the composition of the diet, which in turn will likely affect uptake efficiency.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    The equation isn't valid because calories in and out are not independent. If you change the in, the out changes too.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  164. Alden says:
    @Dr. Krieger
    Freezing to death will burn some serious calories, to be sure. I wonder if anyone has researched how much faster one could lose weight in winter by keeping the house at 60° rather than 70°.

    Supposedly living in cold causes fat to grow to insulate you from the cold.

    Back when mini skirts were in style, some idiot experts claimed that mini skirts caused the legs to get fat because the legs were exposed to the cold.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  165. Alden says:
    @RaceRealist88
    The rise in obesity started during the late 70s, after fat was demonized and carbs were championed. It's something in the environment that occurred around that time to cause this. Which is the introduction of high sugar, high carb, highly processed, calorie dense foods.

    The high carb propaganda of the 1970s had a lot to do with wage stagnation and price inflation

    The average person just couldn’t afford a lot of meat and fish any more. So Americans were forced by necessity to go to the rice beans noodles tortillas bread and potatoes diets of the poor.

    The government FDA suddenly discovered that meat was unhealthy and a high carb diet was healthy.

    There was already plenty of processed and sugary food at the time Young Liberals being naive and gullible, decided a poor peasant diets was cool because it was different from the prosperous middle class meat and potatoes meals if their parents

    Read More
    • Agree: RaceRealist88
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  166. Alden says:
    @JL

    All protein turns into iron in the intestines and builds muscles, blood and bones.
     
    Not so, your liver can convert protein into glucose via gluconeogenesis. It's one of the reasons protein intake should be limited. T2D sufferers, in particular, need to be especially careful on this front.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluconeogenesis

    I was initially skeptical of the diet/IQ link, but the posts of nsa and utu are leading to me reconsider that the theory actually has some merit.

    The protein in blood doesn’t get to the liver because it all goes into building bones, muscles and blood.

    Physiology 101 and why orthopedic patients are given high protein diets.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  167. Alden says:
    @AaronB
    Right, portions are much smaller. Also in France, btw.

    But this goes back to culture. Why do the Japanese prefer smaller portions. Why do the Japanese think small is beautiful, and Americans think the bigger the better.

    I believe it really goes back to first principles - ones attitude to ego, ones attitude to materialism, etc. It seems to me someone who likes to see himself as self assertive and strong and aggressive and cares only for material things will be prone to eating more, huge portions of steak, etc, he'll drive an SUV.

    I like to trace everything back to first principles. It's not a coincidence Anglo cultures are the fattest. These attitudes may seem to have nothing to do with eating, but everything is related.

    I admit tho the Mexican obesity rate doesn't fit my theory very well. Mexicans are warm chilled out people don't have huge egos.

    Maybe it's the anxiety of living so close to America.

    Supposedly the Mexican obesity rate is higher than America’s. Mexicans always ate rice beans and corn with just a little meat because they were poor.

    Americans didn’t get on the rice beans bread corn bread and potatoes diet until wages went down related to the cost of living in the 1970’s.

    At which point the government and liberals decided to make the best of it and told everybody that a poor people’s high carb diet was healthy

    After 20 years of high carb low protein obesity was high. 40 years after high carb low protein obesity was higher.

    40 years and 200 million obese people are the proof that high carb low protein causes obesity.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AaronB
    I assume you're joking.

    High carb lowith protein has been the diet of mankind since the dawn of agriculture. Obesity is quite recent.

    The Japanese eat high carb low protein. French eat about 3 Oz cuts of meat in a meal.

    It doesn't matter what u eat. Just eat less. And probably avoid big food corporations. I dint trust them.
    , @RaceRealist88
    An outstanding example is the Pima. Before the introduction of the Western diet they weren't obese or diabetics. Then they ate a Western diet, then what happened? Quotes here:

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/12/21/on-diseases-of-civilization-romanticizing-the-hunter-gatherers-diet/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  168. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @CanSpeccy
    Re:

    Nutrition is one of those fields we know very little about. We know almost no more than we knew a hundred years ago.
     
    Actually, a hundred years ago almost nothing was known about nutrition. For example, it was not until the 1920's that there was much progress on identification of vitamins. Now we know almost everything there is to be known about nutrition except possibly the role of certain trace elements.

    Amazingly, as knowledge about nutrition has advanced, the adequacy of Western diets, as driven by commercial interests, has seriously deteriorated. Most Europeans and North Americans, for example, are magnesium deficient, a result of changes in water supplies, in the mineral content of intensively cultivated fruit and vegetables, and the increased dependence on processed and fast foods.

    Most probably in large part as a result of magnesium deficiency (possibly aggravated by excess consumption of calcium in dairy products) most Americans are more or less nuts and half of them take anti-depressants or anti-psychotics, which is tremendously profitable for Big Pharma.

    I heard a scientist on a late night radio show in the U.S. that dabbles in science as well paranormal stuff blame obesity on Edison. He said that before electric lighting, people used to burn a lot more wood, and then use the wood ashes to fertilize their gardens, and the ashes created more nutrient dense vegetables. He claimed that we eat more today because we’re deprived of certain minerals are wood burning ancestors had a surfeit of.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    we eat more today because we’re deprived of certain minerals are wood burning ancestors had a surfeit of
     
    That makes sense. Wood ash will generally contain the minerals that become depleted in intensively cultivated soil. Moreover, there is evidence from animal studies that mineral deficiency affects appetite in the way suggested. The fast food people are probably onto it already, ensuring that their hamburgers and fudge sundaes are deficient in magnesium or whatever it is that makes utu so ill mannered, etc.
    , @Alden
    The wood fires were for heat and cooking, not light.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  169. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @utu
    Anyone who needs make reference to Auschwitz

    Actually I have spoken from a personal experience so I am not just anyone here. An aunt of my father was very overweight before the WWII. She survived Auschwitz where she lost a lot of weight and then "lived happily ever after." I remember her well. As a kid I sometimes heard "Auschwitz was good for her" spoken by my dad who had a peculiar sense of humor. (BTW, she was not the only family member who was in Auschwitz. Some others died there.) This was in times when the rigid narrative of Holocaust was not established yet and did not take over our brains, including the magnesium deficient ones like yours, that somehow made us lose ability to think soberly when the word Auschwitz is uttered. Anyway I would not blame magnesium for this rigidity. Or do you think Jews were particularly magnesium deficient after WWII? Anyway, I am for normalizing Auschwitz.

    My guess is that the Holocaust selected for endomorphs, because it killed more of the ectomorphs.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  170. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @Philip Owen
    I think it depends on your hormonal balance at the time. Mostly Move More does nothing for me but I have had two dramatic weight loss events that were linked to move more or accurately, Lift More. But this was at a very intense level, once training to row at inter university level and once during another intensive exercise bout where I switched from cardio to gym. OTOH training for and running marathons did nothing. For me, it has to be high intensity anaerobic exercise.

    Lifting more didn’t help my body weight, but I was already diabetic when I started it. But I do think it’s helped with controlling blood sugar.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  171. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @Sin City Milla
    Right, eating less doesn't work because willpower can't survive the first hunger pangs. But if you simply switch to the right diet, then you can eat all you want without ever getting hungry n still lose weight. Twice a year I switch to eating only meat for 8-10 days, nothing else. I eat all I want n never get hungry. I go into mild ketosis for the last couple of days, but that's not what does the trick. Its not so much what I'm eating that does the trick, which is mostly fish. Its what I'm not eating: cakes, pies, carbs etc. I typically lose 10 lbs. If I want to lose more, I will eat normally for 2 weeks, then return to the diet for another 8-10 days. For me it works. And it's much cheaper than buying a new wardrobe.

    Will power gets a boost from seeing results, but when the results stall, then it’s tough to stick with a diet. That’s been my experience with low carb diets. I may try fasting next. I like the idea that I don’t have to put any foods off limits entirely on the days when I’m eating.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    Read Jason Fung on this.

    https://idmprogram.com
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  172. @utu
    Very simple. Because the condition

    Energy_Spent > Energy_Absorbed
     
    was not fulfilled.

    Take this example. Someone has a TDEE of 2200 kcal. They want to lose weight so drop to 1800 kcal. They lose weight then stall. Kcal gets decreased more and more. However, the body matches its metabolism to calories coming in. What happens then? Continue to decrease kcal? Keep in mind this is assuming that ‘a calorie is a calorie’.

    If someone ate 66 percent carbs and another 66 percent fat, who would find compliance easier? Who would reach their goal weight?

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    Take this example. Someone has a TDEE of 2200 kcal. They want to lose weight so drop to 1800 kcal. They lose weight then stall. Kcal gets decreased more and more. However, the body matches its metabolism to calories coming in. What happens then?

    You stop the process of reducing calories intake once you achieve the desired weight. Which you will as long a the desired weight is "reasonable." If the desired weight is "unreasonable" you may die in the process.

    If you do not believe it then you also do not believe in anorexia outcomes. Share you good news with anorexics that their dieting is pointless as they will not lose weight because their metabolism will compensate and the weight loss will stall.

    Obviously ∆Weight/∆Calories is not a constant. It is a complex function that depend on all kinds of parameters. One think however is certain that if ∆Calories<0 then ∆Weight≤0 in other words you will not be gaining weight if you start dropping calories providing that all other parameters remain constant.
    , @utu
    Do you understand what this ‘a calorie is a calorie’ is supposed to mean? Because as far as I can see it is just a slogan of some pseudo-scietific charlatan who like to dress up his BS with some scientific terminology like invoking I and II law of thermodynamics. Guess what, both of these laws work and apply. That's why they are called laws. The first says you can't get something from nothing and the second says that if you want to get something from another thing the another thing must be larger than the something. But anyway, invoking the two laws when talking about weight gains and losses is a pure sign of provincial pretentiousness and/or a con job on people who are susceptible to pretense.

    You seem to be a sucker for BS particularly when it provides you an opportunity preaching seemingly controversial and contrarian ideas. As I said before it is fine and perhaps amusing at your aunt's dinner party once a year at her birthday but in a long run you should try to get real.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  173. @Sin City Milla
    Right, eating less doesn't work because willpower can't survive the first hunger pangs. But if you simply switch to the right diet, then you can eat all you want without ever getting hungry n still lose weight. Twice a year I switch to eating only meat for 8-10 days, nothing else. I eat all I want n never get hungry. I go into mild ketosis for the last couple of days, but that's not what does the trick. Its not so much what I'm eating that does the trick, which is mostly fish. Its what I'm not eating: cakes, pies, carbs etc. I typically lose 10 lbs. If I want to lose more, I will eat normally for 2 weeks, then return to the diet for another 8-10 days. For me it works. And it's much cheaper than buying a new wardrobe.

    People focus on what or how to eat, but never *when to eat*. That’s the biggest factor here.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  174. @utu

    I was a dedicated runner for 35 years, and yet I became severely overweight in spite of huge amounts of exercise
     
    You just ate too much for your exercise level.

    If you want to lose weight the necessary condition must be fulfilled:


    Energy_Spent≥Energy_Absorbed
     
    I hope your exorbitant IQ does not prevent you form understanding this inequality.

    The rate of weight loss will depend on foods you eat and type of exercises you do but as long as you manage to fulfill the inequality you will lose weight regardless of what food you eat and what you do. Gym and exercises are not really necessary. Work in your garden, clean you house, walk to store instead of driving will do. It is easier to keep your weight down if you live in European city than American city. Running and going to gym is just pointless burning energy unless somebody would pay you for it or your stationary bike had a dynamo so you could lower your energy bills.

    But if what you do works for you, keep doing what you are doing whether you eat spaghetti or steak Tartare, however do not put too much credence in all bio-chemistry explanations that you made yourself believe in.

    Utu do you have any citations showing that exercise induces weight loss? I’ve already shown the fallacious logic behind assuming that the first law is relevant to human physiology. Do you think that a calorie is a calorie?

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu

    I’ve already shown the fallacious logic behind assuming that the first law is relevant to human physiology.
     
    Great, so we do not need to eat at all. Energy is spontaneously generated from nano black holes located somewhere around human anus. Nobody will ever starve to death because you have shown the fallacy of the logic that one needs to eat. The greatest benefactor of humanity who liberated humanity from the awful burden of eating by the power of his logic!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  175. AaronB says:
    @Alden
    Supposedly the Mexican obesity rate is higher than America’s. Mexicans always ate rice beans and corn with just a little meat because they were poor.

    Americans didn’t get on the rice beans bread corn bread and potatoes diet until wages went down related to the cost of living in the 1970’s.

    At which point the government and liberals decided to make the best of it and told everybody that a poor people’s high carb diet was healthy

    After 20 years of high carb low protein obesity was high. 40 years after high carb low protein obesity was higher.

    40 years and 200 million obese people are the proof that high carb low protein causes obesity.

    I assume you’re joking.

    High carb lowith protein has been the diet of mankind since the dawn of agriculture. Obesity is quite recent.

    The Japanese eat high carb low protein. French eat about 3 Oz cuts of meat in a meal.

    It doesn’t matter what u eat. Just eat less. And probably avoid big food corporations. I dint trust them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    This is bullshit.

    Do you have citations?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  176. @CanSpeccy
    But there are other angles to consider. Dietary intake does not equal uptake, therefore utu's equation is invalid, if energy absorbed is supposed to equal dietary intake. Another term is required, uptake efficiency. And uptake efficiency may well vary with exercise regime.

    In addition, gut flora will be modified by the composition of the diet, which in turn will likely affect uptake efficiency.

    The equation isn’t valid because calories in and out are not independent. If you change the in, the out changes too.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  177. @Alden
    Supposedly the Mexican obesity rate is higher than America’s. Mexicans always ate rice beans and corn with just a little meat because they were poor.

    Americans didn’t get on the rice beans bread corn bread and potatoes diet until wages went down related to the cost of living in the 1970’s.

    At which point the government and liberals decided to make the best of it and told everybody that a poor people’s high carb diet was healthy

    After 20 years of high carb low protein obesity was high. 40 years after high carb low protein obesity was higher.

    40 years and 200 million obese people are the proof that high carb low protein causes obesity.

    An outstanding example is the Pima. Before the introduction of the Western diet they weren’t obese or diabetics. Then they ate a Western diet, then what happened? Quotes here:

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/12/21/on-diseases-of-civilization-romanticizing-the-hunter-gatherers-diet/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  178. @Dave Pinsen
    Will power gets a boost from seeing results, but when the results stall, then it's tough to stick with a diet. That's been my experience with low carb diets. I may try fasting next. I like the idea that I don't have to put any foods off limits entirely on the days when I'm eating.

    Read Jason Fung on this.

    https://idmprogram.com

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    Started the 5:2 fast diet mentioned there this week. I'd actually come up with a similar idea myself before, but nice to see an M.D. did too.

    In order to maximize my protein while staying under 600 calories on the two days, I just had 3 whey protein shakes blended with iced coffee, and a few smoked almonds to have something to crunch on. Went to the gym to lift both days.

    Had some serious cramps, probably from losing electrolytes, but dropped about 8lbs in those two days. Will add some sugar free gatorade or similar next week. Maybe this will work.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  179. @AaronB
    I assume you're joking.

    High carb lowith protein has been the diet of mankind since the dawn of agriculture. Obesity is quite recent.

    The Japanese eat high carb low protein. French eat about 3 Oz cuts of meat in a meal.

    It doesn't matter what u eat. Just eat less. And probably avoid big food corporations. I dint trust them.

    This is bullshit.

    Do you have citations?

    Read More
    • Replies: @AaronB
    I'd like to discuss it with you, but we're not gonna get anywhere. You're gonna ask me to provide evidence for what I regard as baseline assumptions.

    To me, it's indisputable that most people ate mostly grains and were too poor to eat much meat since the advent of agriculture. Most countries with a bit if tradition left that I've been to eat like this. Meat only became cheap recently.

    Discussions are useful only where there is a minimum of shared assumptions and then you argue about some conclusions. But if you're gonna ask me to reinvent the wheel each time I make a claim we won't get very far.

    To be fair, I don't think a high meat diet is bad for you. I think it's all fine. Just eat less. And probably avoid big American corporations. They are not to be trusted.

    Aside from that, I think we should focus on intangibles like culture and values. I think we are getting increasingly less mileage out of our materialism and it will all come crashing down soon.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  180. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Too many unquantifable factors to name, move more eat less will probably result in less than obese weight. Genetics, lifestyle all play a part. Good food counts, unprocessed is a must, willpower plays a part.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  181. Sparkon says:

    If you want to lose weight, do not drink diet soda, or consume so-called “light” foods. Note that even some baby food contains artificial sweetners.

    The consumption of aspartame and other artificial sweeteners has been linked to weight gain and increased body mass index (BMI):

    Abstract:
    America’s obesity epidemic has gathered much media attention recently. A rise in the percent of the population who are obese coincides with an increase in the widespread use of non-caloric artificial sweeteners, such as aspartame (e.g., Diet Coke) and sucralose (e.g., Pepsi One), in food products (Figure 1). Both forward and reverse causalities have been proposed [1,2]. While people often choose “diet” or “light” products to lose weight, research studies suggest that artificial sweeteners may contribute to weight gain.[...]

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2892765/

    Artificial sweeteners have other adverse health effects, in addition to weight gain:

    Artificial sweeteners are still viewed as a weight-loss aid in 2016 even though their hindrances to weight loss have been documented since at least the 1980s.

    Then, the San Antonio Heart Study, which involved nearly 4,000 adults, found drinkers of artificially sweetened beverages consistently had higher BMIs (body mass index) than non-drinkers.

    Again in the early 1980s, a study of nearly 78,700 women found artificial sweetener usage increased with relative weight, and users were significantly more likely to gain weight compared to those who did not use artificial sweeteners.

    Such associations have only continued to grow over the passing decades. Artificially sweetened beverages, including diet soda, are among the key culprits, with intake associated with “striking” increases in waist circumference among older adults, according to one study.

    Research published in PLOS One also found regularly consuming artificially sweetened soft drinks is associated with several disorders of metabolic syndrome, including:

    • Abdominal obesity
    • Insulin resistance
    • Impaired glucose intolerance
    • Abnormally elevated fats in the blood
    • High blood pressure

    The study found drinking aspartame-sweetened diet soda daily increased the risk of type 2 diabetes by 67 percent (regardless of whether they [sic] gained weight or not) and the risk of metabolic syndrome 36 percent.

    https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2016/12/06/aspartame-causes-obesity.aspx

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    Even though I live alone part of the year I cook everything from scratch including soup, gravy, and sauces. I do buy mayonnaise but if they start adding sugar and weird tasting chemicals I’ll start making my own

    Sugar is in everything. What I can’t stand about the added sugar is that it just doesn’t belong in a lot of things, like tomato soup. It’s gotten to the point that I find it hard to eat in restaurants because so much of the food just tastes strange.

    Corn in its natural state is a high sugar grain. American pioneers on the frontier invented corn syrup by boiling down the cobs. But in the last 30 years the corn farmers have bred more and more sugar into corn.

    Read the labels on any kind of tomato sauce or cannned whole tomatoes. There is usually added sugar. So you have to add pepper, salt , vinegar or red wine to counter the weird sugar taste.

    Any kind of bottled salad dressing, gross. That’s why fish meat and eggs are goood if you want to eat food that doesn t have a lot of weird tasting stuff added to it.

    I see the weight watchers ads on tv. It’s all weight watchers brand frozen food consisting of carbs carbs carbs. But the people in the ads are all fat.

    The original weight watchers diet was mostly eggs, fish and low calorie vegetables. I’ve heard it worked.

    I couldn’t eat the last container of tomato soup I bought. And I was really hungry too. After the first couple spoonfuls I had to check the label. And the first ingredient was not tomato but sugar. No wonder it tasted so awful

    I even have to make onion soup nowadays because the even the Lipton and canned kinds taste so weird and nasty.

    I still make rice aroni for the kids. It’s pretty good, tastes like it always did.
    , @Alden
    I wonder if that study was done by the cane and beet sugar farmers of America.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  182. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Dave Pinsen
    I heard a scientist on a late night radio show in the U.S. that dabbles in science as well paranormal stuff blame obesity on Edison. He said that before electric lighting, people used to burn a lot more wood, and then use the wood ashes to fertilize their gardens, and the ashes created more nutrient dense vegetables. He claimed that we eat more today because we're deprived of certain minerals are wood burning ancestors had a surfeit of.

    we eat more today because we’re deprived of certain minerals are wood burning ancestors had a surfeit of

    That makes sense. Wood ash will generally contain the minerals that become depleted in intensively cultivated soil. Moreover, there is evidence from animal studies that mineral deficiency affects appetite in the way suggested. The fast food people are probably onto it already, ensuring that their hamburgers and fudge sundaes are deficient in magnesium or whatever it is that makes utu so ill mannered, etc.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sparkon
    No it doesn't. The rise in obesity came long after the time Americans discontinued using wood as a primary heating and cooking fuel.

    There is good correlation however, between increasing rates of obesity and the consumption of artificial sweeteners.

    But wait! There's more...

    On January 21, 1981, the day after Ronald Reagan’s inauguration, Reagan issued an executive order eliminating the FDA commissioners’ authority to take action and Searle re-applied to the FDA for approval to use aspartame in food sweetener. Hayes, Reagan’s new FDA commissioner, appointed a 5-person Scientific Commission to review the board of inquiry’s decision. It soon became clear that the panel would uphold the ban by a 3-2 decision. So Hayes installed a sixth member on the commission, and the vote became deadlocked. He then personally broke the tie in aspartame’s favor.
     
    Aspartame had been banned because it is a dangerous chemical.

    Dr. John Olney, who founded the field of neuroscience called excitotoxicity, attempted to stop the approval of aspartame with Attorney James Turner back in 1996. The FDA’s own toxicologist, Dr. Adrian Gross told Congress that without a shadow of a doubt, aspartame can cause brain tumors and brain cancer and that it violated the Delaney Amendment, which forbids putting anything in food that is known to cause cancer. According to the top doctors and researchers on this issue, aspartame causes headache, memory loss, seizures, vision loss, coma and cancer. It worsens or mimics the symptoms of such diseases and conditions as fibromyalgia, MS, lupus, ADD, diabetes, Alzheimer’s, chronic fatigue and depression. Further dangers highlighted is that aspartame liberates free methyl alcohol. The resulting chronic methanol poisoning affects the dopamine system of the brain causing addiction. Methanol, or wood alcohol, constitutes one third of the aspartame molecule and is classified as a severe metabolic poison and narcotic. How’s that Diet Coke treating you now?


    Donald Rumsfeld and the Strange History of Aspartame
    By Robbie Gennet

     

    https://www.huffingtonpost.com/robbie-gennet/donald-rumsfeld-and-the-s_b_805581.html
    , @Alden
    But burning wood causes respiratory diseases and eye problems from the smoke and particulates floating around. Also those primitive countries that use cook fires destroy the ozone layer.

    The respiratory and eye problems are obvious. Ozone layer who knows.
    , @Alden
    Did farmers ever spread wood ashes on their fields?

    They would have had to do that to get the benefits. Lots of people spread wood ashes on their gardens as it’s conventional gardening wisdom that it’s helpful.

    So many studies, so little time to verify them.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  183. Sparkon says:
    @CanSpeccy

    we eat more today because we’re deprived of certain minerals are wood burning ancestors had a surfeit of
     
    That makes sense. Wood ash will generally contain the minerals that become depleted in intensively cultivated soil. Moreover, there is evidence from animal studies that mineral deficiency affects appetite in the way suggested. The fast food people are probably onto it already, ensuring that their hamburgers and fudge sundaes are deficient in magnesium or whatever it is that makes utu so ill mannered, etc.

    No it doesn’t. The rise in obesity came long after the time Americans discontinued using wood as a primary heating and cooking fuel.

    There is good correlation however, between increasing rates of obesity and the consumption of artificial sweeteners.

    But wait! There’s more…

    On January 21, 1981, the day after Ronald Reagan’s inauguration, Reagan issued an executive order eliminating the FDA commissioners’ authority to take action and Searle re-applied to the FDA for approval to use aspartame in food sweetener. Hayes, Reagan’s new FDA commissioner, appointed a 5-person Scientific Commission to review the board of inquiry’s decision. It soon became clear that the panel would uphold the ban by a 3-2 decision. So Hayes installed a sixth member on the commission, and the vote became deadlocked. He then personally broke the tie in aspartame’s favor.

    Aspartame had been banned because it is a dangerous chemical.

    Dr. John Olney, who founded the field of neuroscience called excitotoxicity, attempted to stop the approval of aspartame with Attorney James Turner back in 1996. The FDA’s own toxicologist, Dr. Adrian Gross told Congress that without a shadow of a doubt, aspartame can cause brain tumors and brain cancer and that it violated the Delaney Amendment, which forbids putting anything in food that is known to cause cancer. According to the top doctors and researchers on this issue, aspartame causes headache, memory loss, seizures, vision loss, coma and cancer. It worsens or mimics the symptoms of such diseases and conditions as fibromyalgia, MS, lupus, ADD, diabetes, Alzheimer’s, chronic fatigue and depression. Further dangers highlighted is that aspartame liberates free methyl alcohol. The resulting chronic methanol poisoning affects the dopamine system of the brain causing addiction. Methanol, or wood alcohol, constitutes one third of the aspartame molecule and is classified as a severe metabolic poison and narcotic. How’s that Diet Coke treating you now?

    Donald Rumsfeld and the Strange History of Aspartame
    By Robbie Gennet

    https://www.huffingtonpost.com/robbie-gennet/donald-rumsfeld-and-the-s_b_805581.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    No it doesn't.
     
    That mineral deficiency is unrelated to obesisty?

    believe what you like, but the literature suggests otherwise.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  184. AaronB says:
    @RaceRealist88
    This is bullshit.

    Do you have citations?

    I’d like to discuss it with you, but we’re not gonna get anywhere. You’re gonna ask me to provide evidence for what I regard as baseline assumptions.

    To me, it’s indisputable that most people ate mostly grains and were too poor to eat much meat since the advent of agriculture. Most countries with a bit if tradition left that I’ve been to eat like this. Meat only became cheap recently.

    Discussions are useful only where there is a minimum of shared assumptions and then you argue about some conclusions. But if you’re gonna ask me to reinvent the wheel each time I make a claim we won’t get very far.

    To be fair, I don’t think a high meat diet is bad for you. I think it’s all fine. Just eat less. And probably avoid big American corporations. They are not to be trusted.

    Aside from that, I think we should focus on intangibles like culture and values. I think we are getting increasingly less mileage out of our materialism and it will all come crashing down soon.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  185. Alden says:
    @Sparkon
    If you want to lose weight, do not drink diet soda, or consume so-called "light" foods. Note that even some baby food contains artificial sweetners.

    The consumption of aspartame and other artificial sweeteners has been linked to weight gain and increased body mass index (BMI):

    Abstract:
    America’s obesity epidemic has gathered much media attention recently. A rise in the percent of the population who are obese coincides with an increase in the widespread use of non-caloric artificial sweeteners, such as aspartame (e.g., Diet Coke) and sucralose (e.g., Pepsi One), in food products (Figure 1). Both forward and reverse causalities have been proposed [1,2]. While people often choose “diet” or “light” products to lose weight, research studies suggest that artificial sweeteners may contribute to weight gain.[...]
     
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2892765/

    Artificial sweeteners have other adverse health effects, in addition to weight gain:

    Artificial sweeteners are still viewed as a weight-loss aid in 2016 even though their hindrances to weight loss have been documented since at least the 1980s.

    Then, the San Antonio Heart Study, which involved nearly 4,000 adults, found drinkers of artificially sweetened beverages consistently had higher BMIs (body mass index) than non-drinkers.

    Again in the early 1980s, a study of nearly 78,700 women found artificial sweetener usage increased with relative weight, and users were significantly more likely to gain weight compared to those who did not use artificial sweeteners.

    Such associations have only continued to grow over the passing decades. Artificially sweetened beverages, including diet soda, are among the key culprits, with intake associated with "striking" increases in waist circumference among older adults, according to one study.

    Research published in PLOS One also found regularly consuming artificially sweetened soft drinks is associated with several disorders of metabolic syndrome, including:

    • Abdominal obesity
    • Insulin resistance
    • Impaired glucose intolerance
    • Abnormally elevated fats in the blood
    • High blood pressure

    The study found drinking aspartame-sweetened diet soda daily increased the risk of type 2 diabetes by 67 percent (regardless of whether they [sic] gained weight or not) and the risk of metabolic syndrome 36 percent.
     
    https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2016/12/06/aspartame-causes-obesity.aspx

    Even though I live alone part of the year I cook everything from scratch including soup, gravy, and sauces. I do buy mayonnaise but if they start adding sugar and weird tasting chemicals I’ll start making my own

    Sugar is in everything. What I can’t stand about the added sugar is that it just doesn’t belong in a lot of things, like tomato soup. It’s gotten to the point that I find it hard to eat in restaurants because so much of the food just tastes strange.

    Corn in its natural state is a high sugar grain. American pioneers on the frontier invented corn syrup by boiling down the cobs. But in the last 30 years the corn farmers have bred more and more sugar into corn.

    Read the labels on any kind of tomato sauce or cannned whole tomatoes. There is usually added sugar. So you have to add pepper, salt , vinegar or red wine to counter the weird sugar taste.

    Any kind of bottled salad dressing, gross. That’s why fish meat and eggs are goood if you want to eat food that doesn t have a lot of weird tasting stuff added to it.

    I see the weight watchers ads on tv. It’s all weight watchers brand frozen food consisting of carbs carbs carbs. But the people in the ads are all fat.

    The original weight watchers diet was mostly eggs, fish and low calorie vegetables. I’ve heard it worked.

    I couldn’t eat the last container of tomato soup I bought. And I was really hungry too. After the first couple spoonfuls I had to check the label. And the first ingredient was not tomato but sugar. No wonder it tasted so awful

    I even have to make onion soup nowadays because the even the Lipton and canned kinds taste so weird and nasty.

    I still make rice aroni for the kids. It’s pretty good, tastes like it always did.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  186. Alden says:
    @CanSpeccy

    we eat more today because we’re deprived of certain minerals are wood burning ancestors had a surfeit of
     
    That makes sense. Wood ash will generally contain the minerals that become depleted in intensively cultivated soil. Moreover, there is evidence from animal studies that mineral deficiency affects appetite in the way suggested. The fast food people are probably onto it already, ensuring that their hamburgers and fudge sundaes are deficient in magnesium or whatever it is that makes utu so ill mannered, etc.

    But burning wood causes respiratory diseases and eye problems from the smoke and particulates floating around. Also those primitive countries that use cook fires destroy the ozone layer.

    The respiratory and eye problems are obvious. Ozone layer who knows.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    But burning wood causes respiratory diseases and eye problems ...
     
    Depends how you burn it. But in any case, I'm not recommending it. Burning wood for the ashes is surely not the most economic way of remedying mineral depletion of agricultural soil. Asians have traditionally recycled shit to maintain the fertility of their agricultural land, which makes good sense, whereas we just flush it away thereby polluting our lakes, rivers and coastal waters.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  187. Alden says:
    @CanSpeccy

    we eat more today because we’re deprived of certain minerals are wood burning ancestors had a surfeit of
     
    That makes sense. Wood ash will generally contain the minerals that become depleted in intensively cultivated soil. Moreover, there is evidence from animal studies that mineral deficiency affects appetite in the way suggested. The fast food people are probably onto it already, ensuring that their hamburgers and fudge sundaes are deficient in magnesium or whatever it is that makes utu so ill mannered, etc.

    Did farmers ever spread wood ashes on their fields?

    They would have had to do that to get the benefits. Lots of people spread wood ashes on their gardens as it’s conventional gardening wisdom that it’s helpful.

    So many studies, so little time to verify them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    Did farmers ever spread wood ashes on their fields?
     
    They surely would not have had enough. But many undoubtedly use ashes on their kitchen garden, as I do. The added potash is particularly useful if you are using chicken manure, since that is relatively low in potassium. In addition, wood ash will contain micronutrients from undepleted forest soils.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  188. Alden says:
    @Sparkon
    If you want to lose weight, do not drink diet soda, or consume so-called "light" foods. Note that even some baby food contains artificial sweetners.

    The consumption of aspartame and other artificial sweeteners has been linked to weight gain and increased body mass index (BMI):

    Abstract:
    America’s obesity epidemic has gathered much media attention recently. A rise in the percent of the population who are obese coincides with an increase in the widespread use of non-caloric artificial sweeteners, such as aspartame (e.g., Diet Coke) and sucralose (e.g., Pepsi One), in food products (Figure 1). Both forward and reverse causalities have been proposed [1,2]. While people often choose “diet” or “light” products to lose weight, research studies suggest that artificial sweeteners may contribute to weight gain.[...]
     
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2892765/

    Artificial sweeteners have other adverse health effects, in addition to weight gain:

    Artificial sweeteners are still viewed as a weight-loss aid in 2016 even though their hindrances to weight loss have been documented since at least the 1980s.

    Then, the San Antonio Heart Study, which involved nearly 4,000 adults, found drinkers of artificially sweetened beverages consistently had higher BMIs (body mass index) than non-drinkers.

    Again in the early 1980s, a study of nearly 78,700 women found artificial sweetener usage increased with relative weight, and users were significantly more likely to gain weight compared to those who did not use artificial sweeteners.

    Such associations have only continued to grow over the passing decades. Artificially sweetened beverages, including diet soda, are among the key culprits, with intake associated with "striking" increases in waist circumference among older adults, according to one study.

    Research published in PLOS One also found regularly consuming artificially sweetened soft drinks is associated with several disorders of metabolic syndrome, including:

    • Abdominal obesity
    • Insulin resistance
    • Impaired glucose intolerance
    • Abnormally elevated fats in the blood
    • High blood pressure

    The study found drinking aspartame-sweetened diet soda daily increased the risk of type 2 diabetes by 67 percent (regardless of whether they [sic] gained weight or not) and the risk of metabolic syndrome 36 percent.
     
    https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2016/12/06/aspartame-causes-obesity.aspx

    I wonder if that study was done by the cane and beet sugar farmers of America.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  189. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Sparkon
    No it doesn't. The rise in obesity came long after the time Americans discontinued using wood as a primary heating and cooking fuel.

    There is good correlation however, between increasing rates of obesity and the consumption of artificial sweeteners.

    But wait! There's more...

    On January 21, 1981, the day after Ronald Reagan’s inauguration, Reagan issued an executive order eliminating the FDA commissioners’ authority to take action and Searle re-applied to the FDA for approval to use aspartame in food sweetener. Hayes, Reagan’s new FDA commissioner, appointed a 5-person Scientific Commission to review the board of inquiry’s decision. It soon became clear that the panel would uphold the ban by a 3-2 decision. So Hayes installed a sixth member on the commission, and the vote became deadlocked. He then personally broke the tie in aspartame’s favor.
     
    Aspartame had been banned because it is a dangerous chemical.

    Dr. John Olney, who founded the field of neuroscience called excitotoxicity, attempted to stop the approval of aspartame with Attorney James Turner back in 1996. The FDA’s own toxicologist, Dr. Adrian Gross told Congress that without a shadow of a doubt, aspartame can cause brain tumors and brain cancer and that it violated the Delaney Amendment, which forbids putting anything in food that is known to cause cancer. According to the top doctors and researchers on this issue, aspartame causes headache, memory loss, seizures, vision loss, coma and cancer. It worsens or mimics the symptoms of such diseases and conditions as fibromyalgia, MS, lupus, ADD, diabetes, Alzheimer’s, chronic fatigue and depression. Further dangers highlighted is that aspartame liberates free methyl alcohol. The resulting chronic methanol poisoning affects the dopamine system of the brain causing addiction. Methanol, or wood alcohol, constitutes one third of the aspartame molecule and is classified as a severe metabolic poison and narcotic. How’s that Diet Coke treating you now?


    Donald Rumsfeld and the Strange History of Aspartame
    By Robbie Gennet

     

    https://www.huffingtonpost.com/robbie-gennet/donald-rumsfeld-and-the-s_b_805581.html

    No it doesn’t.

    That mineral deficiency is unrelated to obesisty?

    believe what you like, but the literature suggests otherwise.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sparkon
    It's not what I believe, but rather what the data show.

    There are many things (factors and conditions) possibly related to obesity, but what is cause, and what is effect?

    Obesity affects the entire body so we should not be surprised that its organs and glands may not be functioning properly. I think James Thompson may have touched on this point himself at the top of his article.

    I looked at your long list of links, what you call "the literature." I saw no claim that mineral deficiencies began to rise when obesity did, but rather I noted most of these articles focused on the simple observation that obese people have mineral deficiencies. Big surprise. Obese people eat poorly, and their bodies are not functioning optimally, but without some data showing that mineral deficiencies among the general population increased at the same time and rate as obesity did, there is no sustainable argument for a cause and effect relationship between the two.

    By contrast, there is excellent temporal correlation between the increasing use of artificial sweeteners and increasing rates of obesity, especially after the approval and introduction of aspartame, as detailed in my previous comment. Here, a mechanism for the obese outcome is suggested:


    It may sound like a healthy switch, but sometimes people who drink diet soft drinks put on more weight and develop chronic disorders like diabetes. This has puzzled nutritionists, but experiments in mice now suggest that in some cases, this could partly be down to the artificial sweetener aspartame.

    Artificial sweeteners that contain no calories are synthetic alternatives to sugar that can taste up to 20,000 times sweeter. They are often used in products like low or zero-calorie drinks and sugar-free desserts, and are sometimes recommended for people who have type 2 diabetes.

    But mouse experiments now suggest that when aspartame breaks down in the gut, it may disrupt processes that are vital for neutralising harmful toxins from the bacteria that live there. By interfering with a crucial enzyme, these toxins seem to build up, irritating the gut lining and causing the kinds of low-level inflammation that can ultimately cause chronic diseases.

    “Our results are providing a mechanism for why aspartame may not always work to keep people thin, or even cause problems like obesity, heart disease, diabetes and metabolic syndrome,” says Richard Hodin at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.
     

    https://www.newscientist.com/article/2114043-why-diet-drinks-with-aspartame-may-actually-help-make-you-fatter/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  190. Adrian says:
    @anon
    Europeans are no more dedicated to health than Americans, and no harder working or harder playing than Americans. And they love food and drink just as much as Americans do. Yet they weigh less. The difference is the food.

    The food isn’t the only issue in the USA. Most British people find American portion sizes repulsive. There’s enough on a plate to feed two people.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  191. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Alden
    But burning wood causes respiratory diseases and eye problems from the smoke and particulates floating around. Also those primitive countries that use cook fires destroy the ozone layer.

    The respiratory and eye problems are obvious. Ozone layer who knows.

    But burning wood causes respiratory diseases and eye problems …

    Depends how you burn it. But in any case, I’m not recommending it. Burning wood for the ashes is surely not the most economic way of remedying mineral depletion of agricultural soil. Asians have traditionally recycled shit to maintain the fertility of their agricultural land, which makes good sense, whereas we just flush it away thereby polluting our lakes, rivers and coastal waters.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    All American farmers who have animals have manure spreaders to fertilize the fields.

    Human waste does not pollute waters in America. It’s carefully treated in the sewer plants before it’s returned to the water. That’s why Americans can swim in our lakes.

    Asians do use untreated human waste to fertilize their fields. That’s why Asia is full of hepatitis, worms and numerous GI diseases caused by human fecal matter in the food they eat.

    I’ve never heard of a method of burning wood that does not result in smoke and ashes and grit floating around.

    The environmentalists blame destruction of the ozone layer over Africa and Indonesia and India on millions s of people cooking over open wood fire.

    I doubt that the average African woman cooking over her open wood fire knows the special way of burning wood that eliminates smoke and grit. In many countries the y use dried animal manure for cook and heating fires. Think about that smoke abs ash

    You really should post about what you know. Anyone who is aware of the Asian habit of using human waste as fertilizer for vegetables is aware of the numerous diseases caused by this.

    I’m sure Wikipedia has articles about how American sewer systems sanitize human waste before returning it to the earth and water. Learn a bit about sewer systems before you assert that American sewer systems dump untreated human waste into the water.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  192. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Alden
    Did farmers ever spread wood ashes on their fields?

    They would have had to do that to get the benefits. Lots of people spread wood ashes on their gardens as it’s conventional gardening wisdom that it’s helpful.

    So many studies, so little time to verify them.

    Did farmers ever spread wood ashes on their fields?

    They surely would not have had enough. But many undoubtedly use ashes on their kitchen garden, as I do. The added potash is particularly useful if you are using chicken manure, since that is relatively low in potassium. In addition, wood ash will contain micronutrients from undepleted forest soils.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    Chicken manure is the A+++++ of manure. I think it’s the nitrogen.
    Southerners used to have a fence around the vegetable garden to keep the chickens and other critters out in the summer.

    But in fall, after everything was picked, they would herd the chickens into the fenced in garden every morning and feed them there.

    The chickens would spend the day pooping away and the garden would be fertilized without having to shovel up the manure and haul it to the garden.

    Another great idea is to put the chickens in the orchard in spring and summer when the garden is off limits. You get the best fruit tree fertilizer without any work or spending any money.

    I won’t totally repulse the vegetarians by telling them why beef feed lots are often combined with chicken farms.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  193. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    This is interesting:

    Enhancement of Learning and Memory by Elevating Brain Magnesium

    It suggests a way that utu could become not only smarter than he already is, but more civil than a polecat with a tooth ache.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  194. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    The Bush administration and the CIA working for big agricultural declared a war on American’s perception of gluten: “Bread and pasta are evil – death, alzheimers, allergies, inflammation, seizures, war, terrorism, those goddamn French and a deep state conspiracy by the lords of sugar”

    American men had dust covered prints of Atkins on their nightstands. They filled their freezers with meat. Meat bravado with some sadness over pizza. But “I lost some weight!”

    The succesful propaganda would extend to routine restaurant visits: sandwiches without the bread, soups without noodles, a tube of pepperoni in the dash of every SUV. ‘Gotta suffer to be good – gotta pay my meat dues to get in shape. All the meat I can eat. This is what it takes’

    The American meat system depends upon big oil. Blowing up Iraq was just a related business decision. Corn fields dedicated to ethanol or meat. Frito Lay coast to coast. There’s never enough bombs to secure this paradise, there aren’t enough pills, there isn’t enough Complan to replace Coca-Cola.

    “If you’re fat, poor, in debt, or in my way – it’s another IQ test”

    Test us, we’re ready to obey!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  195. utu says:
    @RaceRealist88
    Take this example. Someone has a TDEE of 2200 kcal. They want to lose weight so drop to 1800 kcal. They lose weight then stall. Kcal gets decreased more and more. However, the body matches its metabolism to calories coming in. What happens then? Continue to decrease kcal? Keep in mind this is assuming that 'a calorie is a calorie'.

    If someone ate 66 percent carbs and another 66 percent fat, who would find compliance easier? Who would reach their goal weight?

    Take this example. Someone has a TDEE of 2200 kcal. They want to lose weight so drop to 1800 kcal. They lose weight then stall. Kcal gets decreased more and more. However, the body matches its metabolism to calories coming in. What happens then?

    You stop the process of reducing calories intake once you achieve the desired weight. Which you will as long a the desired weight is “reasonable.” If the desired weight is “unreasonable” you may die in the process.

    If you do not believe it then you also do not believe in anorexia outcomes. Share you good news with anorexics that their dieting is pointless as they will not lose weight because their metabolism will compensate and the weight loss will stall.

    Obviously ∆Weight/∆Calories is not a constant. It is a complex function that depend on all kinds of parameters. One think however is certain that if ∆Calories<0 then ∆Weight≤0 in other words you will not be gaining weight if you start dropping calories providing that all other parameters remain constant.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    "You stop the process of reducing calories intake once you achieve the desired weight. Which you will as long a the desired weight is “reasonable.” If the desired weight is “unreasonable” you may die in the process."

    What about metabolic slowdown *adaptive thermogenesis)? How does that come into your math (in-out) regarding human weight loss?

    "If you do not believe it then you also do not believe in anorexia outcomes. Share you good news with anorexics that their dieting is pointless as they will not lose weight because their metabolism will compensate and the weight loss will stall."

    They have extremely low metabolisms due to extreme 'dieting'. Ancel Keys's 'starvation experiments' showed this. An anorexia website came across one of my articles on CI/CO saying that 'they don't have any metabolisms', actually. It was pretty funny and shows that they didn't understand what I wrote.

    There is also a difference between not eating/eating very little and accepting the modern dietary dogma of 'a calorie being a calorie' and thinking that you'd lose the same amount of weight on 66 percent carbs and 66 percent fat while having the same compliance. That's something that the math doesn't do. Trust me, I re-do my diet every few months and I do stay in deficits while dieting for fat loss, but I'm not the average person on the verge of insulin resistance due to a shitty diet. That's the difference.

    "Obviously ∆Weight/∆Calories is not a constant. It is a complex function that depend on all kinds of parameters. One think however is certain that if ∆Calories<0 then ∆Weight≤0 in other words you will not be gaining weight if you start dropping calories providing that all other parameters remain constant."

    You can control the in, but not the out. The out is more complex and since both variables not independent of one another, changing the in also changes the out, meaning that eventually your body's metabolism matches the out to the in, effectively stopping weight loss (following the caloric reduction as primary model, that all kcal are the same once ingested in the body no matter the source they came from).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  196. utu says:
    @RaceRealist88
    Take this example. Someone has a TDEE of 2200 kcal. They want to lose weight so drop to 1800 kcal. They lose weight then stall. Kcal gets decreased more and more. However, the body matches its metabolism to calories coming in. What happens then? Continue to decrease kcal? Keep in mind this is assuming that 'a calorie is a calorie'.

    If someone ate 66 percent carbs and another 66 percent fat, who would find compliance easier? Who would reach their goal weight?

    Do you understand what this ‘a calorie is a calorie’ is supposed to mean? Because as far as I can see it is just a slogan of some pseudo-scietific charlatan who like to dress up his BS with some scientific terminology like invoking I and II law of thermodynamics. Guess what, both of these laws work and apply. That’s why they are called laws. The first says you can’t get something from nothing and the second says that if you want to get something from another thing the another thing must be larger than the something. But anyway, invoking the two laws when talking about weight gains and losses is a pure sign of provincial pretentiousness and/or a con job on people who are susceptible to pretense.

    You seem to be a sucker for BS particularly when it provides you an opportunity preaching seemingly controversial and contrarian ideas. As I said before it is fine and perhaps amusing at your aunt’s dinner party once a year at her birthday but in a long run you should try to get real.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    Speaking of pseudo scientific BS
    , @RaceRealist88
    "Do you understand what this ‘a calorie is a calorie’ is supposed to mean?"

    Of course I understand what it means, what does it mean to you?

    "Because as far as I can see it is just a slogan of some pseudo-scietific charlatan who like to dress up his BS with some scientific terminology like invoking I and II law of thermodynamics. Guess what, both of these laws work and apply. That’s why they are called laws. The first says you can’t get something from nothing"

    And Fung's example showed how the First Law is irrelevant. It only restates that if one eats more then they gain weight. No causal information is given.

    "the second says that if you want to get something from another thing the another thing must be larger than the something"

    And I'm talking about the 'calorie is a calorie' mantra. If you state that then you're violating the Second Law as seen in Feinman and Fine (2004).

    "You seem to be a sucker for BS particularly when it provides you an opportunity preaching seemingly controversial and contrarian ideas. As I said before it is fine and perhaps amusing at your aunt’s dinner party once a year at her birthday but in a long run you should try to get real."

    It's also amusing in discussions on weight loss, too. Because 1) the human body is not a bomb calirometer and 2) the out matches with the in over time.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  197. utu says:
    @RaceRealist88
    Utu do you have any citations showing that exercise induces weight loss? I've already shown the fallacious logic behind assuming that the first law is relevant to human physiology. Do you think that a calorie is a calorie?

    I’ve already shown the fallacious logic behind assuming that the first law is relevant to human physiology.

    Great, so we do not need to eat at all. Energy is spontaneously generated from nano black holes located somewhere around human anus. Nobody will ever starve to death because you have shown the fallacy of the logic that one needs to eat. The greatest benefactor of humanity who liberated humanity from the awful burden of eating by the power of his logic!

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    "Great, so we do not need to eat at all. Energy is spontaneously generated from nano black holes located somewhere around human anus. Nobody will ever starve to death because you have shown the fallacy of the logic that one needs to eat. The greatest benefactor of humanity who liberated humanity from the awful burden of eating by the power of his logic!"

    No one claimed this. Again:

    "Notice once again, that the First Law of Thermodynamics is not being broken. There are no calories created out of thin air. It is simply irrelevant to human physiology. I studied biochemistry in university and took a full year course on thermodynamics. At no point did we ever discuss the human body or weight gain/ loss. Because it has nothing to do with thermodynamics. If anybody mentions the ‘first law of thermodynamics’ regarding weight loss, you, too will know that they are just not very smart. Or maybe they just haven’t really thought about what thermodynamics actually is.

    ...

    The lunatics are running the asylum – and they all believe in the First Law of Thermodynamics. In discussing the physiology of obesity, the First Law of Thermodynamics is not wrong – it’s irrelevant."

    https://idmprogram.com/first-law-thermodynamics-irrelevant/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  198. Alden says:
    @CanSpeccy

    But burning wood causes respiratory diseases and eye problems ...
     
    Depends how you burn it. But in any case, I'm not recommending it. Burning wood for the ashes is surely not the most economic way of remedying mineral depletion of agricultural soil. Asians have traditionally recycled shit to maintain the fertility of their agricultural land, which makes good sense, whereas we just flush it away thereby polluting our lakes, rivers and coastal waters.

    All American farmers who have animals have manure spreaders to fertilize the fields.

    Human waste does not pollute waters in America. It’s carefully treated in the sewer plants before it’s returned to the water. That’s why Americans can swim in our lakes.

    Asians do use untreated human waste to fertilize their fields. That’s why Asia is full of hepatitis, worms and numerous GI diseases caused by human fecal matter in the food they eat.

    I’ve never heard of a method of burning wood that does not result in smoke and ashes and grit floating around.

    The environmentalists blame destruction of the ozone layer over Africa and Indonesia and India on millions s of people cooking over open wood fire.

    I doubt that the average African woman cooking over her open wood fire knows the special way of burning wood that eliminates smoke and grit. In many countries the y use dried animal manure for cook and heating fires. Think about that smoke abs ash

    You really should post about what you know. Anyone who is aware of the Asian habit of using human waste as fertilizer for vegetables is aware of the numerous diseases caused by this.

    I’m sure Wikipedia has articles about how American sewer systems sanitize human waste before returning it to the earth and water. Learn a bit about sewer systems before you assert that American sewer systems dump untreated human waste into the water.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    Human waste does not pollute waters in America. It’s carefully treated in the sewer plants before it’s returned to the water. That’s why Americans can swim in our lakes.
     
    Oh yeah?

    Human and animal waste, among other sewage overflow, contaminate the beachwaters of virtually every sandy retreat in the country*.

    There were over 20,000 closing and advisory days last year at ocean, bay and Great Lake beaches because of high levels of bacteria and pollutants in the waters, according to the annual beachwater quality report – Testing The Waters – released today by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).

    *The US of A, that is.
     
    Alden, you should try taking your own advice:

    You really should post about what you know.
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  199. Alden says:
    @utu
    Do you understand what this ‘a calorie is a calorie’ is supposed to mean? Because as far as I can see it is just a slogan of some pseudo-scietific charlatan who like to dress up his BS with some scientific terminology like invoking I and II law of thermodynamics. Guess what, both of these laws work and apply. That's why they are called laws. The first says you can't get something from nothing and the second says that if you want to get something from another thing the another thing must be larger than the something. But anyway, invoking the two laws when talking about weight gains and losses is a pure sign of provincial pretentiousness and/or a con job on people who are susceptible to pretense.

    You seem to be a sucker for BS particularly when it provides you an opportunity preaching seemingly controversial and contrarian ideas. As I said before it is fine and perhaps amusing at your aunt's dinner party once a year at her birthday but in a long run you should try to get real.

    Speaking of pseudo scientific BS

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  200. Alden says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Did farmers ever spread wood ashes on their fields?
     
    They surely would not have had enough. But many undoubtedly use ashes on their kitchen garden, as I do. The added potash is particularly useful if you are using chicken manure, since that is relatively low in potassium. In addition, wood ash will contain micronutrients from undepleted forest soils.

    Chicken manure is the A+++++ of manure. I think it’s the nitrogen.
    Southerners used to have a fence around the vegetable garden to keep the chickens and other critters out in the summer.

    But in fall, after everything was picked, they would herd the chickens into the fenced in garden every morning and feed them there.

    The chickens would spend the day pooping away and the garden would be fertilized without having to shovel up the manure and haul it to the garden.

    Another great idea is to put the chickens in the orchard in spring and summer when the garden is off limits. You get the best fruit tree fertilizer without any work or spending any money.

    I won’t totally repulse the vegetarians by telling them why beef feed lots are often combined with chicken farms.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  201. @RaceRealist88
    'I have just spent some time diverted to and via the link to
    the “notpoliticallycorrect” site wrt sickle cells and I see a number of articles by RaceRealist that seem pretty good (also AfroSapiens who has made brief appearances here) and so I seek confirmation that you are both that RaceRealist as well as RaceRealist88 on UR??????"

    Yes that is me.

    Thank you! I shall now pay more systematic attention to your UR comments – and hold you to.stringent standards :-)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  202. @RaceRealist88
    'I have just spent some time diverted to and via the link to
    the “notpoliticallycorrect” site wrt sickle cells and I see a number of articles by RaceRealist that seem pretty good (also AfroSapiens who has made brief appearances here) and so I seek confirmation that you are both that RaceRealist as well as RaceRealist88 on UR??????"

    Yes that is me.

    And, if it isn’t seeking to encroach too far on Internet privacy tell me if I guess right about Afrosapiens with whom my civil exchanges include apparent agreement that the vast still underexplored genetic variety in Africa makes a lot of what has been said about Africans’ inherited attributes premature at best. I guess/infer that Afrosapiens is male and of sufficent African ancestry to pass as black (if not a sanctified PoC :-)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  203. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Alden
    All American farmers who have animals have manure spreaders to fertilize the fields.

    Human waste does not pollute waters in America. It’s carefully treated in the sewer plants before it’s returned to the water. That’s why Americans can swim in our lakes.

    Asians do use untreated human waste to fertilize their fields. That’s why Asia is full of hepatitis, worms and numerous GI diseases caused by human fecal matter in the food they eat.

    I’ve never heard of a method of burning wood that does not result in smoke and ashes and grit floating around.

    The environmentalists blame destruction of the ozone layer over Africa and Indonesia and India on millions s of people cooking over open wood fire.

    I doubt that the average African woman cooking over her open wood fire knows the special way of burning wood that eliminates smoke and grit. In many countries the y use dried animal manure for cook and heating fires. Think about that smoke abs ash

    You really should post about what you know. Anyone who is aware of the Asian habit of using human waste as fertilizer for vegetables is aware of the numerous diseases caused by this.

    I’m sure Wikipedia has articles about how American sewer systems sanitize human waste before returning it to the earth and water. Learn a bit about sewer systems before you assert that American sewer systems dump untreated human waste into the water.

    Human waste does not pollute waters in America. It’s carefully treated in the sewer plants before it’s returned to the water. That’s why Americans can swim in our lakes.

    Oh yeah?

    Human and animal waste, among other sewage overflow, contaminate the beachwaters of virtually every sandy retreat in the country*.

    There were over 20,000 closing and advisory days last year at ocean, bay and Great Lake beaches because of high levels of bacteria and pollutants in the waters, according to the annual beachwater quality report – Testing The Waters – released today by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).

    *The US of A, that is.

    Alden, you should try taking your own advice:

    You really should post about what you know.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    What you don’t know is that the local health departments continually test waters, especially in the summer.

    Bacteria in the water is quite quite different from your allegation that Americans just flush human waste into the lakes rivers and beaches.

    Bacteria is quite different from huge human manure piles floating in the waters off Calcutta and other turd world countries. Many African beaches are just toilets.

    More importantly, in America, the water is continually tested and when the Bactria level is too high the beaches are closed until the water is safe again.

    Why not stick to the topic of the article which is diet fads?

    You are just a crank who claims that America doesn’t have sewer systems.
    Go to some turd world country, and eat some raw vegetables.

    You will spend the rest of your life in desperate need of the sewer system.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  204. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    This is a vaguely interesting but largely unfocused discussion in response to an article of quite obscure purpose, unless it is to sell us a diet. However, it has provoked some comments about diet and mental function, which is a subject of undoubted importance. In that connection, this paper is interesting:

    The Effect of Vitamin-Mineral Supplementation on Juvenile Delinquincy Among American Schoolchildren: A Randomized, Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled Trial

    Somewhat similar studies have been undertaken in gaols, in the UK and elsewhere, the UK studies by Gesch et al. They found that vitamin and mineral supplements reduced prison violence and, if taken after release from gaol, reduced the recidivism rate. In connection with such studies, it would be interesting to see before and after tests of cognitive capacity.

    It could well be that the toxic fat and sugar-laden cheap calorie diet that Westerners increasingly consume may account for the end of the Flynn-effect driven rise in IQ, and will in future drive a physiologically based decline in mental competence.

    But more evidence is needed. In the meantime, the example of New York state in taxing sweetened soda drinks should be followed by other jurisdictions and greatly broadened, for example with a tax on sugar, equal to maybe 500% of the wholesale price. That would stop food processors adding the stuff to everything just because it is cheap.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    There was work on nutrition and delinquency decades ago which has continued, but has never really become popular to the degree I think it should be. Here is an example: https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=70045
    I have a number of books on this topic. Some authors to look for are Abram Hoffer and Carl Pfeiffer.

    Here is a survey book on the topic from 1978: https://www.amazon.com/Ecologic-Biochemical-Approaches-Treatment-Delinquents-Criminals/dp/0442234201
    Should have a host of paper references if you prefer the research literature.

    Regarding this:

    In the meantime, the example of New York state in taxing sweetened soda drinks should be followed by other jurisdictions and greatly broadened, for example with a tax on sugar, equal to maybe 500% of the wholesale price. That would stop food processors adding the stuff to everything just because it is cheap.
     
    Be careful what you ask for. The likely immediate outcome of a measure like that would be a large increase in the use of artificial sweeteners.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  205. Hu Mi Yu says:
    @Alden
    I admit to mo empathy for the food propaganda created by Jolly Green Giant, Pillsbury Mills, and the wheat and grain farmers .

    Some people will believe anything.

    Ummm by the time carbs, any carbs including fruits and vegetables get through the GI tract into the blood steam they are one and all turned into glucose.

    No. They are a mixture of maltose, glucose, fructose, and galactose when they are absorbed into the blood.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digestion#Carbohydrate_digestion

    Glucose is glucose, whether it enters the mouth as plain white or brown sugar, a cheap or expensive candy bar, or an organic pesticide free raised vegetable or whole grain bread from a health food store.

    Sugar is sucrose which is digested into 50% glucose and 50% fructose. A candy bar is mostly fat, and American bread contains sugar. All of these things matter.

    Take a physiology course.

    I did, along with biochemistry and biology. Because of genetic diversity, we each have different food intolerances. Those intolerances are what caused my diabetes. But my diet probably will not cure your diabetes. Vegan works for some, low-carb works for many, Mediterannean for others. I have to avoid fructose and galactose.

    The only diet that will cure everyone is starvation, and that has uh, unpleasant side effects.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    By the time it gets into the blood stream it’s all glucose.
    , @Alden
    I don’t have diabetes and I’m not even chubby, I’m normal thin.

    One of the more ridiculous things about all this inane diet advice and obsession is that the diet gurus and even medical people make no distinction between

    1 diabetes both child and adult onset
    2 obesity including morbid obesity
    3 various degrees of chubby ness

    Diabetes is a disease and is absolutely totally different from obesity and overweight.

    But the diet gurus have the naive and gullible population convinced that overweight leads to diabetes.

    If you have diabetes I’m sure you know that diabetics 1 & 2 are supposed to follow a high protein high fat low carb diet.

    The latest nonsense is that everyone is
    Pre adult onset diabetic and must follow the latest diet, a diet that often contradicts the standard high protein, high fat low carb diet that is supposed for diabetics
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  206. Alden says:
    @Hu Mi Yu

    Ummm by the time carbs, any carbs including fruits and vegetables get through the GI tract into the blood steam they are one and all turned into glucose.
     
    No. They are a mixture of maltose, glucose, fructose, and galactose when they are absorbed into the blood.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digestion#Carbohydrate_digestion

    Glucose is glucose, whether it enters the mouth as plain white or brown sugar, a cheap or expensive candy bar, or an organic pesticide free raised vegetable or whole grain bread from a health food store.
     
    Sugar is sucrose which is digested into 50% glucose and 50% fructose. A candy bar is mostly fat, and American bread contains sugar. All of these things matter.

    Take a physiology course.
     
    I did, along with biochemistry and biology. Because of genetic diversity, we each have different food intolerances. Those intolerances are what caused my diabetes. But my diet probably will not cure your diabetes. Vegan works for some, low-carb works for many, Mediterannean for others. I have to avoid fructose and galactose.

    The only diet that will cure everyone is starvation, and that has uh, unpleasant side effects.

    By the time it gets into the blood stream it’s all glucose.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  207. Alden says:
    @Hu Mi Yu

    Ummm by the time carbs, any carbs including fruits and vegetables get through the GI tract into the blood steam they are one and all turned into glucose.
     
    No. They are a mixture of maltose, glucose, fructose, and galactose when they are absorbed into the blood.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digestion#Carbohydrate_digestion

    Glucose is glucose, whether it enters the mouth as plain white or brown sugar, a cheap or expensive candy bar, or an organic pesticide free raised vegetable or whole grain bread from a health food store.
     
    Sugar is sucrose which is digested into 50% glucose and 50% fructose. A candy bar is mostly fat, and American bread contains sugar. All of these things matter.

    Take a physiology course.
     
    I did, along with biochemistry and biology. Because of genetic diversity, we each have different food intolerances. Those intolerances are what caused my diabetes. But my diet probably will not cure your diabetes. Vegan works for some, low-carb works for many, Mediterannean for others. I have to avoid fructose and galactose.

    The only diet that will cure everyone is starvation, and that has uh, unpleasant side effects.

    I don’t have diabetes and I’m not even chubby, I’m normal thin.

    One of the more ridiculous things about all this inane diet advice and obsession is that the diet gurus and even medical people make no distinction between

    1 diabetes both child and adult onset
    2 obesity including morbid obesity
    3 various degrees of chubby ness

    Diabetes is a disease and is absolutely totally different from obesity and overweight.

    But the diet gurus have the naive and gullible population convinced that overweight leads to diabetes.

    If you have diabetes I’m sure you know that diabetics 1 & 2 are supposed to follow a high protein high fat low carb diet.

    The latest nonsense is that everyone is
    Pre adult onset diabetic and must follow the latest diet, a diet that often contradicts the standard high protein, high fat low carb diet that is supposed for diabetics

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hu Mi Yu

    I don’t have diabetes and I’m not even chubby, I’m normal thin.
     
    So you have no personal experience dealing with diabetes. You just know that doctors have it right, and the standard high protein low carb diet works for everyone. If doctors knew what caused diabetes, we would not have an epidemic of it.

    The latest nonsense is that everyone is
    Pre adult onset diabetic and must follow the latest diet, a diet that often contradicts the standard high protein, high fat low carb diet that is supposed for diabetics

     

    I guess you disagree, but my point is that there is no one diet that will reverse diabetes for everyone: neither standard nor fad. We are all different, and we metabolize nutrients in slightly different ways. That is why we have so many contradictory diets.

    What I did was use my meter and rotate my diet to find that dairy products and fructose containing foods were contributing to my diabetes. I also took Igg blood allergy tests, and cutting out foods I was allergic to helped. I don't need the drugs and insulin my doctor wanted me to take. I eat lots of potatoes.

    It takes some intelligence and strength of character to ignore those who insist they know what I should eat. Food allergies and careful weaning have gone out of fashion. It is amazing how much hostility comes out when I say milk and honey make me ill.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  208. Alden says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Human waste does not pollute waters in America. It’s carefully treated in the sewer plants before it’s returned to the water. That’s why Americans can swim in our lakes.
     
    Oh yeah?

    Human and animal waste, among other sewage overflow, contaminate the beachwaters of virtually every sandy retreat in the country*.

    There were over 20,000 closing and advisory days last year at ocean, bay and Great Lake beaches because of high levels of bacteria and pollutants in the waters, according to the annual beachwater quality report – Testing The Waters – released today by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).

    *The US of A, that is.
     
    Alden, you should try taking your own advice:

    You really should post about what you know.
     

    What you don’t know is that the local health departments continually test waters, especially in the summer.

    Bacteria in the water is quite quite different from your allegation that Americans just flush human waste into the lakes rivers and beaches.

    Bacteria is quite different from huge human manure piles floating in the waters off Calcutta and other turd world countries. Many African beaches are just toilets.

    More importantly, in America, the water is continually tested and when the Bactria level is too high the beaches are closed until the water is safe again.

    Why not stick to the topic of the article which is diet fads?

    You are just a crank who claims that America doesn’t have sewer systems.
    Go to some turd world country, and eat some raw vegetables.

    You will spend the rest of your life in desperate need of the sewer system.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    What you don’t know is that the local health departments continually test waters, especially in the summer.
     
    Actually, I did know that, and I was aware also that local health departments find much of the water they test contaminated with sewage, due to 23,000 to 75,000 sanitary-sewer overflows that happen every year (according to the EPA), like last winter's 30 million-gallon-spill of raw sewage into Puget Sound from Washington State's largest sewage plant.

    As for dumping sewage on farm land, there are obviously health risks, although over many generations of exposure to such risk Asian populations have gained considerable immunity to the hazard. so I stand by what I originally said:


    Asians have traditionally recycled shit to maintain the fertility of their agricultural land, which makes good sense, whereas we just flush it away thereby polluting our lakes, rivers and coastal waters.
     
    In fact, now, Asian are turning away from the traditional method of recycling human waste, instead flushing it just like Americans, thus contaminating waterways with nitrates, phosphates and potassium, plus residues of a thousand drugs, legal and otherwise, that can cause fish to turn hermaphrodite and perhaps also explains the abrupt emergence of the transgender movement. And that's when things are working properly, rather than the tens of thousand of times a year that American sewage systems flood waterways, lakes, and coastal waters with diluted untreated sewage.

    It will, I believe, come to be seen in a future age as one of the greatest stupidities of the 20th and 21st century to flush shit into a sewer where it mixes with hundreds of times its own volume of other waste water, often the latter contaminated with oil or industrial pollutants, and then at vast expense, attempt to clean it up, before throwing away the nutrient constituents, in the process causing eutrophication of lakes and rivers.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  209. Alden says:
    @RaceRealist88
    res,

    A new genetic study lends credence to the Carbohydrate-Insulin Model.

    https://medium.com/@davidludwigmd/genetic-study-supports-carbohydrate-insulin-model-of-obesity-327d84be6d2b

    Mendelian randomization analyses provide evidence for a causal relationship of glucose-stimulated insulin secretion on body weight, consistent with the carbohydrate–insulin model of obesity.

    ...

    In summary, we found that genetic predisposition to higher glucose-stimulated insulin secretion was associated with higher BMI. This finding supports the carbohydrate–insulin model of obesity. These results underscore the need for adequately powered clinical trials and mechanistic studies of sufficient duration to explore how individuals with low vs high insulin secretion status respond to diets differing in glycemic load.

    http://clinchem.aaccjnls.org/content/64/1/192

    I'm really excited about this paper as it lends credence to the hypothesis that I've been pushing in this thread. What a great start to the new year to have genetic evidence for the Carbohydrate-Insulin Model of obesity.

    So this study shows that carbs cause obesity ?

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    "So this study shows that carbs cause obesity ?"

    It shows that insulin causes weight gain, like precedes it. But here are Stephen Guyenet's thoughts on the study:

    http://www.stephanguyenet.com/interesting-new-genetic-study-on-insulin-secretion-and-body-mass/

    This is a good debate with very smart people on both sides.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  210. res says:
    @CanSpeccy
    This is a vaguely interesting but largely unfocused discussion in response to an article of quite obscure purpose, unless it is to sell us a diet. However, it has provoked some comments about diet and mental function, which is a subject of undoubted importance. In that connection, this paper is interesting:

    The Effect of Vitamin-Mineral Supplementation on Juvenile Delinquincy Among American Schoolchildren: A Randomized, Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled Trial

    Somewhat similar studies have been undertaken in gaols, in the UK and elsewhere, the UK studies by Gesch et al. They found that vitamin and mineral supplements reduced prison violence and, if taken after release from gaol, reduced the recidivism rate. In connection with such studies, it would be interesting to see before and after tests of cognitive capacity.

    It could well be that the toxic fat and sugar-laden cheap calorie diet that Westerners increasingly consume may account for the end of the Flynn-effect driven rise in IQ, and will in future drive a physiologically based decline in mental competence.

    But more evidence is needed. In the meantime, the example of New York state in taxing sweetened soda drinks should be followed by other jurisdictions and greatly broadened, for example with a tax on sugar, equal to maybe 500% of the wholesale price. That would stop food processors adding the stuff to everything just because it is cheap.

    There was work on nutrition and delinquency decades ago which has continued, but has never really become popular to the degree I think it should be. Here is an example: https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=70045
    I have a number of books on this topic. Some authors to look for are Abram Hoffer and Carl Pfeiffer.

    Here is a survey book on the topic from 1978: https://www.amazon.com/Ecologic-Biochemical-Approaches-Treatment-Delinquents-Criminals/dp/0442234201
    Should have a host of paper references if you prefer the research literature.

    Regarding this:

    In the meantime, the example of New York state in taxing sweetened soda drinks should be followed by other jurisdictions and greatly broadened, for example with a tax on sugar, equal to maybe 500% of the wholesale price. That would stop food processors adding the stuff to everything just because it is cheap.

    Be careful what you ask for. The likely immediate outcome of a measure like that would be a large increase in the use of artificial sweeteners.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    Thank you for the refs. on nutrition and delinquency.

    Be careful what you ask for. The likely immediate outcome of a measure like that would be a large increase in the use of artificial sweeteners.
     
    Yes. How about requiring airlines, bus lines, taxis etc. to charge passengers by the pound. That would give people an incentive to watch what they eat. Or maybe products containing sugar and other bad things should carry health warnings: "This product may make you fat, dopey, delinquent," or whatever.
    , @RaceRealist88
    "I have a number of books on this topic. Some authors to look for are Abram Hoffer and Carl Pfeiffer."

    What are the best ones you have?

    "Be careful what you ask for. The likely immediate outcome of a measure like that would be a large increase in the use of artificial sweeteners."

    I was so for this a few years back. I saw all of these trucks in NYC at the time with ads against it. Of course, I wouldn't be surprised if Big Soda was behind those ads. They sweat every time somewhere brings up a sugar tax.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  211. anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @utu

    I was a dedicated runner for 35 years, and yet I became severely overweight in spite of huge amounts of exercise
     
    You just ate too much for your exercise level.

    If you want to lose weight the necessary condition must be fulfilled:


    Energy_Spent≥Energy_Absorbed
     
    I hope your exorbitant IQ does not prevent you form understanding this inequality.

    The rate of weight loss will depend on foods you eat and type of exercises you do but as long as you manage to fulfill the inequality you will lose weight regardless of what food you eat and what you do. Gym and exercises are not really necessary. Work in your garden, clean you house, walk to store instead of driving will do. It is easier to keep your weight down if you live in European city than American city. Running and going to gym is just pointless burning energy unless somebody would pay you for it or your stationary bike had a dynamo so you could lower your energy bills.

    But if what you do works for you, keep doing what you are doing whether you eat spaghetti or steak Tartare, however do not put too much credence in all bio-chemistry explanations that you made yourself believe in.

    I was a dedicated runner for 35 years, and yet I became severely overweight in spite of huge amounts of exercise

    You just ate too much for your exercise level.

    If you want to lose weight the necessary condition must be fulfilled:

    Energy_Spent≥Energy_Absorbed

    I hope your exorbitant IQ does not prevent you form understanding this inequality.

    *Sigh* Of course I know that. But there’s something that you clearly do NOT know: there’s a biochemical reason why you eat the amount that you do, and, if you artificially try to force yourself to just eat less, you will end up spending every waking moment in agonizing hunger pangs.

    Nobody can do this forever; sooner or later absolutely everyone eventually breaks down and eats enough to be satisfied. If you have hyperinsulinemia/metabolic syndrome/”famine genetics”, then, your “satisfied” point is likely to be just a little bit over your actual caloric needs, and you’ll slowly but steadily gain weight — despite an incredibly intense exercise regimen. I worked harder at fitness than almost anyone else i know; if conventional wisdom were true, I should never have had a weight problem.

    The great secret of low-carb/high-fat or “ketogenic” eating, is that it’s the only diet that gets you off the hyperinsulinemia roller-coaster and thereby shuts off the hunger pangs. Which means you end up eating less without trying, without being agonizingly hungry.

    Read More
    • Agree: RaceRealist88
    • Replies: @AaronB

    there’s a biochemical reason why you eat the amount that you do, a
     
    This is an unscientific assumption. There may be cultural reasons why you eat the amount you do.

    Hindu ascetics eat very little.

    Nobody can do this forever; sooner or later absolutely everyone eventually breaks down and eats enough to be satisfied.
     
    Untrue. Ascetics down the ages have controlled their urge to eat.

    People in Japan say they eat less because their culture values being thin and not stuffing your face.

    If there's a good enough reason to stay thin, we'll find the motivation to do so. Our culture doesn't give us a good enough reason.
    , @RaceRealist88
    Co-signed. The funny thing about utu is that he's only stating the math "If you eat X, then Y", but human physiology is more complex then the supposed number of kcal you are consuming. The human body is not a bomb calirometer.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  212. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Alden
    What you don’t know is that the local health departments continually test waters, especially in the summer.

    Bacteria in the water is quite quite different from your allegation that Americans just flush human waste into the lakes rivers and beaches.

    Bacteria is quite different from huge human manure piles floating in the waters off Calcutta and other turd world countries. Many African beaches are just toilets.

    More importantly, in America, the water is continually tested and when the Bactria level is too high the beaches are closed until the water is safe again.

    Why not stick to the topic of the article which is diet fads?

    You are just a crank who claims that America doesn’t have sewer systems.
    Go to some turd world country, and eat some raw vegetables.

    You will spend the rest of your life in desperate need of the sewer system.

    What you don’t know is that the local health departments continually test waters, especially in the summer.

    Actually, I did know that, and I was aware also that local health departments find much of the water they test contaminated with sewage, due to 23,000 to 75,000 sanitary-sewer overflows that happen every year (according to the EPA), like last winter’s 30 million-gallon-spill of raw sewage into Puget Sound from Washington State’s largest sewage plant.

    As for dumping sewage on farm land, there are obviously health risks, although over many generations of exposure to such risk Asian populations have gained considerable immunity to the hazard. so I stand by what I originally said:

    Asians have traditionally recycled shit to maintain the fertility of their agricultural land, which makes good sense, whereas we just flush it away thereby polluting our lakes, rivers and coastal waters.

    In fact, now, Asian are turning away from the traditional method of recycling human waste, instead flushing it just like Americans, thus contaminating waterways with nitrates, phosphates and potassium, plus residues of a thousand drugs, legal and otherwise, that can cause fish to turn hermaphrodite and perhaps also explains the abrupt emergence of the transgender movement. And that’s when things are working properly, rather than the tens of thousand of times a year that American sewage systems flood waterways, lakes, and coastal waters with diluted untreated sewage.

    It will, I believe, come to be seen in a future age as one of the greatest stupidities of the 20th and 21st century to flush shit into a sewer where it mixes with hundreds of times its own volume of other waste water, often the latter contaminated with oil or industrial pollutants, and then at vast expense, attempt to clean it up, before throwing away the nutrient constituents, in the process causing eutrophication of lakes and rivers.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  213. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @res
    There was work on nutrition and delinquency decades ago which has continued, but has never really become popular to the degree I think it should be. Here is an example: https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=70045
    I have a number of books on this topic. Some authors to look for are Abram Hoffer and Carl Pfeiffer.

    Here is a survey book on the topic from 1978: https://www.amazon.com/Ecologic-Biochemical-Approaches-Treatment-Delinquents-Criminals/dp/0442234201
    Should have a host of paper references if you prefer the research literature.

    Regarding this:

    In the meantime, the example of New York state in taxing sweetened soda drinks should be followed by other jurisdictions and greatly broadened, for example with a tax on sugar, equal to maybe 500% of the wholesale price. That would stop food processors adding the stuff to everything just because it is cheap.
     
    Be careful what you ask for. The likely immediate outcome of a measure like that would be a large increase in the use of artificial sweeteners.

    Thank you for the refs. on nutrition and delinquency.

    Be careful what you ask for. The likely immediate outcome of a measure like that would be a large increase in the use of artificial sweeteners.

    Yes. How about requiring airlines, bus lines, taxis etc. to charge passengers by the pound. That would give people an incentive to watch what they eat. Or maybe products containing sugar and other bad things should carry health warnings: “This product may make you fat, dopey, delinquent,” or whatever.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    "Yes. How about requiring airlines, bus lines, taxis etc. to charge passengers by the pound. That would give people an incentive to watch what they eat. Or maybe products containing sugar and other bad things should carry health warnings: “This product may make you fat, dopey, delinquent,” or whatever."'

    Most would see that as fat shaming, which makes the problem worse and causes obesity and more weight gain due to biochemical stress.

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/07/06/science-proves-it-fat-shaming-doesnt-work/

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/12/19/fat-shaming-and-weight-regain/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  214. JayMay, James Thompson’s fellow blogger here on the Unz Review, has a scientific resource page on obesity here:

    https://jaymans.wordpress.com/obesity-facts/

    It’s divided into the follow sectionss:

    - Individual-level heritability of obesity
    - Group-level heritability of obesity
    - Ineffectiveness of obesity treatments
    - Laboratory/surgical interventions
    - Overstated impact of obesity per se on health

    Some highlights:

    “Obesity is known to be highly heritable.”

    “Finally, there is a marked misconception that there is some sort of ‘debate’ about whether body weight is genetic (which it heavily is) or stems from ‘choices’ (i.e., behavior). This is one of those things that’s not even wrong. There can be no dichotomy between ‘genes’ and ‘choice.’ As HBD Chick would put it, where do choices come from? As readers of this blog know, the First Law of behavioral genetics is that all human behavioral traits are heritable. Genes (i.e., specifically, genetic differences) impact all human behavior (i.e., behavioral differences) to some degree. Indeed, often considerably so. More fundamentally, the phony dichotomy between genes and choice stems from a key misunderstanding: the failure to realize that the universe is deterministic. All events, including human behaviors, have causes….”

    “In the case of diets, particularly the most common low-fat and low-calorie diets, a very large meta-analysis of RCTs with a combined N > 60,000 (of which ~48,000 came from a single mammoth trial) and a study duration of 2.5 – 10 years, found that diet was completely ineffective for weight loss. The subjects showed no aggregate permanent weight loss at the end of the study period. The largest of these studies, the one by Howard et al (2006) found little change, a total loss (over 3 years) of less than 1 kg (and a difference between control and treatment groups of 1.29 kg, favoring treatment).

    “As for diet and exercise combined, several studies in both previous meta-analyses look at trials which tested both together. The result was the same: little to no significant aggregate weight loss, especially after longer periods of time.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    Read my responses to JayMan on dieting. He seems to believe that if he reads a few papers and cites them then that's it, dieting or watching what you eat has no utility.

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/08/05/diet-and-exercise-dont-do-it-part-ii/

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/07/30/diet-and-exercise-dont-do-it/

    "“Obesity is known to be highly heritable.”"

    What does this mean?

    "As HBD Chick would put it, where do choices come from?"

    Where do they come from?

    "More fundamentally, the phony dichotomy between genes and choice stems from a key misunderstanding: the failure to realize that the universe is deterministic. All events, including human behaviors, have causes…."

    This is funny. The true false dichotomy is between nature/nurture, genes/environment (which he's siding with genes on).

    http://www.academia.edu/791831/The_nurturing_of_natures

    https://cissct.duke.edu/books/ontogeny-information-developmental-systems-and-evolution

    "“In the case of diets, particularly the most common low-fat and low-calorie diets, a very large meta-analysis of RCTs with a combined N > 60,000 (of which ~48,000 came from a single mammoth trial) and a study duration of 2.5 – 10 years, found that diet was completely ineffective for weight loss. The subjects showed no aggregate permanent weight loss at the end of the study period. The largest of these studies, the one by Howard et al (2006) found little change, a total loss (over 3 years) of less than 1 kg (and a difference between control and treatment groups of 1.29 kg, favoring treatment)."

    This is the paper:

    http://dishlab.org/pubs/2013%20Compass.pdf

    Even a 10 percent weight reduction (which is what is termed a 'success' from Wing and Hill, 2001) greatly improves health outcomes. I've read all of Mann's work and her book, and JayMan literally just cherry-picks things for his pre-formed conclusions.

    Most people don't eat enough protein, and people who eat more protein have lower BP, for instance.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25194158

    "“As for diet and exercise combined, several studies in both previous meta-analyses look at trials which tested both together. The result was the same: little to no significant aggregate weight loss, especially after longer periods of time.”"

    I agree that dieting for the long term (using traditional methods, CI/CO) doesn't work. That doesn't mean that other methods (low carb combined with intermittent fasting) do not work. I recommend reading Jason Fung here, because JayMan is out of his league here, cherry-picking studies to help the conclusions he has already come to.

    https://idmprogram.com/

    One last point, one of his main citations, the Look AHEAD study doesn't even say what he wants it to, largely that dieting and exercise is useless for diabetics:

    The intervention aimed at weight loss by reducing fat calories, and using meal replacements and, eventually, orlistat, likely underemphasizing dietary composition. There is suggestive evidence, in fact, that qualitative changes in dietary composition aiming at higher consumption of foods rich in fiber and with a high vegetable/animal fat ratio favorably influence CV risk in T2D patients.

    In conclusion, the Look AHEAD showed substantial health benefits of lifestyle modifications. Prevention of CV events may need higher attention to dietary composition, contributing to stricter control of CV risk factors. As a better health-related quality of life in people with diabetes is an important driver of our clinical decisions, efforts on early implementation of behavioral changes through a multifactorial approach are strongly justified.

    http://www.nmcd-journal.com/article/S0939-4753(13)00303-7/fulltext

    Though if you're only picking cherries, you'll completely miss papers like this.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  215. Sparkon says:
    @CanSpeccy

    No it doesn't.
     
    That mineral deficiency is unrelated to obesisty?

    believe what you like, but the literature suggests otherwise.

    It’s not what I believe, but rather what the data show.

    There are many things (factors and conditions) possibly related to obesity, but what is cause, and what is effect?

    Obesity affects the entire body so we should not be surprised that its organs and glands may not be functioning properly. I think James Thompson may have touched on this point himself at the top of his article.

    I looked at your long list of links, what you call “the literature.” I saw no claim that mineral deficiencies began to rise when obesity did, but rather I noted most of these articles focused on the simple observation that obese people have mineral deficiencies. Big surprise. Obese people eat poorly, and their bodies are not functioning optimally, but without some data showing that mineral deficiencies among the general population increased at the same time and rate as obesity did, there is no sustainable argument for a cause and effect relationship between the two.

    By contrast, there is excellent temporal correlation between the increasing use of artificial sweeteners and increasing rates of obesity, especially after the approval and introduction of aspartame, as detailed in my previous comment. Here, a mechanism for the obese outcome is suggested:

    It may sound like a healthy switch, but sometimes people who drink diet soft drinks put on more weight and develop chronic disorders like diabetes. This has puzzled nutritionists, but experiments in mice now suggest that in some cases, this could partly be down to the artificial sweetener aspartame.

    Artificial sweeteners that contain no calories are synthetic alternatives to sugar that can taste up to 20,000 times sweeter. They are often used in products like low or zero-calorie drinks and sugar-free desserts, and are sometimes recommended for people who have type 2 diabetes.

    But mouse experiments now suggest that when aspartame breaks down in the gut, it may disrupt processes that are vital for neutralising harmful toxins from the bacteria that live there. By interfering with a crucial enzyme, these toxins seem to build up, irritating the gut lining and causing the kinds of low-level inflammation that can ultimately cause chronic diseases.

    “Our results are providing a mechanism for why aspartame may not always work to keep people thin, or even cause problems like obesity, heart disease, diabetes and metabolic syndrome,” says Richard Hodin at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

    https://www.newscientist.com/article/2114043-why-diet-drinks-with-aspartame-may-actually-help-make-you-fatter/

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    It’s not what I believe, but rather what the data show.
     
    But not what the data I showed show!

    And I didn't say that mineral deficiency caused obesity, I said it was related to obesity, which as the literature shows, it is.

    but in fact we seem to be in agreement that diet is the chief determinant of obesity. At one time Europeans and Americans were mostly small and thin, like most Japanese are today, whereas now they are mostly large and fat, as the Japanese are now becoming as they adopt a Westernized diet.

    Obviously there something seriously wrong with the way Westerners eat, and are encouraged to eat, by their corporate masters, a tendency in no way combated by their vastly expensive educational system, with its vast university campuses with their numerous restaurants and cafeterias serving mostly high calorie, low mineral and vitamin content junk food.

    But on the plus side, obesity has risen with national mean IQ. So who's to say that fat does not make for better brains.

    But not so, apparently:

    The greater your weight, the lower your IQ, say scientists.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  216. Hu Mi Yu says:
    @Alden
    I don’t have diabetes and I’m not even chubby, I’m normal thin.

    One of the more ridiculous things about all this inane diet advice and obsession is that the diet gurus and even medical people make no distinction between

    1 diabetes both child and adult onset
    2 obesity including morbid obesity
    3 various degrees of chubby ness

    Diabetes is a disease and is absolutely totally different from obesity and overweight.

    But the diet gurus have the naive and gullible population convinced that overweight leads to diabetes.

    If you have diabetes I’m sure you know that diabetics 1 & 2 are supposed to follow a high protein high fat low carb diet.

    The latest nonsense is that everyone is
    Pre adult onset diabetic and must follow the latest diet, a diet that often contradicts the standard high protein, high fat low carb diet that is supposed for diabetics

    I don’t have diabetes and I’m not even chubby, I’m normal thin.

    So you have no personal experience dealing with diabetes. You just know that doctors have it right, and the standard high protein low carb diet works for everyone. If doctors knew what caused diabetes, we would not have an epidemic of it.

    The latest nonsense is that everyone is
    Pre adult onset diabetic and must follow the latest diet, a diet that often contradicts the standard high protein, high fat low carb diet that is supposed for diabetics

    I guess you disagree, but my point is that there is no one diet that will reverse diabetes for everyone: neither standard nor fad. We are all different, and we metabolize nutrients in slightly different ways. That is why we have so many contradictory diets.

    What I did was use my meter and rotate my diet to find that dairy products and fructose containing foods were contributing to my diabetes. I also took Igg blood allergy tests, and cutting out foods I was allergic to helped. I don’t need the drugs and insulin my doctor wanted me to take. I eat lots of potatoes.

    It takes some intelligence and strength of character to ignore those who insist they know what I should eat. Food allergies and careful weaning have gone out of fashion. It is amazing how much hostility comes out when I say milk and honey make me ill.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  217. AaronB says:
    @anonymous


    I was a dedicated runner for 35 years, and yet I became severely overweight in spite of huge amounts of exercise
     
    You just ate too much for your exercise level.

    If you want to lose weight the necessary condition must be fulfilled:


    Energy_Spent≥Energy_Absorbed
     
    I hope your exorbitant IQ does not prevent you form understanding this inequality.

     

    *Sigh* Of course I know that. But there's something that you clearly do NOT know: there's a biochemical reason why you eat the amount that you do, and, if you artificially try to force yourself to just eat less, you will end up spending every waking moment in agonizing hunger pangs.

    Nobody can do this forever; sooner or later absolutely everyone eventually breaks down and eats enough to be satisfied. If you have hyperinsulinemia/metabolic syndrome/"famine genetics", then, your "satisfied" point is likely to be just a little bit over your actual caloric needs, and you'll slowly but steadily gain weight -- despite an incredibly intense exercise regimen. I worked harder at fitness than almost anyone else i know; if conventional wisdom were true, I should never have had a weight problem.

    The great secret of low-carb/high-fat or "ketogenic" eating, is that it's the only diet that gets you off the hyperinsulinemia roller-coaster and thereby shuts off the hunger pangs. Which means you end up eating less without trying, without being agonizingly hungry.

    there’s a biochemical reason why you eat the amount that you do, a

    This is an unscientific assumption. There may be cultural reasons why you eat the amount you do.

    Hindu ascetics eat very little.

    Nobody can do this forever; sooner or later absolutely everyone eventually breaks down and eats enough to be satisfied.

    Untrue. Ascetics down the ages have controlled their urge to eat.

    People in Japan say they eat less because their culture values being thin and not stuffing your face.

    If there’s a good enough reason to stay thin, we’ll find the motivation to do so. Our culture doesn’t give us a good enough reason.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    Ascetics down the ages have controlled their urge to eat.
     
    Ha! So there's the answer to America's obesity epidemic, everybody to be an ascetic.

    And it's evidently time for the Japanese to rededicate themselves to asceticism:

    Obesity on the rise as Japanese eat more Western-style food

    Actually, as anonymous explains to those with brains to grasp an explanation, the only asceticism most fat folks need is to stuff their faces with the right food, not the toxic crap that most Americans eat in seemingly vast quantities to judge by restaurant meal portions.

    , @Philip Owen
    Religious fasters do not usually have to hold down a job and socialize with co-workers. They usually have some form of social support.

    Medieval Lenten fasts worked because it is not a busy time of year on the farm (and a time to control consumption to avoid Spring famine). In Malaysia, during Ramadan, grocery sales double. If you need to concentrate hard on your work, you cannot spend your life feeling hungry.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  218. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @AaronB

    there’s a biochemical reason why you eat the amount that you do, a
     
    This is an unscientific assumption. There may be cultural reasons why you eat the amount you do.

    Hindu ascetics eat very little.

    Nobody can do this forever; sooner or later absolutely everyone eventually breaks down and eats enough to be satisfied.
     
    Untrue. Ascetics down the ages have controlled their urge to eat.

    People in Japan say they eat less because their culture values being thin and not stuffing your face.

    If there's a good enough reason to stay thin, we'll find the motivation to do so. Our culture doesn't give us a good enough reason.

    Ascetics down the ages have controlled their urge to eat.

    Ha! So there’s the answer to America’s obesity epidemic, everybody to be an ascetic.

    And it’s evidently time for the Japanese to rededicate themselves to asceticism:

    Obesity on the rise as Japanese eat more Western-style food

    Actually, as anonymous explains to those with brains to grasp an explanation, the only asceticism most fat folks need is to stuff their faces with the right food, not the toxic crap that most Americans eat in seemingly vast quantities to judge by restaurant meal portions.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AaronB
    You're joking, but a little bit of asceticism is a part of traditional societies.

    Traditional societies are spiritual and had lots of fast days and days where you didn't eat certain foods like meat. and in general you weren't expected to stuff yourself.

    So yea it's not crazy to say that we should have a culture of self restraint and asceticism.

    A little but of asceticism is healthy for body and soul. Trust me on that.

    The first paragraph of that article on Japan says they are ordering larger sizes. If so, it's once again a cultural change, and not about the composition of food.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  219. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Sparkon
    It's not what I believe, but rather what the data show.

    There are many things (factors and conditions) possibly related to obesity, but what is cause, and what is effect?

    Obesity affects the entire body so we should not be surprised that its organs and glands may not be functioning properly. I think James Thompson may have touched on this point himself at the top of his article.

    I looked at your long list of links, what you call "the literature." I saw no claim that mineral deficiencies began to rise when obesity did, but rather I noted most of these articles focused on the simple observation that obese people have mineral deficiencies. Big surprise. Obese people eat poorly, and their bodies are not functioning optimally, but without some data showing that mineral deficiencies among the general population increased at the same time and rate as obesity did, there is no sustainable argument for a cause and effect relationship between the two.

    By contrast, there is excellent temporal correlation between the increasing use of artificial sweeteners and increasing rates of obesity, especially after the approval and introduction of aspartame, as detailed in my previous comment. Here, a mechanism for the obese outcome is suggested:


    It may sound like a healthy switch, but sometimes people who drink diet soft drinks put on more weight and develop chronic disorders like diabetes. This has puzzled nutritionists, but experiments in mice now suggest that in some cases, this could partly be down to the artificial sweetener aspartame.

    Artificial sweeteners that contain no calories are synthetic alternatives to sugar that can taste up to 20,000 times sweeter. They are often used in products like low or zero-calorie drinks and sugar-free desserts, and are sometimes recommended for people who have type 2 diabetes.

    But mouse experiments now suggest that when aspartame breaks down in the gut, it may disrupt processes that are vital for neutralising harmful toxins from the bacteria that live there. By interfering with a crucial enzyme, these toxins seem to build up, irritating the gut lining and causing the kinds of low-level inflammation that can ultimately cause chronic diseases.

    “Our results are providing a mechanism for why aspartame may not always work to keep people thin, or even cause problems like obesity, heart disease, diabetes and metabolic syndrome,” says Richard Hodin at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.
     

    https://www.newscientist.com/article/2114043-why-diet-drinks-with-aspartame-may-actually-help-make-you-fatter/

    It’s not what I believe, but rather what the data show.

    But not what the data I showed show!

    And I didn’t say that mineral deficiency caused obesity, I said it was related to obesity, which as the literature shows, it is.

    but in fact we seem to be in agreement that diet is the chief determinant of obesity. At one time Europeans and Americans were mostly small and thin, like most Japanese are today, whereas now they are mostly large and fat, as the Japanese are now becoming as they adopt a Westernized diet.

    Obviously there something seriously wrong with the way Westerners eat, and are encouraged to eat, by their corporate masters, a tendency in no way combated by their vastly expensive educational system, with its vast university campuses with their numerous restaurants and cafeterias serving mostly high calorie, low mineral and vitamin content junk food.

    But on the plus side, obesity has risen with national mean IQ. So who’s to say that fat does not make for better brains.

    But not so, apparently:

    The greater your weight, the lower your IQ, say scientists.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    "The greater your weight, the lower your IQ, say scientists."

    Causation could be not educated on what to eat/buy > obesity, not that low IQ 'causes' obesity on its own.
    , @Hu Mi Yu

    But on the plus side, obesity has risen with national mean IQ. So who’s to say that fat does not make for better brains.
     
    Cunnane argues for this proposition seriously. He theorizes that early humans migrated to shore areas where they dug for shellfish. The high fat diet is what allowed us to evolve our bigger brains. One bit of evidence he cites for this is that humans need more iodine than can be found anywhere but near the sea.

    Cunnane, Stephen C. (2005) Survival of the Fattest World Scientific Publishing Co. Singapore. ISBN 981-256-191-9
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  220. AaronB says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Ascetics down the ages have controlled their urge to eat.
     
    Ha! So there's the answer to America's obesity epidemic, everybody to be an ascetic.

    And it's evidently time for the Japanese to rededicate themselves to asceticism:

    Obesity on the rise as Japanese eat more Western-style food

    Actually, as anonymous explains to those with brains to grasp an explanation, the only asceticism most fat folks need is to stuff their faces with the right food, not the toxic crap that most Americans eat in seemingly vast quantities to judge by restaurant meal portions.

    You’re joking, but a little bit of asceticism is a part of traditional societies.

    Traditional societies are spiritual and had lots of fast days and days where you didn’t eat certain foods like meat. and in general you weren’t expected to stuff yourself.

    So yea it’s not crazy to say that we should have a culture of self restraint and asceticism.

    A little but of asceticism is healthy for body and soul. Trust me on that.

    The first paragraph of that article on Japan says they are ordering larger sizes. If so, it’s once again a cultural change, and not about the composition of food.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    A little but of asceticism is healthy for body and soul. Trust me on that.
     
    I look forward to the news from Mar a Largo, when President Trump, chocolate cake in hand, announces the dedication of the nation to austerity and asceticism.

    As for trusting you, you say:

    The first paragraph of that article on Japan says they are ordering larger sizes
     
    which does not represent the main thrust of the article, which states:

    The fact is that despite the stereotypical view of the Japanese subsisting on fish and rice and miso soup, the national diet is no longer as healthy as it was.
     
    and

    According to Gozoh Tsujimoto, director of the Drug Discovery Research Center at Kyoto University, there is a straightforward explanation for the expansion of waistlines in Japan: Westernization.

    “Lifestyle factors have become Westernized,” he told me in an email interview. “Especially, food has become Westernized — and mainly high-calorie and high fat.”
     
    Trust must be earned. It cannot be commanded.
    , @anonymous

    You’re joking, but a little bit of asceticism is a part of traditional societies.

    Traditional societies are spiritual and had lots of fast days and days where you didn’t eat certain foods like meat. and in general you weren’t expected to stuff yourself.

    So yea it’s not crazy to say that we should have a culture of self restraint and asceticism.
     

    *Sigh* I engaged in religiously motivated fasting during my "fat" years, and it didn't help with my weight issues in the least. An occasional fast day is good for your immune system & a few other things but as a weight control strategy it's foolishness. I still occasionally fast, but what makes or breaks my weight control strategy is what I eat on the days I'm NOT fasting. Which should seemingly be quite obvious.

    Cutting way back on carbs and increasing natural fats (olive oil, grassfed butter, etc), allows me to eat to true satisfaction while controlling my weight and still having enough energy to do my job, chase 3 kids around, and work out regularly. Tonight's dinner is pork chops and ratatouille, with red wine, almonds, and cheese for dessert. What kind of junk are YOU eating?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  221. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @AaronB
    You're joking, but a little bit of asceticism is a part of traditional societies.

    Traditional societies are spiritual and had lots of fast days and days where you didn't eat certain foods like meat. and in general you weren't expected to stuff yourself.

    So yea it's not crazy to say that we should have a culture of self restraint and asceticism.

    A little but of asceticism is healthy for body and soul. Trust me on that.

    The first paragraph of that article on Japan says they are ordering larger sizes. If so, it's once again a cultural change, and not about the composition of food.

    A little but of asceticism is healthy for body and soul. Trust me on that.

    I look forward to the news from Mar a Largo, when President Trump, chocolate cake in hand, announces the dedication of the nation to austerity and asceticism.

    As for trusting you, you say:

    The first paragraph of that article on Japan says they are ordering larger sizes

    which does not represent the main thrust of the article, which states:

    The fact is that despite the stereotypical view of the Japanese subsisting on fish and rice and miso soup, the national diet is no longer as healthy as it was.

    and

    According to Gozoh Tsujimoto, director of the Drug Discovery Research Center at Kyoto University, there is a straightforward explanation for the expansion of waistlines in Japan: Westernization.

    “Lifestyle factors have become Westernized,” he told me in an email interview. “Especially, food has become Westernized — and mainly high-calorie and high fat.”

    Trust must be earned. It cannot be commanded.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  222. anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @AaronB
    You're joking, but a little bit of asceticism is a part of traditional societies.

    Traditional societies are spiritual and had lots of fast days and days where you didn't eat certain foods like meat. and in general you weren't expected to stuff yourself.

    So yea it's not crazy to say that we should have a culture of self restraint and asceticism.

    A little but of asceticism is healthy for body and soul. Trust me on that.

    The first paragraph of that article on Japan says they are ordering larger sizes. If so, it's once again a cultural change, and not about the composition of food.

    You’re joking, but a little bit of asceticism is a part of traditional societies.

    Traditional societies are spiritual and had lots of fast days and days where you didn’t eat certain foods like meat. and in general you weren’t expected to stuff yourself.

    So yea it’s not crazy to say that we should have a culture of self restraint and asceticism.

    *Sigh* I engaged in religiously motivated fasting during my “fat” years, and it didn’t help with my weight issues in the least. An occasional fast day is good for your immune system & a few other things but as a weight control strategy it’s foolishness. I still occasionally fast, but what makes or breaks my weight control strategy is what I eat on the days I’m NOT fasting. Which should seemingly be quite obvious.

    Cutting way back on carbs and increasing natural fats (olive oil, grassfed butter, etc), allows me to eat to true satisfaction while controlling my weight and still having enough energy to do my job, chase 3 kids around, and work out regularly. Tonight’s dinner is pork chops and ratatouille, with red wine, almonds, and cheese for dessert. What kind of junk are YOU eating?

    Read More
    • Replies: @AaronB
    Right, I simply meant that we need a national culture of mild asceticism based on traditional values.

    If you just include fast days in an otherwise indulgent Western lifestyle you won't accomplish much.

    What we are fighting against is pleasure. Food is a pleasure. What ever you eat, it's going to be a pleasure. Steaks are delicious, and bagels are delicious.

    We humans need a good reason to not overindulge in pleasure, any kind of pleasure.

    Really, the "it's what you eat" theory ignores the psychology of pleasure. "Satiety" is the wrong goal. People eat past satiety for pleasure.

    I just did that an hour ago - I ate an enormous delicious meal, way past feeling full. Even if I was eating foods that made me feel full, I chose to eat way past that, for pure pleasure, since it's the weekend and I was among friends. In fact I feel uncomfortable now.

    It's fundamentally misconcieved to think that humans eat primarily for hunger. We eat primarily for pleasure.

    So, the "right foods producing satiety" theory is basically flawed in its psychology.

    That theory treats humans too much as efficient machines - we need fuel to function, so if we eat beyond that, we must not realize we have enough fuel to function. In other words we must still be "hungry".

    But humans crave pleasure, and will eat way past feeling full. So aiming for that "full" feeling misses the point.

    Do you get what I'm saying?

    It doesn't matter if we eat the right foods that will make us feel satisfied. We don't eat to feel satisfied. We eat to maximize pleasure.

    Stopping to eat when you feel full would itself be the result if culture.

    We would gave to have a culture that encourages people to be content with being satisfied. But we have a maximizing culture.

    Our materialistic culture doesn't give us strong reasons not to overindulge in the pleasure of eating.

    In fact, people turn to food as one of the few pleasures available in a generally unsatisfying culture.

    Where these strong reasons exist, like among Hollywood actors, or among snobbish coastal elites, the majority stays thin.

    If you don't want to overindulge in pleasure, you need a different pleasure that opposes it. And the only pleasures that can oppose physical pleasures are mental pleasures, culture, values, etc.

    And this analysis applies to port addiction, drinking too much.

    But one thing seems clear to me - this needs to be approached through the psychology of pleasure, and not the psychology of hunger or satiety.

    Make sense?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  223. AaronB says:
    @anonymous

    You’re joking, but a little bit of asceticism is a part of traditional societies.

    Traditional societies are spiritual and had lots of fast days and days where you didn’t eat certain foods like meat. and in general you weren’t expected to stuff yourself.

    So yea it’s not crazy to say that we should have a culture of self restraint and asceticism.
     

    *Sigh* I engaged in religiously motivated fasting during my "fat" years, and it didn't help with my weight issues in the least. An occasional fast day is good for your immune system & a few other things but as a weight control strategy it's foolishness. I still occasionally fast, but what makes or breaks my weight control strategy is what I eat on the days I'm NOT fasting. Which should seemingly be quite obvious.

    Cutting way back on carbs and increasing natural fats (olive oil, grassfed butter, etc), allows me to eat to true satisfaction while controlling my weight and still having enough energy to do my job, chase 3 kids around, and work out regularly. Tonight's dinner is pork chops and ratatouille, with red wine, almonds, and cheese for dessert. What kind of junk are YOU eating?

    Right, I simply meant that we need a national culture of mild asceticism based on traditional values.

    If you just include fast days in an otherwise indulgent Western lifestyle you won’t accomplish much.

    What we are fighting against is pleasure. Food is a pleasure. What ever you eat, it’s going to be a pleasure. Steaks are delicious, and bagels are delicious.

    We humans need a good reason to not overindulge in pleasure, any kind of pleasure.

    Really, the “it’s what you eat” theory ignores the psychology of pleasure. “Satiety” is the wrong goal. People eat past satiety for pleasure.

    I just did that an hour ago – I ate an enormous delicious meal, way past feeling full. Even if I was eating foods that made me feel full, I chose to eat way past that, for pure pleasure, since it’s the weekend and I was among friends. In fact I feel uncomfortable now.

    It’s fundamentally misconcieved to think that humans eat primarily for hunger. We eat primarily for pleasure.

    So, the “right foods producing satiety” theory is basically flawed in its psychology.

    That theory treats humans too much as efficient machines – we need fuel to function, so if we eat beyond that, we must not realize we have enough fuel to function. In other words we must still be “hungry”.

    But humans crave pleasure, and will eat way past feeling full. So aiming for that “full” feeling misses the point.

    Do you get what I’m saying?

    It doesn’t matter if we eat the right foods that will make us feel satisfied. We don’t eat to feel satisfied. We eat to maximize pleasure.

    Stopping to eat when you feel full would itself be the result if culture.

    We would gave to have a culture that encourages people to be content with being satisfied. But we have a maximizing culture.

    Our materialistic culture doesn’t give us strong reasons not to overindulge in the pleasure of eating.

    In fact, people turn to food as one of the few pleasures available in a generally unsatisfying culture.

    Where these strong reasons exist, like among Hollywood actors, or among snobbish coastal elites, the majority stays thin.

    If you don’t want to overindulge in pleasure, you need a different pleasure that opposes it. And the only pleasures that can oppose physical pleasures are mental pleasures, culture, values, etc.

    And this analysis applies to port addiction, drinking too much.

    But one thing seems clear to me – this needs to be approached through the psychology of pleasure, and not the psychology of hunger or satiety.

    Make sense?

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous

    What we are fighting against is pleasure. Food is a pleasure.
     
    A higher authority disagrees with you:

    You make known to me the path of life;
    You will fill me with joy in Your presence,
    with eternal pleasures at Your right hand.
    Psalm 16:11


    the “right foods producing satiety” theory is basically flawed in its psychology..t one thing seems clear to me – this needs to be approached through the psychology of pleasure, and not the psychology of hunger or satiety
     
    However it is perfectly in accord with biochemistry, which I actually know something about. I remind you, 55 lbs melted away without hunger, and I feel 20 years younger. I lost this weight and revitalized my health without resorting to any psychology whatsoever.


    Our materialistic culture doesn’t give us strong reasons not to overindulge in the pleasure of eating...Where these strong reasons exist, like among Hollywood actors, or among snobbish coastal elites, the majority stays thin.
     
    They're all on drugs. Or they're low-carbing, like me.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  224. anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @AaronB
    Right, I simply meant that we need a national culture of mild asceticism based on traditional values.

    If you just include fast days in an otherwise indulgent Western lifestyle you won't accomplish much.

    What we are fighting against is pleasure. Food is a pleasure. What ever you eat, it's going to be a pleasure. Steaks are delicious, and bagels are delicious.

    We humans need a good reason to not overindulge in pleasure, any kind of pleasure.

    Really, the "it's what you eat" theory ignores the psychology of pleasure. "Satiety" is the wrong goal. People eat past satiety for pleasure.

    I just did that an hour ago - I ate an enormous delicious meal, way past feeling full. Even if I was eating foods that made me feel full, I chose to eat way past that, for pure pleasure, since it's the weekend and I was among friends. In fact I feel uncomfortable now.

    It's fundamentally misconcieved to think that humans eat primarily for hunger. We eat primarily for pleasure.

    So, the "right foods producing satiety" theory is basically flawed in its psychology.

    That theory treats humans too much as efficient machines - we need fuel to function, so if we eat beyond that, we must not realize we have enough fuel to function. In other words we must still be "hungry".

    But humans crave pleasure, and will eat way past feeling full. So aiming for that "full" feeling misses the point.

    Do you get what I'm saying?

    It doesn't matter if we eat the right foods that will make us feel satisfied. We don't eat to feel satisfied. We eat to maximize pleasure.

    Stopping to eat when you feel full would itself be the result if culture.

    We would gave to have a culture that encourages people to be content with being satisfied. But we have a maximizing culture.

    Our materialistic culture doesn't give us strong reasons not to overindulge in the pleasure of eating.

    In fact, people turn to food as one of the few pleasures available in a generally unsatisfying culture.

    Where these strong reasons exist, like among Hollywood actors, or among snobbish coastal elites, the majority stays thin.

    If you don't want to overindulge in pleasure, you need a different pleasure that opposes it. And the only pleasures that can oppose physical pleasures are mental pleasures, culture, values, etc.

    And this analysis applies to port addiction, drinking too much.

    But one thing seems clear to me - this needs to be approached through the psychology of pleasure, and not the psychology of hunger or satiety.

    Make sense?

    What we are fighting against is pleasure. Food is a pleasure.

    A higher authority disagrees with you:

    You make known to me the path of life;
    You will fill me with joy in Your presence,
    with eternal pleasures at Your right hand.
    Psalm 16:11

    the “right foods producing satiety” theory is basically flawed in its psychology..t one thing seems clear to me – this needs to be approached through the psychology of pleasure, and not the psychology of hunger or satiety

    However it is perfectly in accord with biochemistry, which I actually know something about. I remind you, 55 lbs melted away without hunger, and I feel 20 years younger. I lost this weight and revitalized my health without resorting to any psychology whatsoever.

    Our materialistic culture doesn’t give us strong reasons not to overindulge in the pleasure of eating…Where these strong reasons exist, like among Hollywood actors, or among snobbish coastal elites, the majority stays thin.

    They’re all on drugs. Or they’re low-carbing, like me.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AaronB

    I remind you, 55 lbs melted away without hunger, and I feel 20 years younger
     
    .

    You didn't, unfortunately, undersrand what I said.

    When your hunger died down, what made you not continue eating for the pure pleasure of it? Why did you stop just at the point where you no longer felt hungry?

    Low carb diets may kill hunger - but they don't kill pleasure.

    And people overeat for pleasure.

    So unfortunately, your comment missed the point.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  225. AaronB says:
    @anonymous

    What we are fighting against is pleasure. Food is a pleasure.
     
    A higher authority disagrees with you:

    You make known to me the path of life;
    You will fill me with joy in Your presence,
    with eternal pleasures at Your right hand.
    Psalm 16:11


    the “right foods producing satiety” theory is basically flawed in its psychology..t one thing seems clear to me – this needs to be approached through the psychology of pleasure, and not the psychology of hunger or satiety
     
    However it is perfectly in accord with biochemistry, which I actually know something about. I remind you, 55 lbs melted away without hunger, and I feel 20 years younger. I lost this weight and revitalized my health without resorting to any psychology whatsoever.


    Our materialistic culture doesn’t give us strong reasons not to overindulge in the pleasure of eating...Where these strong reasons exist, like among Hollywood actors, or among snobbish coastal elites, the majority stays thin.
     
    They're all on drugs. Or they're low-carbing, like me.

    I remind you, 55 lbs melted away without hunger, and I feel 20 years younger

    .

    You didn’t, unfortunately, undersrand what I said.

    When your hunger died down, what made you not continue eating for the pure pleasure of it? Why did you stop just at the point where you no longer felt hungry?

    Low carb diets may kill hunger – but they don’t kill pleasure.

    And people overeat for pleasure.

    So unfortunately, your comment missed the point.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  226. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Low carb diets may kill hunger – but they don’t kill pleasure.

    Thanks be to God.

    And people overeat for pleasure.

    I don’t.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AaronB

    Low carb diets may kill hunger – but they don’t kill pleasure.

    Thanks be to God.
     
    Agreed. Physical pleasure is good. But it must be moderated I favor of higher pleasures.

    And people overeat for pleasure.

    I don’t.
     
    But most people do. And thus a low carb diet, even if it reduces hunger, won't cure our overweight epidemic.

    By your own theory, your not overeating for pleasure can have little to do with a low carb diet, as you claim only that such a diet reduces hunger, but does not eliminate the pleasure of eating.

    So low carb diets, or any diet that focuses on satiety, miss the point, by your own example.

    Thank you for pointing this out.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  227. AaronB says:
    @anonymous

    Low carb diets may kill hunger – but they don’t kill pleasure.
     
    Thanks be to God.

    And people overeat for pleasure.
     
    I don't.

    Low carb diets may kill hunger – but they don’t kill pleasure.

    Thanks be to God.

    Agreed. Physical pleasure is good. But it must be moderated I favor of higher pleasures.

    And people overeat for pleasure.

    I don’t.

    But most people do. And thus a low carb diet, even if it reduces hunger, won’t cure our overweight epidemic.

    By your own theory, your not overeating for pleasure can have little to do with a low carb diet, as you claim only that such a diet reduces hunger, but does not eliminate the pleasure of eating.

    So low carb diets, or any diet that focuses on satiety, miss the point, by your own example.

    Thank you for pointing this out.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous

    So low carb diets, or any diet that focuses on satiety, miss the point, by your own example.
     
    No, it is you who has entirely missed the point.

    Perhaps you are a rare psychological overeater (if such a thing exists at all) but most people who overeat, do so because of biochemistry gone awry due to modern diets. Fix the biochemistry, and you can eat with pleasure and satiety without overeating. It's just that simple... and.... drum roll....

    IT. WORKED. FOR. ME.


    ....and many, many others.
    , @CanSpeccy


    And people overeat for pleasure.

    I don’t.
     

    But most people do.
     
    What you say is logically incoherent. Most people do not "overeat for pleasure" because most people do not overeat if, as it appears, you mean by overeating eating to the point of becoming obese. And if that is not your criterion of overeating, how can you tell if someone has overeaten? You have, it seems, no way of knowing.

    The fact is, the satisfaction of all appetites and most bodily functions is a pleasure. When short of oxygen, we breath for pleasure. When thirsty we drink with pleasure. Even the pain of giving birth, is said to be followed by the experience of euphoria. It would be absurd to advocate restraint in peeing because, with a full bladder, it is a pleasure to pee. Equally, it seems absurd to advocate restraint of eating because eating is a pleasure. In fact, the pleasure of eating is a key factor in family and group bonding, and thus a vital aspect of social cohesion.

    The question at issue is why some people eating ad lib gain weight to the point of obesity, whereas others do not. And further why obesity rises or falls with changes in diet. The answer to those questions is far from clear, although it appears that factors regulating blood sugar concentration are involved, as are other biochemical signals.

    By making obesity a moral issue, you obscure important empirical questions concerning the way in which the composition of diet determines whether satiation occurs before or after the intake of calories exceeds calorific expenditure.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  228. @AaronB

    there’s a biochemical reason why you eat the amount that you do, a
     
    This is an unscientific assumption. There may be cultural reasons why you eat the amount you do.

    Hindu ascetics eat very little.

    Nobody can do this forever; sooner or later absolutely everyone eventually breaks down and eats enough to be satisfied.
     
    Untrue. Ascetics down the ages have controlled their urge to eat.

    People in Japan say they eat less because their culture values being thin and not stuffing your face.

    If there's a good enough reason to stay thin, we'll find the motivation to do so. Our culture doesn't give us a good enough reason.

    Religious fasters do not usually have to hold down a job and socialize with co-workers. They usually have some form of social support.

    Medieval Lenten fasts worked because it is not a busy time of year on the farm (and a time to control consumption to avoid Spring famine). In Malaysia, during Ramadan, grocery sales double. If you need to concentrate hard on your work, you cannot spend your life feeling hungry.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AaronB
    The Japanese work pretty hard, and remain thin. What's useful.about looking at the whole world rather than just our little corner of it is that we can better test our theories.

    Also, I'm not really talking about fasts per se, just a general principle of moderation in our culture. Plus, I think we're overeating for pleasure.

    But you're right, we need a support system. Man can do wonders with the right motivation. If our entire society supported a culture of ascetic moderation, and focused less on material enjoyments, we'd be able to keep our weight down. We'd turn to other things for pleasure.

    Obsessing over carbs and protein just exacerbates the fundamental peoblem.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  229. anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @AaronB

    Low carb diets may kill hunger – but they don’t kill pleasure.

    Thanks be to God.
     
    Agreed. Physical pleasure is good. But it must be moderated I favor of higher pleasures.

    And people overeat for pleasure.

    I don’t.
     
    But most people do. And thus a low carb diet, even if it reduces hunger, won't cure our overweight epidemic.

    By your own theory, your not overeating for pleasure can have little to do with a low carb diet, as you claim only that such a diet reduces hunger, but does not eliminate the pleasure of eating.

    So low carb diets, or any diet that focuses on satiety, miss the point, by your own example.

    Thank you for pointing this out.

    So low carb diets, or any diet that focuses on satiety, miss the point, by your own example.

    No, it is you who has entirely missed the point.

    Perhaps you are a rare psychological overeater (if such a thing exists at all) but most people who overeat, do so because of biochemistry gone awry due to modern diets. Fix the biochemistry, and you can eat with pleasure and satiety without overeating. It’s just that simple… and…. drum roll….

    IT. WORKED. FOR. ME.

    ….and many, many others.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AaronB
    Ok, so this reply is to the point.

    If you deny that people overeat for pleasure, then that's where we disagree.

    Yes, if people only overeat for hunger, then you are correct. Any diet that reduces feelings of hunger would work. Assuming the composition of our food has a dramatuc impact on hunger, which I doubt.

    But if most people overeat
    for pleasure and boredom, then such diets entirely miss the point.

    Everyone must judge for themselves the plausibility of your contention that it's rare for people to overeat for pleasure.

    Thank you for this conversation.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  230. AaronB says:
    @Philip Owen
    Religious fasters do not usually have to hold down a job and socialize with co-workers. They usually have some form of social support.

    Medieval Lenten fasts worked because it is not a busy time of year on the farm (and a time to control consumption to avoid Spring famine). In Malaysia, during Ramadan, grocery sales double. If you need to concentrate hard on your work, you cannot spend your life feeling hungry.

    The Japanese work pretty hard, and remain thin. What’s useful.about looking at the whole world rather than just our little corner of it is that we can better test our theories.

    Also, I’m not really talking about fasts per se, just a general principle of moderation in our culture. Plus, I think we’re overeating for pleasure.

    But you’re right, we need a support system. Man can do wonders with the right motivation. If our entire society supported a culture of ascetic moderation, and focused less on material enjoyments, we’d be able to keep our weight down. We’d turn to other things for pleasure.

    Obsessing over carbs and protein just exacerbates the fundamental peoblem.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    The Japanese work pretty hard, and remain thin.
     
    They don't all remain thin. As indicated in quotes and a link provided above, the Japanese diet is being Westernized and the incidence of obesity in Japan is on the rise.

    e.g., from Wikipedia:


    Japan
    Using the WHO criteria Japan has the lowest rate of obesity among the OECD member countries at 3.2%.[23][24] However, as Asian populations are particularly susceptible to the health risks of excess adipose tissue the Japanese have redefined obesity as any BMI greater than 25.[25] Using this cut off value the prevalence of obesity in Japan would be 20%, a threefold increase from 1962 to 2002.[26] A 2008 report stated that 28.6% of men and 20.6% of women in Japan were considered to be obese
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  231. @utu
    Take this example. Someone has a TDEE of 2200 kcal. They want to lose weight so drop to 1800 kcal. They lose weight then stall. Kcal gets decreased more and more. However, the body matches its metabolism to calories coming in. What happens then?

    You stop the process of reducing calories intake once you achieve the desired weight. Which you will as long a the desired weight is "reasonable." If the desired weight is "unreasonable" you may die in the process.

    If you do not believe it then you also do not believe in anorexia outcomes. Share you good news with anorexics that their dieting is pointless as they will not lose weight because their metabolism will compensate and the weight loss will stall.

    Obviously ∆Weight/∆Calories is not a constant. It is a complex function that depend on all kinds of parameters. One think however is certain that if ∆Calories<0 then ∆Weight≤0 in other words you will not be gaining weight if you start dropping calories providing that all other parameters remain constant.

    “You stop the process of reducing calories intake once you achieve the desired weight. Which you will as long a the desired weight is “reasonable.” If the desired weight is “unreasonable” you may die in the process.”

    What about metabolic slowdown *adaptive thermogenesis)? How does that come into your math (in-out) regarding human weight loss?

    “If you do not believe it then you also do not believe in anorexia outcomes. Share you good news with anorexics that their dieting is pointless as they will not lose weight because their metabolism will compensate and the weight loss will stall.”

    They have extremely low metabolisms due to extreme ‘dieting’. Ancel Keys’s ‘starvation experiments’ showed this. An anorexia website came across one of my articles on CI/CO saying that ‘they don’t have any metabolisms’, actually. It was pretty funny and shows that they didn’t understand what I wrote.

    There is also a difference between not eating/eating very little and accepting the modern dietary dogma of ‘a calorie being a calorie’ and thinking that you’d lose the same amount of weight on 66 percent carbs and 66 percent fat while having the same compliance. That’s something that the math doesn’t do. Trust me, I re-do my diet every few months and I do stay in deficits while dieting for fat loss, but I’m not the average person on the verge of insulin resistance due to a shitty diet. That’s the difference.

    “Obviously ∆Weight/∆Calories is not a constant. It is a complex function that depend on all kinds of parameters. One think however is certain that if ∆Calories<0 then ∆Weight≤0 in other words you will not be gaining weight if you start dropping calories providing that all other parameters remain constant."

    You can control the in, but not the out. The out is more complex and since both variables not independent of one another, changing the in also changes the out, meaning that eventually your body's metabolism matches the out to the in, effectively stopping weight loss (following the caloric reduction as primary model, that all kcal are the same once ingested in the body no matter the source they came from).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  232. @utu
    Do you understand what this ‘a calorie is a calorie’ is supposed to mean? Because as far as I can see it is just a slogan of some pseudo-scietific charlatan who like to dress up his BS with some scientific terminology like invoking I and II law of thermodynamics. Guess what, both of these laws work and apply. That's why they are called laws. The first says you can't get something from nothing and the second says that if you want to get something from another thing the another thing must be larger than the something. But anyway, invoking the two laws when talking about weight gains and losses is a pure sign of provincial pretentiousness and/or a con job on people who are susceptible to pretense.

    You seem to be a sucker for BS particularly when it provides you an opportunity preaching seemingly controversial and contrarian ideas. As I said before it is fine and perhaps amusing at your aunt's dinner party once a year at her birthday but in a long run you should try to get real.

    “Do you und