The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewJames Thompson Archive
Eat Less
🔊 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

calorific meal

I did not expect that my previous post would prove so contentious and would lead to such a wide range of comments. Thank you for those, and for the detailed points made, and the references to published work. I must admit that I sometimes experienced an Alice in Wonderland effect: the discussion has veered away from what I had expected and involves many assumptions which I am trying to understand.

I did not expect that anyone would question the general principle of “calories in/calories out”. I am surprised, and have read the supportive arguments, but do not find them convincing, as I will explain later. I have also been presented with notions about the effects of different types of food, and the balance between protein, fats and carbohydrates. All these are digested down into the working fuel of the body. Eat too much of any or all of these, and your chance of getting fat increases.

Yes, of course these foods could have a different balance point between calories ingested and perceived satiation. If it is possible to choose foods which lead to quick satiation it might be possible to control weight, but only if there is strict control over how much is eaten. My argument, which some found difficult to follow, is that the main cause of obesity is eating too much, and the balance between food types is a secondary consideration to that.

As an obesity clinic at Addenbrook’s Hospital explains:

Obesity is the medical term for having too much fat stored in your body for good health. When people gain weight through a ‘positive energy balance’, that is more energy (food and drink) coming into the body than is being spent through activity and exercise, the surplus energy is stored mainly in fat cells that are present throughout the body. Nothing has to ‘go wrong’ for this process to happen.

I say that if you are over-weight and wish to lose weight, then you should eat less. You should keep eating less until you achieve your desired weight, and then stick to that level of calorific intake. What you eat is up to you, but a good rule of thumb is to reduce your intake of high calorie foods. If you need more guidance, avoid high density calorific foods and eat more low density low calorie foods. There are many published sources of calories for each food type, and some come with helpful pictures so that you can judge calorific intakes by sight.

Increasing your level of activity, by whatever means you choose, is unlikely to have much direct effect. This is because in current times there is so much good food available that you can replace half an hour’s calorie expenditure in about two minutes. A chocolate-coated nut-filled candy bar will do the trick. Short of the high levels of work of our Victorian ancestors, or of frequent treadmill exercise, this is not a viable strategy for losing weight in modern times. The only realistic strategy is to reduce calorie intake. Our metabolisms are very efficient, and food goes a long way. For example, couple a normal dietary intake with using a bicycle and you can achieve many miles per calorie ingested.

Do most over-weight people succeed in losing weight? Apparently not. This does not invalidate the advice that one should eat less. It reveals that people find it very difficult to follow that advice. The spirit is willing, the flesh is weak, all too much of it.

A few words on some familiar topics. You do not disprove a correlation by concentrating on residuals. A good correlation is not a perfect correlation: there will be discrepant instances. There will be individual variations caused by particular foods, digestive upsets, ill-health and other extraneous noise. Some people have a genetic leptin deficiency which denies them feedback about satiation. They eat too much because they still feel hungry. There will always be individual cases, even within the general observation that if you are too fat you should eat less. How much do these variations account for in the general population? Probably not much, in my estimation. However, let us imagine that they accounted for 10% of the variation in converting food calories into fat, such that some people get fat much faster than others on the same calorific intake. This would be a break-through in agriculture and stock rearing, and potentially commercially valuable. Thermodynamics is a general principle, and applies universally.

To attempt to disprove the “calories-in/calories-out” argument with some individual cases or short-term studies will not give you a true picture. Look at large samples over a longer time frame. If you are really in a hurry, look at the results of spending a night in the controlled circumstances of a calorific chamber.

The anorexia clinic at the York Clinic, Guy’s Hospital was not a calorific chamber, but it was a reasonably controlled environment. Some parents helped their children cheat the system, by taking out Complan in flannels in their handbags, fooling us into thinking that the emaciated adolescent was eating as required. However, we could detect the deception at the weekly weigh-ins, and could be sure that something was wrong by the second weigh-in, so close was the correlation between calories-in/calories-out in that controlled circumstance.

Here, as requested, are the summary data on the patients:

Anorexia paper Table 1

As you can see, these were patients who were about to die. They were emaciated, often very frightening to look at. It was painful to see them dying, yet still incapable of taking the steps to save themselves of their own volition. Happily, we never lost a patient in treatment.

Anorexia paper Table 2

Notice that although these patients gained weight, they did not do so at the same rate, an individual variation on a general effect. That said, they had a weekly weight gain which was similar, and predictable.

Another general note of guidance: people are not always reliable reporters about their food intake. Some of the discrepancies are caused by simple forgetting, but much is caused by wishful thinking and selective recall. Typically, people forget snacks between meals, and second helpings. They often ignore calorific drinks, mostly sugary ones.

Processed food is not bad in itself, but it is hard to monitor what is in it, and it is probably best avoided if you wish to lose weight, that is, it should not be a large part of your habitual intake.

In general, all foods are good for you, in moderation. There are circumstances when you may have to eat what is available, even if it is not the best basis for a permanent sustained diet.

Eating less is not a complicated strategy. Yes, at a very detailed level the way the digestive system works can always be investigated further, but enough is known to realise that eating less makes you less likely to get fat.

Specific diets are not really required. They are behavioural strategies to restrict food intake by disrupting over-eating habits. So long as the diet reduces calorie intake, it will work. Specific foods will not banish obesity unless they are low calorie foods. Diets work, but only if people diet. The difficulties they have in sticking to a diet whilst surrounded by large quantities of appetizing food are legion. We are easily distracted by immediate opportunities, and less concerned by postponable threats. Willpower exists, but it is a fragile disposition.

Although a genetic pre-disposition will make obesity more likely by reducing satiation feedback, that will only happen if you eat more than your body needs.

The body is a heat machine. Food is the fuel. Thermodynamics applies.

 
• Category: Science • Tags: Diet, Weight Loss 
Hide 193 CommentsLeave a Comment
193 Comments to "Eat Less"
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. lowly says:

    Ja, anecdotally, I’ve cut out high calorie foods and substituted high fiber foods and charted my weight over the last year. It’s been entirely predictable. I targeted a one pound loss per week and I lost a pound per week.

    When I began to add in more denser staples a couple of months ago, like rolled oats and corn meal, my weight loss per week slowed substantially. So I won’t be adding in any of the wheats and still staying away from the bakery aisle in the grocery store.

    Read More
    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 Display All Comments
  2. dearieme says:

    “Obesity is the medical term for having too much fat stored in your body for good health.” Except when it’s defined by a particular value of BMI.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  3. I have beat the odds on this one. Ultimately, it does come down to eating less, but carbohydrates drive hunger for a lot of people. Or to put in another way, you’ve got to figure out what’s going to have you shoving something into your mouth again in two hours versus what will not.

    I found, for instance, that after eating a banana, I would get hungry again very quickly. But once I happened to bring some brisket to work, and it was warm from being cooked overnight in a crockpot, so I ate it when I would normally eat the banana. I didn’t even think about eating again until quitting time.

    So, if all you think about it is calories, you might pick the banana and never get the appetite suppression necessary to actually maintain self-control.

    Another interesting track to go down with regard to appetite suppression is Seth Roberts Shangri-la diet. I succeeded by being willing to throw all the strategies at the problem, including going paleo and reducing my calories to 1500 a day. But I would not have been able to achieve any of it without reducing my appetite first.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kevin O'Keeffe

    ...it does come down to eating less, but carbohydrates drive hunger for a lot of people. Or to put in another way, you’ve got to figure out what’s going to have you shoving something into your mouth again in two hours versus what will not.
     
    Yes. This man is exactly correct. This is how it works. And it does work (for many people).
    , @Old fogey
    Thank you for reminding us of Seth Roberts. I miss his blog and his willingness to question and test on himself many of our "accepted" ideas.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. dearieme says:

    “The body is a heat machine.” Are you searching for the expression “heat engine”?

    I wonder if people would find it easier to lose weight if they gave up stupid targets such as getting BMI down to 25. If you looked, for example, at figure 4 here, you might decide that a target of 32.5 was adequate for codgers. For a codger whose BMI is, say, 40 that latter target is presumably more easily, and quickly, achieved than the former.

    http://www.drdavidgrimes.com/2017/08/is-being-overweight-really-killing.html

    There must be a literature on the psychological attractions of a less demanding target over a more demanding one. What would it suggest?

    I go further: scrolling down to fig 7 and reading off, by eye, it seems that a BMI of roughly 18.5 gives 70 year olds a death rate of around 5 in the relevant units. I choose 18.5 because it is the bottom of the “normal” range as promulgated by the BMI priesthood. Next, picture a horizontal line across the figure: the upper value of BMI that corresponds to that death rate is around 37. (Handy trick for memorising: 37 = 2 x 18.5.) In other words, if the death rate at 18.5 is deemed acceptable by the BMI priesthood, so must be the death rate at 37. That is mere logic.

    So now I suggest a strategy for 70 year old fatties with a BMI of 40. First target: 37. If you reach that without too much discomfort, push on to 32.5. Once you get there concentrate on not bouncing back up to 40. The case for going lower seems to be weak if you were to base it on mortality alone. But of course you might want to base it on other things – reducing the burden on your knees, aesthetics, or whatnot.

    All this, of course, assumes that correlation implies cause. Which it might or might not; it certainly needn’t. A distinct advantage of my argument is that by focusing on the facts concerning mortality it by-passes the puritanical lusts of so many doctors: their search for the ecstatic joy of successfully denying other people their pleasures.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  5. I lost 50 pounds over an 18-month period, and gained 60 pounds back over the following four years.

    First: doing sports does not in and of itself cause you to lose weight, but it definitely helped me feel better about myself which in turn led to making better food choices.

    Second: it is absolutely true that if you eat less you lose weight. Eating fewer high-calory foods obviously works better than cutting back on lettuce.

    However (and I think this is why people reacted so strongly), if you push your body into scarcity mode, a whole host of things happen inside you to try to counteract the physical threat of starving.

    You cannot control these things, and they all push you to gain instead of lose weight:

    - Your body will be able to run on fewer calories. Eating the same foods after a diet will leave you with more calories left over to store as fat.

    - Neurological changes will make you more likely to notice food than before dieting.

    - It will become harder to stop thinking about food once you notice it.

    - Food will taste better.

    - Food will give you a bigger rush of dopamine.

    - Your levels of the hormone leptin go down and it will take more food to make you feel full.

    - After dieting, you will be hungrier than before you started. Your regular non-diet lunch won’t make you full any more.

    - Dieting disrupts executive function, the process that helps with self-control. After dieting you will have less willpower when you need more.

    There’s an informative but very badly written article at

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-thin-people-dont-understand-about-dieting/

    I can confirm from my own experience that these are true. Most noticeably, it takes much more food for me to stop feeling hungry than it did before I dieted.

    I have lots of willpower, and I can reduce my intake without too much difficulty. But, I can’t sleep when I’m hungry so I end up eating more than I used to just to, be able to sleep through the night.

    Finally, the biggest reason why I stopped losing weight and started gaining it was that it was such a bother to have to explain to people around me why I was eating differently.

    I cannot emphasize this enough: every single person had an opinion about how I was doing it wrong and how I should eat differently. I got so sick of defending myself that I just stopped monitoring my eating habits.

    Then, given the above bullet points, my weight just drifted steadily upwards.

    With the caveat that putting your body into scarcity mode will most likely cause you to gain weight in the end, you are right that it is the main way to lose weight.

    I have lost some weight recently, and doing regular physical activity has been important in helping me feel good enough to refuse an extra helping of cake. This time I am taking care not to diet but just to make better choices about the small things.

    I love your articles and your blog is prominently listed on my blog’s recommendations page.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Please allow me to enlist you and all on this thread in helping me find an answer to my questions about eating fat.

    My short question is based on this. Since my cardiologist prescribed Rosuvastatin (Crestor) as my regular statin my cholesterol levels have been oustandingly good, low overall and LDL but high HDL ("good cholesterol"). So instead of breakfasting on only smoked salmon on grainy unbuttered toast and coffee without sugar i have indulged my taste for expensive cheeses and have eaten considerably more cheese than smoked salmon together with not eating between 8pm (20:00) and 12:30 to 15:00 the next day as my version of intermittent fastimg. I have also resumed eating quite a lot of high quality - but not low fat - ice cream. Most days I take about 6 fish oil capsules unless eating fish.

    Simple questio....Are my cholesterol (and triglyceride) levels enough evidence yhat I am not eating too much fat? (Of course I used to avoid saturated fats for decades as well as keeping quite fit).

    Although I get bored with exercise like walking a dog I have over my sdult life managed to keep pretty fit with fairly intense exercise, my training for and running a marathon at 42 being uncharacteristically boring. While my weight has been as high as 195 pounds - and was 157 pounds for the marathon and 25 years earlier at 17 for rowing it is now a more typical 184 and BMI I guess a fraction under 25. So.... can I safely stick to my cheese, ice cresm and chocolate ?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. Yes, its all about cutting the appetite. You WILL eat if you are hungry. We have finite amounts of will power, especially in an age where its harder to form good habits (because traditional ways of life have been replaced with the constant flux of a consumer society), and where temptations abound, and are readily available.

    What I do is hit it with a variety of reasonably healthy proteins and carbs for breakfast. Generally, I’ll have a strip of bacon, three slices of cheese, tomato, onion, lettuce, and avocado between two slices of whole-grain toast. Sometimes I’ll have some fruit as well. Unless I have an exceptionally physical day, I won’t feel an urgent need to eat until tea time. At which point, I’ll have something like brown rice tossed with veges and egg omelette.

    I’m not ‘fat’ atm, but by the same token, not lean and mean either. So it will be interesting to see where this takes me. I’m definitely eating less since making these changes, however.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  7. The best way I’ve found to explain the argument against calories in/calories out is to use the analogy of heating a house.

    If your house has no thermostat, then using more fuel or less fuel is the control you need to think about for heating.

    But suppose your house happens to have a thermostat. This means how hot it gets now depends more on the regulatory control. Yes, obviously thermodynamics holds of course. But focusing on heat in/heat out won’t attack the central problem, which is to figure out whether the built-in thermostat control is failing.

    Let us suppose that evolution is not completely stupid. And we observe that in their natural setting animals aren’t fat. Why? Because all animals have a regulatory thermostat which stops them from getting fat. Not too much. Not too little.

    Now. How might this thermostat fail? By putting in a new type of fuel. Let’s say sugar. Suppose sugar makes the regulatory framework fail, so it causes you to eat too much. Running the body hot. In this case, what is the solution? You can’t modify your thermostat (evolutionary biofeedback control). So unless you want to fight your own instinct, the best option is to restrict your consumption to fuel your house is designed for. If you do this, then you can eat all you want and let your thermostat do it’s work as designed. Which foods? This is an empirical question. And in fact is likely to differ by human lineage. There’s genetic evidence that populations that are long time farmers digest starch differently. Which is data in support, or at least not at odds, with this idea. I would say cutting back on sugar is probably an obvious start given what we know today.

    Anyway. That’s the argument I’ve found to be most successful in convincing people that straight calories in/calories out is an oversimplification. Pointing out that cals in/cals outt presupposes we (and by analogy all animals) don’t have a very powerful and unconscious built in regulatory weight control mechanism. Which is supposing a bit too much in my opinion.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  8. Dave Pinsen says: • Website

    There will be individual variations caused by particular foods, digestive upsets, ill-health and other extraneous noise. Some people have a genetic leptin deficiency which denies them feedback about satiation. They eat too much because they still feel hungry. There will always be individual cases, even within the general observation that if you are too fat you should eat less. How much do these variations account for in the general population? Probably not much, in my estimation.

    The much bigger variation is in metabolic rates. Some people can eat a lot more than others without getting fat. But, yeah: reducing calories seems the obvious way to go to lose weight.

    One thing I picked up from the comment thread in the post is the 5:2 fast diet. I had thought up something similar on my a year or two ago, but seeing a physician endorse it encouraged me to try it. So that’s what I’m doing now.

    Two days per week, I’m limiting myself to 600 calories. To maximize protein intake while doing that (since I lift weights) I’m limiting myself to 2 or 3 shakes made with whey protein powder and black iced coffee (2 shakes with 1.5 scoops of protein powder each or 3 with 1 scoop), plus a few almonds to have something to crunch on. The first time doing that, while going to the gym as normal, I had some painful cramps, presumably from my sodium levels dropping too low. So I added a 0 calorie sports drink this week.

    We’ll see how this goes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    As far as I'm aware, individual metabolic variation is around five to ten percent.
    , @Anonymous
    Exercise definitely makes a difference. 10 years ago I lost 50 lbs (for real, not water weight) in 2 months from running 8 miles a day and riding the exercise bike 1 hour in the morning and 1 hour at night. And I reduced my intake to a strict vegan diet (Brussels sprouts, mixed vegetables, berries, etc.) of 1750 calories (minimum caloric restriction can’t fall below 10 times your body weight or your metabolic rate drops). I targeted my abs big time because it is the major fat-burning muscle (see The Abs Diet/workout philosophy). During that time I was getting serious body oder all day as my body became a fat-burning machine. I have seen guy lose even more weight (fat) and they did restrict their diets like I did. I saw a documentary of the some ultramarathoners who ran across the Sahara. I think they would run 50 miles a day for 100 days. They biggest runner had lost 40 lbs in a month. Again, fat, not water weight.

    Running The Sahara Movie Trailer: https://youtu.be/HidKMFClQUU via @YouTube

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. It all comes down to the following:

    Eat just a little bit less and exercise just a little bit more.

    Instead of 3 slices of pizza for dinner and coke. How about 2 slices and unsweetened iced tea?

    Instead of a full bacon egg and cheese on a roll, how about 1/2 without OJ once in a while?

    Lift weights, while muscle weighs more than fat, you’ll look and feel better and appear thinner and will be stronger and burn more calories while resting.

    Also, the BMI tables assume that men and women have the exact same body makeup and muscle to fat ratio. In short there’s no separate BMI table more more muscular men, which is both odd and wrong.
    No average man with any muscles at all will be in the same weight range for height as a woman with little muscle and higher fat content.

    Just my 2 cents.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dearieme
    Nor are separate ranges offered for people of different ages. And yet people seem naturally to get fatter in middle age.
    , @RaceRealist88
    "Eat just a little bit less and exercise just a little bit more."

    How well has this worked out? Stating that a calorie is a calorie violates the second law of thermodynamics.

    And your 'advice' is garbage. The CICO model is a joke. Honestly, the question of when to eat may be the most important factor, then food quality. Eating garbage and thinking that all calories do the same thing in the body upon ingestion makes no sense.

    The first law of thermodynamics is irrelevant to human physiology.

    https://youtu.be/PFOogvab2TA
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. dearieme says:
    @dachs_dude
    It all comes down to the following:

    Eat just a little bit less and exercise just a little bit more.

    Instead of 3 slices of pizza for dinner and coke. How about 2 slices and unsweetened iced tea?

    Instead of a full bacon egg and cheese on a roll, how about 1/2 without OJ once in a while?

    Lift weights, while muscle weighs more than fat, you'll look and feel better and appear thinner and will be stronger and burn more calories while resting.

    Also, the BMI tables assume that men and women have the exact same body makeup and muscle to fat ratio. In short there's no separate BMI table more more muscular men, which is both odd and wrong.
    No average man with any muscles at all will be in the same weight range for height as a woman with little muscle and higher fat content.

    Just my 2 cents.

    Nor are separate ranges offered for people of different ages. And yet people seem naturally to get fatter in middle age.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    No, they just eat too much. Here are natural types of aging without overeating, as depicted in classic paintings:
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Three_Ages_of_Man_and_Death
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Three_Ages_of_Woman_(Klimt)
    The feminine curves are gone, but it's the existing fat redistributed (plus saggy skin distorting the shape), not more added. The 16th-century lady is actually thinner when she's old - it was a common perception in the old times that aging women "dry up".
    I'm a woman so I can't speak for men, but skinny grandpas seem quite a norm to me - especially where they do traditional physical work.
    , @Old fogey
    Women definitely become heavier as they enter menopause. I have read that without the estrogen from their ovaries, their body fat becomes the main source of estrogen. This extra fat - especially that around the hips - also cushions against fractures. It is foolish to think that our weight at age 25 should continue to be our weight throughout our life span.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. What you eat is up to you, but a good rule of thumb is to reduce your intake of high calorie foods.

    This works, of course, but the problem is, all things being equal, high-fat and -protein foods are more satisfying and delicious.

    This is the problem with a data-driven approach. Experience, phenomenology, aesthetics, whatever you want to call it, is primary, always.

    Eat what you like, slow down, eat with those you love. You’ll lose weight, and if you don’t, you won’t care, you’ll be happy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  12. @Dave Pinsen

    There will be individual variations caused by particular foods, digestive upsets, ill-health and other extraneous noise. Some people have a genetic leptin deficiency which denies them feedback about satiation. They eat too much because they still feel hungry. There will always be individual cases, even within the general observation that if you are too fat you should eat less. How much do these variations account for in the general population? Probably not much, in my estimation.
     
    The much bigger variation is in metabolic rates. Some people can eat a lot more than others without getting fat. But, yeah: reducing calories seems the obvious way to go to lose weight.

    One thing I picked up from the comment thread in the post is the 5:2 fast diet. I had thought up something similar on my a year or two ago, but seeing a physician endorse it encouraged me to try it. So that's what I'm doing now.

    Two days per week, I'm limiting myself to 600 calories. To maximize protein intake while doing that (since I lift weights) I'm limiting myself to 2 or 3 shakes made with whey protein powder and black iced coffee (2 shakes with 1.5 scoops of protein powder each or 3 with 1 scoop), plus a few almonds to have something to crunch on. The first time doing that, while going to the gym as normal, I had some painful cramps, presumably from my sodium levels dropping too low. So I added a 0 calorie sports drink this week.

    We'll see how this goes.

    As far as I’m aware, individual metabolic variation is around five to ten percent.

    Read More
    • Replies: @DB5
    I beg to differ, food labels are based on 2,000 calorie diet, recently had my metabolic rate tested and I need 4,000 calories to maintain my current weight. Does anyone have an actual range of observed metabolic rates for people in normal(?) environment?
    , @res

    As far as I’m aware, individual metabolic variation is around five to ten percent.
     
    How do you measure that? I would think variation caused by different activity levels or differing thyroid function (not to mention all of the other possible contributors) would be significantly larger than five to ten percent.

    Any thoughts on the relative sizes of within individual and between individual metabolic variation?
    , @Dave Pinsen
    I suspect it's at least an order of magnitude higher than that. That's the only explanation for seeing ecto-mesomorphs down ~1,500 calories in one sitting at a fast food restaurant.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. @dachs_dude
    It all comes down to the following:

    Eat just a little bit less and exercise just a little bit more.

    Instead of 3 slices of pizza for dinner and coke. How about 2 slices and unsweetened iced tea?

    Instead of a full bacon egg and cheese on a roll, how about 1/2 without OJ once in a while?

    Lift weights, while muscle weighs more than fat, you'll look and feel better and appear thinner and will be stronger and burn more calories while resting.

    Also, the BMI tables assume that men and women have the exact same body makeup and muscle to fat ratio. In short there's no separate BMI table more more muscular men, which is both odd and wrong.
    No average man with any muscles at all will be in the same weight range for height as a woman with little muscle and higher fat content.

    Just my 2 cents.

    “Eat just a little bit less and exercise just a little bit more.”

    How well has this worked out? Stating that a calorie is a calorie violates the second law of thermodynamics.

    And your ‘advice’ is garbage. The CICO model is a joke. Honestly, the question of when to eat may be the most important factor, then food quality. Eating garbage and thinking that all calories do the same thing in the body upon ingestion makes no sense.

    The first law of thermodynamics is irrelevant to human physiology.

    Read More
    • Replies: @botazefa

    Eating garbage and thinking that all calories do the same thing in the body upon ingestion makes no sense.
     
    A calorie is a unit of energy, not a physical thing. A fat gram is good for 7 calories. Protein and carbs 4.

    A garbage calorie will get you no fatter than a new age organic branded calorie.

    How many fat vegetarians are out there?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. DB5 says:
    @RaceRealist88
    As far as I'm aware, individual metabolic variation is around five to ten percent.

    I beg to differ, food labels are based on 2,000 calorie diet, recently had my metabolic rate tested and I need 4,000 calories to maintain my current weight. Does anyone have an actual range of observed metabolic rates for people in normal(?) environment?

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    And? Any other information? If not then this statement is useless. How'd you get it tested? You can estimate it from a DXA scan, I know that.

    What is 'normal environment'?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. res says:
    @RaceRealist88
    As far as I'm aware, individual metabolic variation is around five to ten percent.

    As far as I’m aware, individual metabolic variation is around five to ten percent.

    How do you measure that? I would think variation caused by different activity levels or differing thyroid function (not to mention all of the other possible contributors) would be significantly larger than five to ten percent.

    Any thoughts on the relative sizes of within individual and between individual metabolic variation?

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    Energy expenditure measure by a room calirometer. Variation in TDEE was 5 to 8 percent. This is about 2 to 300 kcal difference. Though an extra 20 kcal per day is enough to have you gain a considerable amount of weight in 5 years, other factors greatly influence metabolism between individuals.

    This paper says that variation in non-exercise activity is a large cause for variance, but due to differences in RMR, diet induced thermogenesis, or exercise thermogenesis.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15534426

    I need to check out the data. It's been a while since I've read anything new on it and am interested if you can find something good.

    Basic thoughts on relative differences is that everyone's activity level, exercise level, eating habits, eating frequency, emotional and psychological issues etc all would have a small part regarding the TDEE, and I think you need to look at people on an individual basis due to this and that cookie-cutter programs are garbage.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. @res

    As far as I’m aware, individual metabolic variation is around five to ten percent.
     
    How do you measure that? I would think variation caused by different activity levels or differing thyroid function (not to mention all of the other possible contributors) would be significantly larger than five to ten percent.

    Any thoughts on the relative sizes of within individual and between individual metabolic variation?

    Energy expenditure measure by a room calirometer. Variation in TDEE was 5 to 8 percent. This is about 2 to 300 kcal difference. Though an extra 20 kcal per day is enough to have you gain a considerable amount of weight in 5 years, other factors greatly influence metabolism between individuals.

    This paper says that variation in non-exercise activity is a large cause for variance, but due to differences in RMR, diet induced thermogenesis, or exercise thermogenesis.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15534426

    I need to check out the data. It’s been a while since I’ve read anything new on it and am interested if you can find something good.

    Basic thoughts on relative differences is that everyone’s activity level, exercise level, eating habits, eating frequency, emotional and psychological issues etc all would have a small part regarding the TDEE, and I think you need to look at people on an individual basis due to this and that cookie-cutter programs are garbage.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    "This paper says that variation in non-exercise activity is a large cause for variance, but due to differences in RMR, diet induced thermogenesis, or exercise thermogenesis"

    Not due to differences in RMR, diet induced thermogenesis or exercise thermogenesis.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. @RaceRealist88
    Energy expenditure measure by a room calirometer. Variation in TDEE was 5 to 8 percent. This is about 2 to 300 kcal difference. Though an extra 20 kcal per day is enough to have you gain a considerable amount of weight in 5 years, other factors greatly influence metabolism between individuals.

    This paper says that variation in non-exercise activity is a large cause for variance, but due to differences in RMR, diet induced thermogenesis, or exercise thermogenesis.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15534426

    I need to check out the data. It's been a while since I've read anything new on it and am interested if you can find something good.

    Basic thoughts on relative differences is that everyone's activity level, exercise level, eating habits, eating frequency, emotional and psychological issues etc all would have a small part regarding the TDEE, and I think you need to look at people on an individual basis due to this and that cookie-cutter programs are garbage.

    “This paper says that variation in non-exercise activity is a large cause for variance, but due to differences in RMR, diet induced thermogenesis, or exercise thermogenesis”

    Not due to differences in RMR, diet induced thermogenesis or exercise thermogenesis.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. @DB5
    I beg to differ, food labels are based on 2,000 calorie diet, recently had my metabolic rate tested and I need 4,000 calories to maintain my current weight. Does anyone have an actual range of observed metabolic rates for people in normal(?) environment?

    And? Any other information? If not then this statement is useless. How’d you get it tested? You can estimate it from a DXA scan, I know that.

    What is ‘normal environment’?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Agree w/main argument: calories in and out. But mid-term satiety is key, and protein helps, also good fats. An old priest in a retired priests' home said his colleagues in better health avoided stuffing themselves: don't eat all your fill. MODERATION in everything.

    An easy, versatile, nutritious --even fashionable-- recipe:

    PANCAKES

    Blend:
    - half a banana (or 1/3 blueberries)
    -1/3 cup oats
    - 1 egg
    - 2 whites (1/4 cup)
    - 1/2 teaspoon baking powder
    - bit of vanilla

    You can triple the recipe, keep batter in fridge. Or cook it all and freeze/reheat.
    Serve with Greek yogurt and bit of honey or cocoa.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @RaceRealist88
    And? Any other information? If not then this statement is useless. How'd you get it tested? You can estimate it from a DXA scan, I know that.

    What is 'normal environment'?

    Agree w/main argument: calories in and out. But mid-term satiety is key, and protein helps, also good fats. An old priest in a retired priests’ home said his colleagues in better health avoided stuffing themselves: don’t eat all your fill. MODERATION in everything.

    An easy, versatile, nutritious –even fashionable– recipe:

    PANCAKES

    Blend:
    - half a banana (or 1/3 blueberries)
    -1/3 cup oats
    - 1 egg
    - 2 whites (1/4 cup)
    - 1/2 teaspoon baking powder
    - bit of vanilla

    You can triple the recipe, keep batter in fridge. Or cook it all and freeze/reheat.
    Serve with Greek yogurt and bit of honey or cocoa.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Sorry, didn't mean to post specifically to RaceR.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon
    Agree w/main argument: calories in and out. But mid-term satiety is key, and protein helps, also good fats. An old priest in a retired priests' home said his colleagues in better health avoided stuffing themselves: don't eat all your fill. MODERATION in everything.

    An easy, versatile, nutritious --even fashionable-- recipe:

    PANCAKES

    Blend:
    - half a banana (or 1/3 blueberries)
    -1/3 cup oats
    - 1 egg
    - 2 whites (1/4 cup)
    - 1/2 teaspoon baking powder
    - bit of vanilla

    You can triple the recipe, keep batter in fridge. Or cook it all and freeze/reheat.
    Serve with Greek yogurt and bit of honey or cocoa.

    Sorry, didn’t mean to post specifically to RaceR.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @RaceRealist88
    As far as I'm aware, individual metabolic variation is around five to ten percent.

    I suspect it’s at least an order of magnitude higher than that. That’s the only explanation for seeing ecto-mesomorphs down ~1,500 calories in one sitting at a fast food restaurant.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    What do ecto-mesos eat the rest of the day and week and month? I know a ton about somas and I'm personally an ecto. I can down 4000 kcal at IHOP after a heavy ass deadlift day and be fine because I know how to eat (I intermittently fast).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. anon • Disclaimer says:

    James, I don’t know or care what others said in reply to your original post.
    There is no need to try to disprove what you said – better to just ignore it, as it’s oversimplified to the point of being useless.
    If you want to analyse heat engines, it would be better to set up a simple, controlled experiment with non-biological equipment in a lab.
    As for what and how to eat, it’s complicated – even though it follows the laws of thermodynamics, it does so in very complex ways, and the devil’s in the details.

    I can almost see you folding your fingers and saying “just eat less!”
    Here’s a hint about how you’re ignoring lots of the complexity – WHY are people eating too much?
    Start thinking.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  23. @Dave Pinsen
    I suspect it's at least an order of magnitude higher than that. That's the only explanation for seeing ecto-mesomorphs down ~1,500 calories in one sitting at a fast food restaurant.

    What do ecto-mesos eat the rest of the day and week and month? I know a ton about somas and I’m personally an ecto. I can down 4000 kcal at IHOP after a heavy ass deadlift day and be fine because I know how to eat (I intermittently fast).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. David says:

    Man, people have a lot of crazy stuff to say about eating. If you didn’t already know that scientific thinking was alien to us, you’d be suspecting it now.

    Even Mr Thompson wrote, “couple a normal dietary intake with using a bicycle and you can achieve many miles per calorie ingested.” Seems doubtful.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  25. (1) Please stop the diet posts.

    (2) Are you going to comment on your situation at UCL? (I assume not, since you haven’t approved any comments referencing it, and I find it hard to believe that comments reached 23 without anyone saying anything. But I thought I’d ask.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    What's wrong with diet posts?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. Vince says:

    “Increasing your level of activity, by whatever means you choose, is unlikely to have much direct effect. This is because in current times there is so much good food available that you can replace half an hour’s calorie expenditure in about two minutes….”

    J-man – working out is critically important. Your remark here is a little confused, right? You’re postulating the subject will eat less – then you say he’s bound to eat more. So if eating more is inevitable no matter what what’s the point of saying you should eat less? You need to eat less & work out. Working out ratchets up the metabolism so that more calories are expended all day long – EG burning fat for resynthesis of muscle glycogen.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  27. jb says:

    While I broadly agree that to lose weight you should eat less, I don’t think thermodynamics has as much to do with it as you seem to think.

    Yes, it is certainly impossible to expend more energy than you take in through food — that much thermodynamics does guarantee. But the argument doesn’t work the other way: i.e., there is no physical law that requires your body to store as fat all the excess calories it takes in. In theory it might choose to waste energy through heat generation or fidgeting, or it might excrete high energy compounds, or simply decline to absorb all the nutrients available in its gut. There are probably other possibilities as well.

    Now whether any of this happens I can’t say, but my point is that there is no physical law that would prevent it from happening. Just as two different cars of the same weight might have different gas mileage, and travel different distances on a single gallon of gasoline, it’s also possible that two different bodies might put on different amounts of weight given the same calorie input, or even that a single body might put on different amounts of weight, depending on the type of food or other circumstances. This might or might not be the case, but you can’t use physics to rule the possibility out.

    Read More
    • Agree: Chrisnonymous
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  28. Sparkon says:

    WHY are people eating too much?

    This is one of the $64-questions.

    I took a stab at it in my comments under James Thompson’s previous article here “Diet is an IQ Test.” where I suggested that the artificial sweetener aspartame was a significant factor in the obesity equation, and noted that it had been implicated as such in several published studies describing the chemical’s effect on mice, causing them to gain weight compared to the control animals.

    However, mice on a high-fat diet that received aspartame gained more weight than mice that did not receive aspartame.

    Mice that received the sweetener also had higher blood sugar than those without aspartame.

    They also had higher levels of the TNF-alpha inflammatory protein in their blood, which is usually associated with metabolic syndrome.

    “Sugar substitutes like aspartame are designed to promote weight loss and decrease the incidence of metabolic syndrome, but a number of clinical and epidemiologic studies have suggested that these products don’t work very well and may actually make things worse,” says Dr. Hodin.

    https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/314345.php

    Well who needs lab rats anyway, when our own eyes tell us all we need to know? Wal Mart now maintains a fleet of electric carts for people too obese to support their own weight while shopping. I always get a warm fuzzy feeling of satisfaction when I see a portly person blocking the aisle with one of those electric fat wagons carts, or going in reverse, sounding those melodious chimes of freedom flashing, and I think how very generous it is of Wal Mart to provide this service so the obese don’t have to stay home, maybe even starve. I gather with fat people starvation sets in after an hour or two.

    Of course, I’m certainly not trying to suggest that the big box giant would pass any of those costs of purchasing and maintaining this fat wagon fleet onto the ranks of loyal customers who can still get around on their own two feet.

    I quoted President Trump on Diet Coke, who’d observed that he’d never seen a thin person drinking the stuff, and followed-up with:

    The more Diet Coke, Diet Pepsi, etc you drink, the more weight you gain?

    Yet, Mr. Trump reportedly drinks 12 cans of Diet Coke every day. I suppose he’s trying to prove his own point.

    Well, all that effort, and James Thompson didn’t see fit to give even a nod to the issue of chemicals in the diet affecting the body’s ability to do its natural thing. Sniff, sniff.

    Why did the start of the obesity epidemic coincide with the introduction of aspartame?

    A popular artificial sweetener consumed by millions of Americans regularly was approved for the market under suspicious circumstances and research continues to question claims of its safety. In fact, recent research has linked it to weight gain, metabolic dysfunction, type 2 diabetes, cancer and more.

    https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2017/05/02/serious-aspartame-safety-questions-remain.aspx

    So yes. Eat less, stay active, and eliminate the chemicals from your diet so your body can do its thing, or Act Naturally, as Buck Owens put it in his great tune popularized by Ringo’s version with the Beatles.

    Read More
    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    Interesting point re aspartame. Trouble is its introduction also coincided with a lot of other things, at least in the UK, some of which may have affected exercise levels, and some affected easy availability of food

    More TV channels, longer TV hours (I can just remember when TV stopped at 11 pm and didn't reappear til following lunchtime) then computer games. Kids stay indoors more.

    More car ownership - pre-car we'd walk a mile into town and a mile back to shop, bicycle to school and back. Long distance travel, by train and bus, used to usually involve some walking - and food en route was expensive. Now we have the Maccies drive through.

    More snack-style bakeries and burger bars - and food is cheaper. A double cheeseburger at £1.49 isn't a huge amount of cash.

    Far, far more places to get food late at night. In the 60s and 70s, once the chippy had shut, that was it - I remember eating at some taxi cafe in London about 1974 that was open all night for the black cab guys and was then a real rarity. Now we have "the night time economy".

    , @Dave Pinsen

    Yet, Mr. Trump reportedly drinks 12 cans of Diet Coke every day. I suppose he’s trying to prove his own point.
     
    Look up the results of Trump's physical earlier this month. He's extremely healthy.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. I just read that vestibular stimulation can change body mass percentage in lab animals! It can be through centrifuges or galvanic stimulation — either works.

    I can understand why animals living under simulated 2-4G for weeks end up with less body fat (and muscles with more slow fibers). What I don’t understand is that mice born with a disabled vestibular system also have less body fat to begin with or why galvanic stimulation of the vestibular system has effects similar to the centrifuges.

    Apparently the feedback systems controlling appetite, metabolism, etc somehow involve the vestibular system. Ain’t that weird?

    https://www.sarah-constantin.org/blog/2018/1/14/vestibular-stimulation-and-fat-loss

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  30. Singh says:

    Went from 270 to 180 in 9 months without exercise just calorie counting with myfitnesspal

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  31. cthulhu says:

    Clearly Thompson learned nothing from the previous post’s comments. *plonk*

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lars Porsena
    I'd be tempted to comment but once again I have thought better for myself. This is just a humble neo-monarchist racist deplorable antisemitic conspiracy website, I don't want to get dragged into anything too controversial or acrimonious like dietary advice.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. nickels says:

    Not drinking is good for a base 20 lb loss, too, maybe even more, up to 100 or more in some folks.

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

    Bravo. A succint summary.

    And this, is as far as science can take us.

    Any further insight into this subject will only be gained through psychology, anthropology, cultural comparison, and other such modes of cogniton.

    Of course this doesn’t mean we can gain control over the obesity epidemic. Understanding culture does not mean we can change it. It may be too complex and multi-variant. Controlling matter is far easier than culture.

    It is likely that we will have to wait until Anglo culture collapses before the obesity rates may change.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  34. @cthulhu
    Clearly Thompson learned nothing from the previous post's comments. *plonk*

    I’d be tempted to comment but once again I have thought better for myself. This is just a humble neo-monarchist racist deplorable antisemitic conspiracy website, I don’t want to get dragged into anything too controversial or acrimonious like dietary advice.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sollipsist
    Made me laugh anyway. Doesn't matter what you believe, everybody's got triggers.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. @Sparkon

    WHY are people eating too much?
     
    This is one of the $64-questions.

    I took a stab at it in my comments under James Thompson's previous article here "Diet is an IQ Test." where I suggested that the artificial sweetener aspartame was a significant factor in the obesity equation, and noted that it had been implicated as such in several published studies describing the chemical's effect on mice, causing them to gain weight compared to the control animals.

    However, mice on a high-fat diet that received aspartame gained more weight than mice that did not receive aspartame.

    Mice that received the sweetener also had higher blood sugar than those without aspartame.

    They also had higher levels of the TNF-alpha inflammatory protein in their blood, which is usually associated with metabolic syndrome.

    "Sugar substitutes like aspartame are designed to promote weight loss and decrease the incidence of metabolic syndrome, but a number of clinical and epidemiologic studies have suggested that these products don't work very well and may actually make things worse," says Dr. Hodin.
     
    https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/314345.php

    Well who needs lab rats anyway, when our own eyes tell us all we need to know? Wal Mart now maintains a fleet of electric carts for people too obese to support their own weight while shopping. I always get a warm fuzzy feeling of satisfaction when I see a portly person blocking the aisle with one of those electric fat wagons carts, or going in reverse, sounding those melodious chimes of freedom flashing, and I think how very generous it is of Wal Mart to provide this service so the obese don't have to stay home, maybe even starve. I gather with fat people starvation sets in after an hour or two.

    Of course, I'm certainly not trying to suggest that the big box giant would pass any of those costs of purchasing and maintaining this fat wagon fleet onto the ranks of loyal customers who can still get around on their own two feet.

    I quoted President Trump on Diet Coke, who'd observed that he'd never seen a thin person drinking the stuff, and followed-up with:

    The more Diet Coke, Diet Pepsi, etc you drink, the more weight you gain?
     
    Yet, Mr. Trump reportedly drinks 12 cans of Diet Coke every day. I suppose he's trying to prove his own point.

    Well, all that effort, and James Thompson didn't see fit to give even a nod to the issue of chemicals in the diet affecting the body's ability to do its natural thing. Sniff, sniff.

    Why did the start of the obesity epidemic coincide with the introduction of aspartame?

    A popular artificial sweetener consumed by millions of Americans regularly was approved for the market under suspicious circumstances and research continues to question claims of its safety. In fact, recent research has linked it to weight gain, metabolic dysfunction, type 2 diabetes, cancer and more.
     
    https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2017/05/02/serious-aspartame-safety-questions-remain.aspx

    So yes. Eat less, stay active, and eliminate the chemicals from your diet so your body can do its thing, or Act Naturally, as Buck Owens put it in his great tune popularized by Ringo's version with the Beatles.

    Interesting point re aspartame. Trouble is its introduction also coincided with a lot of other things, at least in the UK, some of which may have affected exercise levels, and some affected easy availability of food

    More TV channels, longer TV hours (I can just remember when TV stopped at 11 pm and didn’t reappear til following lunchtime) then computer games. Kids stay indoors more.

    More car ownership – pre-car we’d walk a mile into town and a mile back to shop, bicycle to school and back. Long distance travel, by train and bus, used to usually involve some walking – and food en route was expensive. Now we have the Maccies drive through.

    More snack-style bakeries and burger bars – and food is cheaper. A double cheeseburger at £1.49 isn’t a huge amount of cash.

    Far, far more places to get food late at night. In the 60s and 70s, once the chippy had shut, that was it – I remember eating at some taxi cafe in London about 1974 that was open all night for the black cab guys and was then a real rarity. Now we have “the night time economy”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sparkon
    Yes, I agree that lifestyle changes have played a role in the obesity epidemic, but I would argue that many of these changes were in place already by about 1960, if not earlier, while the start of the obesity epidemic seems to have been around the early 1980s. In other words, it's difficult to pin down lifestyle changes to a narrow time frame, since many of these developments occurred over time.

    For example, in the U.S., only 9% of households had a TV in 1950, but by 1960, 90% of U.S. households had a television set.

    By that time, fast food was already well-established in the U.S., its origins not beneath the Golden Arches, but in the White Castle "...a hamburger joint that opened in Wichita, Kansas, in 1916."

    Curb service, where a fast food restaurant employee delivers food from the restaurant to waiting customers outside in their cars, started as a novelty at an A&W Root Beer shop in the 1920s but was so popular the practice spread nationwide in short order. By the 1940s, the friendly carhop person delivering the food to the cars had gone mobile, too, wearing roller skates to speed service. Drive-through windows soon followed.
     
    http://www.accupos.com/pos-articles/history-of-fast-food-in-america/

    Note the term "short order." You may be familiar with the so-called "short-order cook," sometimes described as a fast-food chef, who was a fixture of the kitchen in any number of mid-century diners and restaurants, where quick meals were served up across the counter to patrons who were sitting on bar stools.

    When McDonald's opened its first restaurants in my hometown around 1960, there were already numerous drive-in restaurants, hot dog and tamale stands, cafeterias, Karmelcorn shops, Nut Houses, Fanny Mae Candies stands and what have you that served up quick meals and snacks to the multitudes of city workers on a short lunch (half) hour, as well as shoppers, cinema goers and all the other people who did most of their business in the city, rather than the suburbs.

    Before there was jogging, running for exercise was called "road work," which was usually undertaken by boxers, and track men. Jogging as a fitness craze did not take off in the United States until the early 70s. Prior to that, it was very unusual to see people outside running in shorts and sneakers, unless in a mob, as with my high school track team.

    And so, by the 70s there was some concern about physical fitness, but these fitness crazes did not originate in the United States, and can be traced back to the mid to late 1800s in Europe, so while neither fast food nor fitness crazes are new things, the obesity epidemic is, and I suggest we have to look for some other cause beyond fast food, too much sitting in front of the TV, or not enough exercise.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. @Stephen Marle
    (1) Please stop the diet posts.

    (2) Are you going to comment on your situation at UCL? (I assume not, since you haven't approved any comments referencing it, and I find it hard to believe that comments reached 23 without anyone saying anything. But I thought I'd ask.)

    What’s wrong with diet posts?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stephen Marle

    What’s wrong with diet posts?
     
    It's one of those topics where everyone's an expert, and everyone's talking past each other. It seems that everyone has a pre-written 800-word rant on the topic. After the comments hit 100 on the previous post they started to repeat, as if nobody had read anything anyone else had said, including Dr. Thompson, which is remarkable, since he approves the comments.

    It's especially unfortunate now, since Gregory Cochran is on a similar rant fest about alternative medicine. If this spreads to Steve Sailer, say if he starts to write about chronic fatigue syndrome, there won't be anything left to read.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @Sparkon

    WHY are people eating too much?
     
    This is one of the $64-questions.

    I took a stab at it in my comments under James Thompson's previous article here "Diet is an IQ Test." where I suggested that the artificial sweetener aspartame was a significant factor in the obesity equation, and noted that it had been implicated as such in several published studies describing the chemical's effect on mice, causing them to gain weight compared to the control animals.

    However, mice on a high-fat diet that received aspartame gained more weight than mice that did not receive aspartame.

    Mice that received the sweetener also had higher blood sugar than those without aspartame.

    They also had higher levels of the TNF-alpha inflammatory protein in their blood, which is usually associated with metabolic syndrome.

    "Sugar substitutes like aspartame are designed to promote weight loss and decrease the incidence of metabolic syndrome, but a number of clinical and epidemiologic studies have suggested that these products don't work very well and may actually make things worse," says Dr. Hodin.
     
    https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/314345.php

    Well who needs lab rats anyway, when our own eyes tell us all we need to know? Wal Mart now maintains a fleet of electric carts for people too obese to support their own weight while shopping. I always get a warm fuzzy feeling of satisfaction when I see a portly person blocking the aisle with one of those electric fat wagons carts, or going in reverse, sounding those melodious chimes of freedom flashing, and I think how very generous it is of Wal Mart to provide this service so the obese don't have to stay home, maybe even starve. I gather with fat people starvation sets in after an hour or two.

    Of course, I'm certainly not trying to suggest that the big box giant would pass any of those costs of purchasing and maintaining this fat wagon fleet onto the ranks of loyal customers who can still get around on their own two feet.

    I quoted President Trump on Diet Coke, who'd observed that he'd never seen a thin person drinking the stuff, and followed-up with:

    The more Diet Coke, Diet Pepsi, etc you drink, the more weight you gain?
     
    Yet, Mr. Trump reportedly drinks 12 cans of Diet Coke every day. I suppose he's trying to prove his own point.

    Well, all that effort, and James Thompson didn't see fit to give even a nod to the issue of chemicals in the diet affecting the body's ability to do its natural thing. Sniff, sniff.

    Why did the start of the obesity epidemic coincide with the introduction of aspartame?

    A popular artificial sweetener consumed by millions of Americans regularly was approved for the market under suspicious circumstances and research continues to question claims of its safety. In fact, recent research has linked it to weight gain, metabolic dysfunction, type 2 diabetes, cancer and more.
     
    https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2017/05/02/serious-aspartame-safety-questions-remain.aspx

    So yes. Eat less, stay active, and eliminate the chemicals from your diet so your body can do its thing, or Act Naturally, as Buck Owens put it in his great tune popularized by Ringo's version with the Beatles.

    Yet, Mr. Trump reportedly drinks 12 cans of Diet Coke every day. I suppose he’s trying to prove his own point.

    Look up the results of Trump’s physical earlier this month. He’s extremely healthy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sparkon
    Of course, President Trump's doctor has the last word on his physical fitness and overall state of his health. In my view, with a BMI of 30, Pres. Trump is overweight, so I'd hesitate to characterize his health as "extremely good." Additionally, his bad-to-good cholesterol ratio is somewhat worrisome. His skin tone seems slightly splotchy, but it's difficult to assess that from photographs. I hope the chief exec is getting some veggies and fiber in his daily diet.

    On the positive side of the ledger, Donald Trump neither smokes cigarettes nor drinks alcoholic beverages, so his body and mind are not being handicapped by those two very bad habits, which take down many drinkers and smokers, either directly from lung and liver disease, or by impact on other organs, such as the prostate. There is good evidence that smoking can lead to erectile dysfunction. There would be general agreement, I think, with the observation that drinking booze can lead to bad judgment.

    By being a nonsmoking teetotaler, Mr. Trump sets a very good example for the nation's youth, and puts himself in very good standing with respect to his future health prospects, but I would encourage him to drop the diet soda, especially since he seems aware of the fact that the artificial sweeteners promote weight gain, rather than weight loss, and go with regular soda if he simply must have a carbonated beverage, and see how that works out in the coming year for his weight. All in all, he should cut back on soda.

    I'm the same age as Mr. Trump, but my BMI is around 20, and vital signs are all good. Nevertheless, I'd hesitate to qualify my own health as "extremely good," but would settle for "reasonably good." I've never wanted to lose weight, so I had no motivation to drink any diet soda, especially since the regular stuff sweetened with sugar tastes so much better, but I only rarely have a soda these days, and only on the rare occasion when I have to grab fast food.

    Overall, I'd argue that the best plan for anyone is to skip the soda altogether -- along with booze and cigarettes -- and drink instead water, fruit juice, milk, coffee and tea to get necessary fluids, and reduce wear and tear on body and teeth.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. My experience is that the right exercise can alter something (maybe trigger hormone production) and cause a large decrease in weight without a change in diet. But this is a one off metabolic switch that runs its course (plateaus). 12 years ago, I lost 18 kg by switching from running to lifting heavy weights in the gym. I regained 2 kg and I have been stable since, despite huge changes in exercise level (only 8000 steps to and from work was stable from a usual total of 10,000). So, I conclude, for me at least, exercise can work but not as calories in/out but as a switch to another metabolic state.

    Six months ago, I moved to semi retirement. I gave up my office in the town centre. Without my walk to work, I manage only about 3000 steps, mostly due to willpower making myself take a run. Unexpectedly, I am losing weight at about a Kg a month. At home, at lunchtime, I eat carrot, celery, welsh onions with dips. While working, the best I could find at lunch in Bridgend was a faggot and peas. I sometimes lapsed into double egg and chips. The better lunch has broken the 12 year old plateau despite much less exercise. Trouble is I currently have viral myocarditis so exercise is impossible for the present. So far, my rate of weight loss has not changed.

    So, most of the time I agree about the dominance of diet but my own experience suggests that metabolism can be switched by the right form of exercise. Weights for me. But then there is a plateau. Higher doses have no effect. I suspect higher testosterone production is the switch. Your mileage may differ.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dearieme
    "the best I could find at lunch in Bridgend was a faggot and peas": now, now, you're just teasing our American cousins.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. I’ve lost over 80 pounds since mid-May of 2017, and I did it through largely through excluding carbohydrates. It’s not that eating proteins & fats magically reduces your weight, but rather the quality of the feeling of hunger itself, changes dramatically on a low-carb diet. If half my calories were coming from carbs, at the caloric level I am presently operating on, I would be ravenously hungry, every waking moment. And hence I would fail to lose weight. But that very same caloric intake level, when obtained almost entirely via proteins & fats (with nearly no carbs), generates only a feeling of mild hunger, which can be ignored relatively easily. I’m sure this doesn’t work for everyone, but it explains why so many people are enthused about low-carb dieting (and more importantly, why they are often correct to feel such enthusiasm).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  40. @August Hurtel
    I have beat the odds on this one. Ultimately, it does come down to eating less, but carbohydrates drive hunger for a lot of people. Or to put in another way, you've got to figure out what's going to have you shoving something into your mouth again in two hours versus what will not.

    I found, for instance, that after eating a banana, I would get hungry again very quickly. But once I happened to bring some brisket to work, and it was warm from being cooked overnight in a crockpot, so I ate it when I would normally eat the banana. I didn't even think about eating again until quitting time.

    So, if all you think about it is calories, you might pick the banana and never get the appetite suppression necessary to actually maintain self-control.

    Another interesting track to go down with regard to appetite suppression is Seth Roberts Shangri-la diet. I succeeded by being willing to throw all the strategies at the problem, including going paleo and reducing my calories to 1500 a day. But I would not have been able to achieve any of it without reducing my appetite first.

    …it does come down to eating less, but carbohydrates drive hunger for a lot of people. Or to put in another way, you’ve got to figure out what’s going to have you shoving something into your mouth again in two hours versus what will not.

    Yes. This man is exactly correct. This is how it works. And it does work (for many people).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. dearieme says:
    @Philip Owen
    My experience is that the right exercise can alter something (maybe trigger hormone production) and cause a large decrease in weight without a change in diet. But this is a one off metabolic switch that runs its course (plateaus). 12 years ago, I lost 18 kg by switching from running to lifting heavy weights in the gym. I regained 2 kg and I have been stable since, despite huge changes in exercise level (only 8000 steps to and from work was stable from a usual total of 10,000). So, I conclude, for me at least, exercise can work but not as calories in/out but as a switch to another metabolic state.

    Six months ago, I moved to semi retirement. I gave up my office in the town centre. Without my walk to work, I manage only about 3000 steps, mostly due to willpower making myself take a run. Unexpectedly, I am losing weight at about a Kg a month. At home, at lunchtime, I eat carrot, celery, welsh onions with dips. While working, the best I could find at lunch in Bridgend was a faggot and peas. I sometimes lapsed into double egg and chips. The better lunch has broken the 12 year old plateau despite much less exercise. Trouble is I currently have viral myocarditis so exercise is impossible for the present. So far, my rate of weight loss has not changed.

    So, most of the time I agree about the dominance of diet but my own experience suggests that metabolism can be switched by the right form of exercise. Weights for me. But then there is a plateau. Higher doses have no effect. I suspect higher testosterone production is the switch. Your mileage may differ.

    “the best I could find at lunch in Bridgend was a faggot and peas”: now, now, you’re just teasing our American cousins.

    Read More
    • LOL: Philip Owen
    • Replies: @Father O'Hara
    Indeed. As the day wears on and energy wanes, one looks forward to being refreshed with...a faggot and peas. Sometimes one doesn't even need the peas ,a faggot is enough!
    "Where ya goin' friend?"
    "Gonna get me a faggot!"
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @dearieme
    Nor are separate ranges offered for people of different ages. And yet people seem naturally to get fatter in middle age.

    No, they just eat too much. Here are natural types of aging without overeating, as depicted in classic paintings:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Three_Ages_of_Man_and_Death

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Three_Ages_of_Woman_(Klimt)

    The feminine curves are gone, but it’s the existing fat redistributed (plus saggy skin distorting the shape), not more added. The 16th-century lady is actually thinner when she’s old – it was a common perception in the old times that aging women “dry up”.
    I’m a woman so I can’t speak for men, but skinny grandpas seem quite a norm to me – especially where they do traditional physical work.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dearieme
    Doesn't Shakespeare capture it??

    .... And then the justice,
    In fair round belly with good capon lined,
    With eyes severe and beard of formal cut,
    Full of wise saws and modern instances;
    And so he plays his part. The sixth age shifts
    Into the lean and slippered pantaloon,
    With spectacles on nose and pouch on side;
    His youthful hose, well saved, a world too wide
    For his shrunk shank, and his big manly voice,
    Turning again toward childish treble, pipes
    And whistles in his sound. ...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. Noah Carl says:

    There is a certain amount of evidence that mild cold exposure (combined with a hypocaloric diet) can be an effective weight-loss strategy:

    https://medium.com/@NoahCarl/what-is-the-potential-for-cold-exposure-as-a-weight-loss-strategy-1a5c90482af9

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  44. dearieme says:
    @Anon
    No, they just eat too much. Here are natural types of aging without overeating, as depicted in classic paintings:
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Three_Ages_of_Man_and_Death
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Three_Ages_of_Woman_(Klimt)
    The feminine curves are gone, but it's the existing fat redistributed (plus saggy skin distorting the shape), not more added. The 16th-century lady is actually thinner when she's old - it was a common perception in the old times that aging women "dry up".
    I'm a woman so I can't speak for men, but skinny grandpas seem quite a norm to me - especially where they do traditional physical work.

    Doesn’t Shakespeare capture it??

    …. And then the justice,
    In fair round belly with good capon lined,
    With eyes severe and beard of formal cut,
    Full of wise saws and modern instances;
    And so he plays his part. The sixth age shifts
    Into the lean and slippered pantaloon,
    With spectacles on nose and pouch on side;
    His youthful hose, well saved, a world too wide
    For his shrunk shank, and his big manly voice,
    Turning again toward childish treble, pipes
    And whistles in his sound. …

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. Sparkon says:
    @YetAnotherAnon
    Interesting point re aspartame. Trouble is its introduction also coincided with a lot of other things, at least in the UK, some of which may have affected exercise levels, and some affected easy availability of food

    More TV channels, longer TV hours (I can just remember when TV stopped at 11 pm and didn't reappear til following lunchtime) then computer games. Kids stay indoors more.

    More car ownership - pre-car we'd walk a mile into town and a mile back to shop, bicycle to school and back. Long distance travel, by train and bus, used to usually involve some walking - and food en route was expensive. Now we have the Maccies drive through.

    More snack-style bakeries and burger bars - and food is cheaper. A double cheeseburger at £1.49 isn't a huge amount of cash.

    Far, far more places to get food late at night. In the 60s and 70s, once the chippy had shut, that was it - I remember eating at some taxi cafe in London about 1974 that was open all night for the black cab guys and was then a real rarity. Now we have "the night time economy".

    Yes, I agree that lifestyle changes have played a role in the obesity epidemic, but I would argue that many of these changes were in place already by about 1960, if not earlier, while the start of the obesity epidemic seems to have been around the early 1980s. In other words, it’s difficult to pin down lifestyle changes to a narrow time frame, since many of these developments occurred over time.

    For example, in the U.S., only 9% of households had a TV in 1950, but by 1960, 90% of U.S. households had a television set.

    By that time, fast food was already well-established in the U.S., its origins not beneath the Golden Arches, but in the White Castle “…a hamburger joint that opened in Wichita, Kansas, in 1916.”

    Curb service, where a fast food restaurant employee delivers food from the restaurant to waiting customers outside in their cars, started as a novelty at an A&W Root Beer shop in the 1920s but was so popular the practice spread nationwide in short order. By the 1940s, the friendly carhop person delivering the food to the cars had gone mobile, too, wearing roller skates to speed service. Drive-through windows soon followed.

    http://www.accupos.com/pos-articles/history-of-fast-food-in-america/

    Note the term “short order.” You may be familiar with the so-called “short-order cook,” sometimes described as a fast-food chef, who was a fixture of the kitchen in any number of mid-century diners and restaurants, where quick meals were served up across the counter to patrons who were sitting on bar stools.

    When McDonald’s opened its first restaurants in my hometown around 1960, there were already numerous drive-in restaurants, hot dog and tamale stands, cafeterias, Karmelcorn shops, Nut Houses, Fanny Mae Candies stands and what have you that served up quick meals and snacks to the multitudes of city workers on a short lunch (half) hour, as well as shoppers, cinema goers and all the other people who did most of their business in the city, rather than the suburbs.

    Before there was jogging, running for exercise was called “road work,” which was usually undertaken by boxers, and track men. Jogging as a fitness craze did not take off in the United States until the early 70s. Prior to that, it was very unusual to see people outside running in shorts and sneakers, unless in a mob, as with my high school track team.

    And so, by the 70s there was some concern about physical fitness, but these fitness crazes did not originate in the United States, and can be traced back to the mid to late 1800s in Europe, so while neither fast food nor fitness crazes are new things, the obesity epidemic is, and I suggest we have to look for some other cause beyond fast food, too much sitting in front of the TV, or not enough exercise.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. TG says:

    An interesting post, and comments.

    Here is my own first law of dieting:

    Willpower begins and ends at the grocery store.

    Only buy what you need for dinner that night. Don’t have large quantities of snacks etc. ready at hand. Oh, I have some emergency food in the basement, and stocks of pasta and cooking supplies, but it’s not easily available to snack on.

    Many small trips to the local grocery store on the way home from work is indeed inconvenient, but you are less likely to weigh 500 pounds, IMHO.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  47. Sparkon says:
    @Dave Pinsen

    Yet, Mr. Trump reportedly drinks 12 cans of Diet Coke every day. I suppose he’s trying to prove his own point.
     
    Look up the results of Trump's physical earlier this month. He's extremely healthy.

    Of course, President Trump’s doctor has the last word on his physical fitness and overall state of his health. In my view, with a BMI of 30, Pres. Trump is overweight, so I’d hesitate to characterize his health as “extremely good.” Additionally, his bad-to-good cholesterol ratio is somewhat worrisome. His skin tone seems slightly splotchy, but it’s difficult to assess that from photographs. I hope the chief exec is getting some veggies and fiber in his daily diet.

    On the positive side of the ledger, Donald Trump neither smokes cigarettes nor drinks alcoholic beverages, so his body and mind are not being handicapped by those two very bad habits, which take down many drinkers and smokers, either directly from lung and liver disease, or by impact on other organs, such as the prostate. There is good evidence that smoking can lead to erectile dysfunction. There would be general agreement, I think, with the observation that drinking booze can lead to bad judgment.

    By being a nonsmoking teetotaler, Mr. Trump sets a very good example for the nation’s youth, and puts himself in very good standing with respect to his future health prospects, but I would encourage him to drop the diet soda, especially since he seems aware of the fact that the artificial sweeteners promote weight gain, rather than weight loss, and go with regular soda if he simply must have a carbonated beverage, and see how that works out in the coming year for his weight. All in all, he should cut back on soda.

    I’m the same age as Mr. Trump, but my BMI is around 20, and vital signs are all good. Nevertheless, I’d hesitate to qualify my own health as “extremely good,” but would settle for “reasonably good.” I’ve never wanted to lose weight, so I had no motivation to drink any diet soda, especially since the regular stuff sweetened with sugar tastes so much better, but I only rarely have a soda these days, and only on the rare occasion when I have to grab fast food.

    Overall, I’d argue that the best plan for anyone is to skip the soda altogether — along with booze and cigarettes — and drink instead water, fruit juice, milk, coffee and tea to get necessary fluids, and reduce wear and tear on body and teeth.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dearieme
    "with a BMI of 30, Pres. Trump is overweight": at age 70 a BMI of 30 is just what he needs to have hopes of a long life. See figure 4
    http://www.drdavidgrimes.com/2017/08/is-being-overweight-really-killing.html
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. Hu Mi Yu says:

    The body is a heat machine. Food is the fuel. Thermodynamics applies.

    Well, yes, but the devil is in the details. From calories in you subtract calories excreted, calories stored as fat, calories converted into muscle, and calories retained in the intestines. Then you have to account for different nutrients requiring different amounts of energy to metabolize. In all these there are genetic components. I find it strange that someone can be so enthusiastic for genetic influence on IQ while rejecting all genetic influence on appetite, digestion, and metabolism.

    To take one tiny example with fructose, there are two recognized forms of fructose intolerance: fructose malabsorption, and hereditary fructose intolerance. While HFI is rare, about 1/3 of the population has some form of fructose malabsorption. In these cases all fructose consumed does not enter the blood. Instead some is fermented by microorganisms in the intestines to produce methane and hydrogen. These excreted gases represent a form of calories out.

    Will power can make us lose weight, but where is the weight lost? I lost 100 pounds by dieting and reached a plateau. After that point I kept the fat and lost muscle tissue at an alarming rate. This is a metabolic issue addressed by Dr. Lustig that I referenced in a comment to your previous diet blog.

    The evidence to refute the simple-minded CICO theory fills volumes of scientific literature of which you are apparently ignorant. The main problem causing the obesity epidemic is not psychological, but rather involves physiology and biochemistry. You are outside your field of competence.

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Thompson
    Thanks for the references, and your detailed and reasoned argument. I see that, once again, my explanations have not been good enough. I will try again.

    I am giving behavioural advice, not nutritional advice. I am not a nutritionist, and have made no comments about those matters because I don't know about them and they are marginal to my argument.

    Imagine that someone has a food intake of a set number of calories, and finds that on that intake they are fatter than they want to be. Of course there may be an error term in calculating how much they have eaten, and an error term in how well the food is digested and made available to the body. Say that term is 8%. If the over-weight person eats another extra calorie of food they will get 92% of a calorie of food that their body will have to deal with. Not having eaten it would be the better strategy if the goal is weight loss.

    Hope this helps explain my point.
    , @Johan Meyer
    Is the malabsorption of fructose to which you refer fructose caught in fibre, or dissolved fructose? My understanding of Lustig's argument is the fibre-entrapped fructose mainly does give rise to the symptoms described in normal individuals, and that that is a secondary satiety signal.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. JLC says:

    Don’t bother. Body weight is like a flywheel, once a certain weight is achieved, the body holds it no matter the intervention. 5% success rate at keeping lost weight off long term. Ask any dieter, it comes back. http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2015/03/diets_do_not_work_the_thin_evidence_that_losing_weight_makes_you_healthier.html
    The only alternative that has substantial long term success is bariatric surgery.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Anecdotally, my father lost 60 kilos on a diet for diabetics and kept them off. Of course, "you'll have your feet amputated and then die if you don't stop eating" is powerful motivation. And my mother cooks all his everyday food strictly to doctor's recommendations. It's a lifelong commitment for the family, not just for one, but it works. Oh, and watching his illness scared me away from overeating, soda and beer drinking, and my BMI has been a stable 19 from teenage years (I'm in my 30s).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. @Hu Mi Yu

    The body is a heat machine. Food is the fuel. Thermodynamics applies.
     
    Well, yes, but the devil is in the details. From calories in you subtract calories excreted, calories stored as fat, calories converted into muscle, and calories retained in the intestines. Then you have to account for different nutrients requiring different amounts of energy to metabolize. In all these there are genetic components. I find it strange that someone can be so enthusiastic for genetic influence on IQ while rejecting all genetic influence on appetite, digestion, and metabolism.

    To take one tiny example with fructose, there are two recognized forms of fructose intolerance: fructose malabsorption, and hereditary fructose intolerance. While HFI is rare, about 1/3 of the population has some form of fructose malabsorption. In these cases all fructose consumed does not enter the blood. Instead some is fermented by microorganisms in the intestines to produce methane and hydrogen. These excreted gases represent a form of calories out.

    Will power can make us lose weight, but where is the weight lost? I lost 100 pounds by dieting and reached a plateau. After that point I kept the fat and lost muscle tissue at an alarming rate. This is a metabolic issue addressed by Dr. Lustig that I referenced in a comment to your previous diet blog.

    The evidence to refute the simple-minded CICO theory fills volumes of scientific literature of which you are apparently ignorant. The main problem causing the obesity epidemic is not psychological, but rather involves physiology and biochemistry. You are outside your field of competence.

    Thanks for the references, and your detailed and reasoned argument. I see that, once again, my explanations have not been good enough. I will try again.

    I am giving behavioural advice, not nutritional advice. I am not a nutritionist, and have made no comments about those matters because I don’t know about them and they are marginal to my argument.

    Imagine that someone has a food intake of a set number of calories, and finds that on that intake they are fatter than they want to be. Of course there may be an error term in calculating how much they have eaten, and an error term in how well the food is digested and made available to the body. Say that term is 8%. If the over-weight person eats another extra calorie of food they will get 92% of a calorie of food that their body will have to deal with. Not having eaten it would be the better strategy if the goal is weight loss.

    Hope this helps explain my point.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill
    You either don't understand or are refusing to interact with other people's arguments. Nobody fails to understand yours.

    How can you get my car to Cleveland? To answer, you might inquire as to what determines the velocity of my car. Is it my will? Is it the positions of the steering wheel and pedals? Is it the forces acting on those few square inches of tire in contact with the road?

    Your argument consists of 1) saying it's the forces operating on the tire/road boundary and 2) insisting that the way to get my car to Cleveland is to get out and fiddle with the tires.

    You are lost in a tautology.
    , @SteveM
    FYI, for a full explication of the theory, implementation and results of a Low Carb/High Fat (LCHF) diet, see the Diet Doctor web page:

    https://www.dietdoctor.com/

    https://www.dietdoctor.com/news

    Membership is free for a month. Meander around the site. It contains many videos and much documentation illustrating many cases of dramatic weight loss and even the complete remission of Type 2 diabetes resulting from the diet.

    , @Johan Meyer
    There is a behavioral issue with fructose versus glucose. Fructose undermines the satiety signal much more effectively per calorie than does glucose. Eating too much of either (too large portions) will stop the satiety signal, but glucose is iirc four times more efficient at undermining the satiety signal. Then again, absence of fat in food (low fat diets) have the same effect.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. dearieme says:
    @Sparkon
    Of course, President Trump's doctor has the last word on his physical fitness and overall state of his health. In my view, with a BMI of 30, Pres. Trump is overweight, so I'd hesitate to characterize his health as "extremely good." Additionally, his bad-to-good cholesterol ratio is somewhat worrisome. His skin tone seems slightly splotchy, but it's difficult to assess that from photographs. I hope the chief exec is getting some veggies and fiber in his daily diet.

    On the positive side of the ledger, Donald Trump neither smokes cigarettes nor drinks alcoholic beverages, so his body and mind are not being handicapped by those two very bad habits, which take down many drinkers and smokers, either directly from lung and liver disease, or by impact on other organs, such as the prostate. There is good evidence that smoking can lead to erectile dysfunction. There would be general agreement, I think, with the observation that drinking booze can lead to bad judgment.

    By being a nonsmoking teetotaler, Mr. Trump sets a very good example for the nation's youth, and puts himself in very good standing with respect to his future health prospects, but I would encourage him to drop the diet soda, especially since he seems aware of the fact that the artificial sweeteners promote weight gain, rather than weight loss, and go with regular soda if he simply must have a carbonated beverage, and see how that works out in the coming year for his weight. All in all, he should cut back on soda.

    I'm the same age as Mr. Trump, but my BMI is around 20, and vital signs are all good. Nevertheless, I'd hesitate to qualify my own health as "extremely good," but would settle for "reasonably good." I've never wanted to lose weight, so I had no motivation to drink any diet soda, especially since the regular stuff sweetened with sugar tastes so much better, but I only rarely have a soda these days, and only on the rare occasion when I have to grab fast food.

    Overall, I'd argue that the best plan for anyone is to skip the soda altogether -- along with booze and cigarettes -- and drink instead water, fruit juice, milk, coffee and tea to get necessary fluids, and reduce wear and tear on body and teeth.

    “with a BMI of 30, Pres. Trump is overweight”: at age 70 a BMI of 30 is just what he needs to have hopes of a long life. See figure 4

    http://www.drdavidgrimes.com/2017/08/is-being-overweight-really-killing.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sparkon
    It's an interesting study from one community. I can't explain the results, which seem to fly in the face of much conventional wisdom, such as this from the CDC:

    People who have obesity, compared to those with a normal or healthy weight, are at increased risk for many serious diseases and health conditions, including the following:

    ‣ All-causes of death (mortality)
    ‣ High blood pressure (Hypertension)
    ‣ High LDL and/or low HDL cholesterol, or high levels of triglycerides
    ‣ Type 2 diabetes
    ‣ Coronary heart disease
    ‣ Stroke
    ‣ Gallbladder disease
    ‣ Osteoarthritis (a breakdown of cartilage and bone within a joint)
    ‣ Sleep apnea and breathing problems
    ‣ Cancers (endometrial, breast, colon, kidney, gallbladder, and liver)
    ‣ Low quality of life
    ‣ Mental illnes: clinical depression, anxiety, other mental disorders
    ‣ Body pain and difficulty with physical functioning
    ‣ Erections lasting over 4 hours¹

     

    Beyond all that, people will call you a fat ass behind your back.

    My design school buddies always argued that "presentation is everything," and that's why I work overtime to bring you the trick sharp bullet points, but if I were leader of the Western world trying to make America great again, I'd want to cut a dashing figure, and have a trim waistline.

    And I'd offer that many people say they feel better when their BMI is closer to 20 than to 30, and I think there wouldn't be too much dispute with the proposition that nearly everybody looks a whole lot better when they are slender, rather than chubby.

    The dames sure do.

    No matter how you look at it, presentation matters, and so does appearance.

    ¹ Just kidding. CDC didn't say that about woodies. I added it just to see if anyone is reading the fine print.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. Sparkon says:
    @dearieme
    "with a BMI of 30, Pres. Trump is overweight": at age 70 a BMI of 30 is just what he needs to have hopes of a long life. See figure 4
    http://www.drdavidgrimes.com/2017/08/is-being-overweight-really-killing.html

    It’s an interesting study from one community. I can’t explain the results, which seem to fly in the face of much conventional wisdom, such as this from the CDC:

    People who have obesity, compared to those with a normal or healthy weight, are at increased risk for many serious diseases and health conditions, including the following:

    ‣ All-causes of death (mortality)
    ‣ High blood pressure (Hypertension)
    ‣ High LDL and/or low HDL cholesterol, or high levels of triglycerides
    ‣ Type 2 diabetes
    ‣ Coronary heart disease
    ‣ Stroke
    ‣ Gallbladder disease
    ‣ Osteoarthritis (a breakdown of cartilage and bone within a joint)
    ‣ Sleep apnea and breathing problems
    ‣ Cancers (endometrial, breast, colon, kidney, gallbladder, and liver)
    ‣ Low quality of life
    ‣ Mental illnes: clinical depression, anxiety, other mental disorders
    ‣ Body pain and difficulty with physical functioning
    ‣ Erections lasting over 4 hours¹

    Beyond all that, people will call you a fat ass behind your back.

    My design school buddies always argued that “presentation is everything,” and that’s why I work overtime to bring you the trick sharp bullet points, but if I were leader of the Western world trying to make America great again, I’d want to cut a dashing figure, and have a trim waistline.

    And I’d offer that many people say they feel better when their BMI is closer to 20 than to 30, and I think there wouldn’t be too much dispute with the proposition that nearly everybody looks a whole lot better when they are slender, rather than chubby.

    The dames sure do.

    No matter how you look at it, presentation matters, and so does appearance.

    ¹ Just kidding. CDC didn’t say that about woodies. I added it just to see if anyone is reading the fine print.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dearieme
    "I can’t explain the results, which seem to fly in the face of much conventional wisdom": it's easy. The conventional wisdom is bollocks. For example, the recommended range for BMI is based on no evidence at all; simply plucked out of thin air.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. @RaceRealist88
    What's wrong with diet posts?

    What’s wrong with diet posts?

    It’s one of those topics where everyone’s an expert, and everyone’s talking past each other. It seems that everyone has a pre-written 800-word rant on the topic. After the comments hit 100 on the previous post they started to repeat, as if nobody had read anything anyone else had said, including Dr. Thompson, which is remarkable, since he approves the comments.

    It’s especially unfortunate now, since Gregory Cochran is on a similar rant fest about alternative medicine. If this spreads to Steve Sailer, say if he starts to write about chronic fatigue syndrome, there won’t be anything left to read.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. dearieme says:
    @Sparkon
    It's an interesting study from one community. I can't explain the results, which seem to fly in the face of much conventional wisdom, such as this from the CDC:

    People who have obesity, compared to those with a normal or healthy weight, are at increased risk for many serious diseases and health conditions, including the following:

    ‣ All-causes of death (mortality)
    ‣ High blood pressure (Hypertension)
    ‣ High LDL and/or low HDL cholesterol, or high levels of triglycerides
    ‣ Type 2 diabetes
    ‣ Coronary heart disease
    ‣ Stroke
    ‣ Gallbladder disease
    ‣ Osteoarthritis (a breakdown of cartilage and bone within a joint)
    ‣ Sleep apnea and breathing problems
    ‣ Cancers (endometrial, breast, colon, kidney, gallbladder, and liver)
    ‣ Low quality of life
    ‣ Mental illnes: clinical depression, anxiety, other mental disorders
    ‣ Body pain and difficulty with physical functioning
    ‣ Erections lasting over 4 hours¹

     

    Beyond all that, people will call you a fat ass behind your back.

    My design school buddies always argued that "presentation is everything," and that's why I work overtime to bring you the trick sharp bullet points, but if I were leader of the Western world trying to make America great again, I'd want to cut a dashing figure, and have a trim waistline.

    And I'd offer that many people say they feel better when their BMI is closer to 20 than to 30, and I think there wouldn't be too much dispute with the proposition that nearly everybody looks a whole lot better when they are slender, rather than chubby.

    The dames sure do.

    No matter how you look at it, presentation matters, and so does appearance.

    ¹ Just kidding. CDC didn't say that about woodies. I added it just to see if anyone is reading the fine print.

    “I can’t explain the results, which seem to fly in the face of much conventional wisdom”: it’s easy. The conventional wisdom is bollocks. For example, the recommended range for BMI is based on no evidence at all; simply plucked out of thin air.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. dearieme says:

    Here’s my diet tip. Eat a mixed diet. If in doubt, incline more towards fish and away from grain.

    I have no evidence to support this but that’s probably more evidence than most dieticians have.

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Thompson
    You have seen this before, but I am posting it up again for other readers.

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/diet-is-iq-test/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. hbb are (((sociopaths)))

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  57. @dearieme
    Here's my diet tip. Eat a mixed diet. If in doubt, incline more towards fish and away from grain.

    I have no evidence to support this but that's probably more evidence than most dieticians have.

    You have seen this before, but I am posting it up again for other readers.

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

    Read More
    • Replies: @dearieme
    Thanks, doc. I hope all goes well for you in the stramash with those Nazi anti-fascists. Or fascist anti-Nazis. (It's so hard to tell totalitarians apart.)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @JLC
    Don't bother. Body weight is like a flywheel, once a certain weight is achieved, the body holds it no matter the intervention. 5% success rate at keeping lost weight off long term. Ask any dieter, it comes back. http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2015/03/diets_do_not_work_the_thin_evidence_that_losing_weight_makes_you_healthier.html
    The only alternative that has substantial long term success is bariatric surgery.

    Anecdotally, my father lost 60 kilos on a diet for diabetics and kept them off. Of course, “you’ll have your feet amputated and then die if you don’t stop eating” is powerful motivation. And my mother cooks all his everyday food strictly to doctor’s recommendations. It’s a lifelong commitment for the family, not just for one, but it works. Oh, and watching his illness scared me away from overeating, soda and beer drinking, and my BMI has been a stable 19 from teenage years (I’m in my 30s).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. dearieme says:
    @James Thompson
    You have seen this before, but I am posting it up again for other readers.

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

    Thanks, doc. I hope all goes well for you in the stramash with those Nazi anti-fascists. Or fascist anti-Nazis. (It’s so hard to tell totalitarians apart.)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. KyGrifter says:

    I fast one day a week. Usually Weds or Thurs. You get used to it. It has worked to keep me a size 4 or 6 with little effort. Avoid sugary treats!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  61. Porkson, please, don’t give advice when you don’t know what you’re talking about. In short, stop writing on any topic.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  62. botazefa says:
    @RaceRealist88
    "Eat just a little bit less and exercise just a little bit more."

    How well has this worked out? Stating that a calorie is a calorie violates the second law of thermodynamics.

    And your 'advice' is garbage. The CICO model is a joke. Honestly, the question of when to eat may be the most important factor, then food quality. Eating garbage and thinking that all calories do the same thing in the body upon ingestion makes no sense.

    The first law of thermodynamics is irrelevant to human physiology.

    https://youtu.be/PFOogvab2TA

    Eating garbage and thinking that all calories do the same thing in the body upon ingestion makes no sense.

    A calorie is a unit of energy, not a physical thing. A fat gram is good for 7 calories. Protein and carbs 4.

    A garbage calorie will get you no fatter than a new age organic branded calorie.

    How many fat vegetarians are out there?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hu Mi Yu

    A garbage calorie will get you no fatter than a new age organic branded calorie.

     

    True, but a fructose calorie will get you fatter than a glucose calorie.

    How many fat vegetarians are out there?
     
    I've known a few. Did you know that donuts are vegan?
    , @Escher

    How many fat vegetarians are out there?
     
    Go to India. You’ll see plenty of obese vegetarians.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. Bill says:
    @James Thompson
    Thanks for the references, and your detailed and reasoned argument. I see that, once again, my explanations have not been good enough. I will try again.

    I am giving behavioural advice, not nutritional advice. I am not a nutritionist, and have made no comments about those matters because I don't know about them and they are marginal to my argument.

    Imagine that someone has a food intake of a set number of calories, and finds that on that intake they are fatter than they want to be. Of course there may be an error term in calculating how much they have eaten, and an error term in how well the food is digested and made available to the body. Say that term is 8%. If the over-weight person eats another extra calorie of food they will get 92% of a calorie of food that their body will have to deal with. Not having eaten it would be the better strategy if the goal is weight loss.

    Hope this helps explain my point.

    You either don’t understand or are refusing to interact with other people’s arguments. Nobody fails to understand yours.

    How can you get my car to Cleveland? To answer, you might inquire as to what determines the velocity of my car. Is it my will? Is it the positions of the steering wheel and pedals? Is it the forces acting on those few square inches of tire in contact with the road?

    Your argument consists of 1) saying it’s the forces operating on the tire/road boundary and 2) insisting that the way to get my car to Cleveland is to get out and fiddle with the tires.

    You are lost in a tautology.

    Read More
    • Agree: reiner Tor
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. Hu Mi Yu says:
    @botazefa

    Eating garbage and thinking that all calories do the same thing in the body upon ingestion makes no sense.
     
    A calorie is a unit of energy, not a physical thing. A fat gram is good for 7 calories. Protein and carbs 4.

    A garbage calorie will get you no fatter than a new age organic branded calorie.

    How many fat vegetarians are out there?

    A garbage calorie will get you no fatter than a new age organic branded calorie.

    True, but a fructose calorie will get you fatter than a glucose calorie.

    How many fat vegetarians are out there?

    I’ve known a few. Did you know that donuts are vegan?

    Read More
    • Replies: @botazefa

    True, but a fructose calorie will get you fatter than a glucose calorie.
     
    Are you sure about that?

    It may be true that fruit sugars may digest more slowly, which is healthier on the endocrine system.

    I don't think that a fat person who chooses to replace all his glucose than sucrose will lose a single pound, which seems to be a good way to test your theory.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. I did not expect that anyone would question the general principle of “calories in/calories out”. I am surprised, and have read the supportive arguments, but do not find them convincing, as I will explain later. I have also been presented with notions about the effects of different types of food, and the balance between protein, fats and carbohydrates. All these are digested down into the working fuel of the body. Eat too much of any or all of these, and your chance of getting fat increases.

    Yes, of course these foods could have a different balance point between calories ingested and perceived satiation. If it is possible to choose foods which lead to quick satiation it might be possible to control weight, but only if there is strict control over how much is eaten. My argument, which some found difficult to follow, is that the main cause of obesity is eating too much, and the balance between food types is a secondary consideration to that.

    “Calories in/calories out” is a thermodynamic tautology, but is only relevant if one is in a cage and one’s feeding is limited by outsiders. In real life your “secondary consideration” is really the primary consideration. “Calories in” is limited by satiety, which is highly dependent on the type of calories in. “Calories out” is also somewhat dependent on the type of calories in as the body has different metabolic pathways for various types of calories.

    Excess carbs are the most obesogenic because excessive blood glucose is toxic to body tissue and is therefore controlled (unless you are diabetic). After ingestion where do you think this excess glucose goes when all the body’s organs have no need for more despite higher insulin levels? Your glucose dump of last resort is your fat tissue. Body fat is more than just energy storage. Your body fat is a blood glucose level homeostasis organ, sponging up excess glucose and converting it to fat. And lipogenesis vs lipolysis is NOT symmetric. Your body’s “prime directive” prefers ingestion (and even proteolysis) over lipolysis for supporting the body’s fuel needs. After your body’s glucose levels are driven back down you are hungry again.

    Protein is not much better as any protein ingested over the body’s needs is converted to glucose (and then, see above).

    Excess fat is a different thing altogether. There is no immediate need for the body to sequester excess fat. It floats around as blood triglycerides providing fuel as needed to body tissues, and extending satiety.

    There is abundant evidence that HFLC diets promote weight loss. This is not because they violate “calories in/calories out”, but because they hack the body’s satiety algorithms and promote fewer calories in.

    -Cloudswrest

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cloudswrest
    One other thing about exercise.

    Increasing your level of activity, by whatever means you choose, is unlikely to have much direct effect. This is because in current times there is so much good food available that you can replace half an hour’s calorie expenditure in about two minutes. A chocolate-coated nut-filled candy bar will do the trick.
     
    While the calories burned during exercise are indeed somewhat insignificant, exercises that bulk you (i.e. add muscle) can indirectly contribute to fat lose because muscle tissue has to be fed 24/7 and it is more thermogenic than no muscle tissue. So increasing the quantity of muscle tissue increases the "calories out" balance sheet. The extra muscle tissue also provides more storage tissue for glycogen, thereby increasing the threshold of carbohydrate consumption before lipolysis starts.

    -Cloudswrest

    , @res

    Your glucose dump of last resort is your fat tissue. Body fat is more than just energy storage. Your body fat is a blood glucose level homeostasis organ, sponging up excess glucose and converting it to fat. And lipogenesis vs lipolysis is NOT symmetric. Your body’s “prime directive” prefers ingestion (and even proteolysis) over lipolysis for supporting the body’s fuel needs.
     
    Very interesting. Can you recommend resources to learn more about this? In particular I am interested in the glucose level homeostasis aspect and the preference for proteolysis over lipolysis. Is there variation in the latter for people whose bodies are better/worse at burning fat?

    P.S. In your comment 66 did you mean lipogenesis in your last sentence?
    , @utu

    “Calories in/calories out” is a thermodynamic tautology, but is only relevant if one is in a cage and one’s feeding is limited by outsiders.
     
    It is always relevant. Not only in a cage. When not in cage people just can't keep "calorie in" on the level they intended and end up eating more.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. @Cloudswrest

    I did not expect that anyone would question the general principle of “calories in/calories out”. I am surprised, and have read the supportive arguments, but do not find them convincing, as I will explain later. I have also been presented with notions about the effects of different types of food, and the balance between protein, fats and carbohydrates. All these are digested down into the working fuel of the body. Eat too much of any or all of these, and your chance of getting fat increases.

    Yes, of course these foods could have a different balance point between calories ingested and perceived satiation. If it is possible to choose foods which lead to quick satiation it might be possible to control weight, but only if there is strict control over how much is eaten. My argument, which some found difficult to follow, is that the main cause of obesity is eating too much, and the balance between food types is a secondary consideration to that.
     
    "Calories in/calories out" is a thermodynamic tautology, but is only relevant if one is in a cage and one's feeding is limited by outsiders. In real life your "secondary consideration" is really the primary consideration. "Calories in" is limited by satiety, which is highly dependent on the type of calories in. "Calories out" is also somewhat dependent on the type of calories in as the body has different metabolic pathways for various types of calories.

    Excess carbs are the most obesogenic because excessive blood glucose is toxic to body tissue and is therefore controlled (unless you are diabetic). After ingestion where do you think this excess glucose goes when all the body's organs have no need for more despite higher insulin levels? Your glucose dump of last resort is your fat tissue. Body fat is more than just energy storage. Your body fat is a blood glucose level homeostasis organ, sponging up excess glucose and converting it to fat. And lipogenesis vs lipolysis is NOT symmetric. Your body's "prime directive" prefers ingestion (and even proteolysis) over lipolysis for supporting the body's fuel needs. After your body's glucose levels are driven back down you are hungry again.

    Protein is not much better as any protein ingested over the body's needs is converted to glucose (and then, see above).

    Excess fat is a different thing altogether. There is no immediate need for the body to sequester excess fat. It floats around as blood triglycerides providing fuel as needed to body tissues, and extending satiety.

    There is abundant evidence that HFLC diets promote weight loss. This is not because they violate "calories in/calories out", but because they hack the body's satiety algorithms and promote fewer calories in.

    -Cloudswrest

    One other thing about exercise.

    Increasing your level of activity, by whatever means you choose, is unlikely to have much direct effect. This is because in current times there is so much good food available that you can replace half an hour’s calorie expenditure in about two minutes. A chocolate-coated nut-filled candy bar will do the trick.

    While the calories burned during exercise are indeed somewhat insignificant, exercises that bulk you (i.e. add muscle) can indirectly contribute to fat lose because muscle tissue has to be fed 24/7 and it is more thermogenic than no muscle tissue. So increasing the quantity of muscle tissue increases the “calories out” balance sheet. The extra muscle tissue also provides more storage tissue for glycogen, thereby increasing the threshold of carbohydrate consumption before lipolysis starts.

    -Cloudswrest

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. res says:
    @Cloudswrest

    I did not expect that anyone would question the general principle of “calories in/calories out”. I am surprised, and have read the supportive arguments, but do not find them convincing, as I will explain later. I have also been presented with notions about the effects of different types of food, and the balance between protein, fats and carbohydrates. All these are digested down into the working fuel of the body. Eat too much of any or all of these, and your chance of getting fat increases.

    Yes, of course these foods could have a different balance point between calories ingested and perceived satiation. If it is possible to choose foods which lead to quick satiation it might be possible to control weight, but only if there is strict control over how much is eaten. My argument, which some found difficult to follow, is that the main cause of obesity is eating too much, and the balance between food types is a secondary consideration to that.
     
    "Calories in/calories out" is a thermodynamic tautology, but is only relevant if one is in a cage and one's feeding is limited by outsiders. In real life your "secondary consideration" is really the primary consideration. "Calories in" is limited by satiety, which is highly dependent on the type of calories in. "Calories out" is also somewhat dependent on the type of calories in as the body has different metabolic pathways for various types of calories.

    Excess carbs are the most obesogenic because excessive blood glucose is toxic to body tissue and is therefore controlled (unless you are diabetic). After ingestion where do you think this excess glucose goes when all the body's organs have no need for more despite higher insulin levels? Your glucose dump of last resort is your fat tissue. Body fat is more than just energy storage. Your body fat is a blood glucose level homeostasis organ, sponging up excess glucose and converting it to fat. And lipogenesis vs lipolysis is NOT symmetric. Your body's "prime directive" prefers ingestion (and even proteolysis) over lipolysis for supporting the body's fuel needs. After your body's glucose levels are driven back down you are hungry again.

    Protein is not much better as any protein ingested over the body's needs is converted to glucose (and then, see above).

    Excess fat is a different thing altogether. There is no immediate need for the body to sequester excess fat. It floats around as blood triglycerides providing fuel as needed to body tissues, and extending satiety.

    There is abundant evidence that HFLC diets promote weight loss. This is not because they violate "calories in/calories out", but because they hack the body's satiety algorithms and promote fewer calories in.

    -Cloudswrest

    Your glucose dump of last resort is your fat tissue. Body fat is more than just energy storage. Your body fat is a blood glucose level homeostasis organ, sponging up excess glucose and converting it to fat. And lipogenesis vs lipolysis is NOT symmetric. Your body’s “prime directive” prefers ingestion (and even proteolysis) over lipolysis for supporting the body’s fuel needs.

    Very interesting. Can you recommend resources to learn more about this? In particular I am interested in the glucose level homeostasis aspect and the preference for proteolysis over lipolysis. Is there variation in the latter for people whose bodies are better/worse at burning fat?

    P.S. In your comment 66 did you mean lipogenesis in your last sentence?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    The best diet advice I ever met was in Lunch in Paris by Elizabeth Bard, chapter “Family Values”. It’s a fictionalized diary/romance/recipe book for female audience, so probably none of you guys know of it. In the said chapter, the 10 pounds too heavy American heroine learns the ways of her skinny French mother-in-law. The takeaways:
    - mother-in-law doesn’t finish her portion at a restaurant;
    - doesn’t take any snacks to the beach;
    - doesn’t snack between meals at all (can eat yoghurt at night if she worked till 10 p.m.);
    - always has a bottle of water with her;
    - drinks water, tea, coffee, wine and sometimes beer, but never soda;
    - meals are eaten on strict schedule 4 times a day (intermittent fasting is not a thing);
    - French home meal portions are two times smaller than American, and eating takes twice longer.
    The dreaded carbs are there in bread and desserts, but don’t seem to make a difference. In the end, the French diet is just order and discipline.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Uebersetzer
    One thing I read somewhere is that the diameter of dinner plates has increased over the last half century in the Western world, and this may be a factor in people eating too much.
    I did some serious fasting once and noticed that the odour of my sweat changed - it reminded me of the smell of hops. It may have been something to do with ketone bodies.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketone_bodies
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. I have no opinion on this subject except to say that it is a decidedly First World problem of modern provenance and shallow import. In an earlier century, the immediate danger to most people would have consisted in having too little to eat rather than too much, and yet they were not nearly as obsessed with dietary concerns as we are. In those days men busied themselves about how to please God, how to calculate the paths of the heavenly bodies or navigate around the world. But modern man devotes what remains of his flagging passion to dietary questions and other trivialities, simply because the weary, formless, urbane intellect can find no more important problems than these. Both obesity and the anxiety it inspires belong to the long list of symptoms testifying to the pointlessness of contemporary life.

    Read More
    • Agree: utu
    • Replies: @notanon

    In those days men busied themselves about ... modern man devotes what remains of his flagging passion to dietary questions and other trivialities
     
    diabesity epidemic -> metabolic syndrome -> "flagging passion"
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. utu says:
    @Cloudswrest

    I did not expect that anyone would question the general principle of “calories in/calories out”. I am surprised, and have read the supportive arguments, but do not find them convincing, as I will explain later. I have also been presented with notions about the effects of different types of food, and the balance between protein, fats and carbohydrates. All these are digested down into the working fuel of the body. Eat too much of any or all of these, and your chance of getting fat increases.

    Yes, of course these foods could have a different balance point between calories ingested and perceived satiation. If it is possible to choose foods which lead to quick satiation it might be possible to control weight, but only if there is strict control over how much is eaten. My argument, which some found difficult to follow, is that the main cause of obesity is eating too much, and the balance between food types is a secondary consideration to that.
     
    "Calories in/calories out" is a thermodynamic tautology, but is only relevant if one is in a cage and one's feeding is limited by outsiders. In real life your "secondary consideration" is really the primary consideration. "Calories in" is limited by satiety, which is highly dependent on the type of calories in. "Calories out" is also somewhat dependent on the type of calories in as the body has different metabolic pathways for various types of calories.

    Excess carbs are the most obesogenic because excessive blood glucose is toxic to body tissue and is therefore controlled (unless you are diabetic). After ingestion where do you think this excess glucose goes when all the body's organs have no need for more despite higher insulin levels? Your glucose dump of last resort is your fat tissue. Body fat is more than just energy storage. Your body fat is a blood glucose level homeostasis organ, sponging up excess glucose and converting it to fat. And lipogenesis vs lipolysis is NOT symmetric. Your body's "prime directive" prefers ingestion (and even proteolysis) over lipolysis for supporting the body's fuel needs. After your body's glucose levels are driven back down you are hungry again.

    Protein is not much better as any protein ingested over the body's needs is converted to glucose (and then, see above).

    Excess fat is a different thing altogether. There is no immediate need for the body to sequester excess fat. It floats around as blood triglycerides providing fuel as needed to body tissues, and extending satiety.

    There is abundant evidence that HFLC diets promote weight loss. This is not because they violate "calories in/calories out", but because they hack the body's satiety algorithms and promote fewer calories in.

    -Cloudswrest

    “Calories in/calories out” is a thermodynamic tautology, but is only relevant if one is in a cage and one’s feeding is limited by outsiders.

    It is always relevant. Not only in a cage. When not in cage people just can’t keep “calorie in” on the level they intended and end up eating more.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. Malla says:

    Just eat traditional organic foods and cut out excessive Carbs (Grain, flour, sugar). Reduce excessive consumption of Wheat/Rice and have more oats. Oats is magic.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  72. http://drgreger.org

    http://nutritionfacts.org

    These are Dr. Michael Greger sites,

    https://duckduckgo.com/?q=john+mcdougall+the+starch+solution&t=ffcm&ia=videos

    And for the ruling classes there are Pritikin Life Centers
    These FACTS have been hidden from us since the 1920, it is benefical to the owners of societies to save on paying retirement benefits to deplorable masses.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  73. Clyde says:

    Low carb…read Bernsteins book on diabetes. I know someone (female) who went from 180 to 125 in 9 months and has maintained for two years with Bernstein’s method.
    Dr. Bernstein’s Diabetes Solution: The Complete Guide to Achieving Normal Blood Sugars Nov 1, 2011

    Here is the real contradiction — Many people who are hefty, lets say 50-100 lbs overweight. They have strong constitutions to be able to walk around and report to work, or look after their children while carrying around all that blubber and luggage. Being natively strong, all they need is the right method and discipline to lose weight.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  74. Bruno says:

    what do you do with the extreme diminution of metabolism experienced by many people who fasten. It makes them gain weigh with almost nothing, when it goes from 2000 kcal a day to 500.

    Read More
    • Replies: @WHAT
    Don`t do it? It`s so very easy, just calculate your TDEE and subtract 20% or 30%, depending on how agressive you want your diet to be. Divide resulting number between protein, fat and carbs so that you consume at least 150 gr. of protein, around 20% of what`s left should be fat, and everything else is carbs. Add some simple vitamin complex and try to do sports(as in squats and deadlifts, no machines or bosu ball faggotry). Stick with it for a least a month and you`ll see results.

    You even can diet on goddamn soda pop and chocolates this way, not that you should.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. Escher says:
    @botazefa

    Eating garbage and thinking that all calories do the same thing in the body upon ingestion makes no sense.
     
    A calorie is a unit of energy, not a physical thing. A fat gram is good for 7 calories. Protein and carbs 4.

    A garbage calorie will get you no fatter than a new age organic branded calorie.

    How many fat vegetarians are out there?

    How many fat vegetarians are out there?

    Go to India. You’ll see plenty of obese vegetarians.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. @dearieme
    "the best I could find at lunch in Bridgend was a faggot and peas": now, now, you're just teasing our American cousins.

    Indeed. As the day wears on and energy wanes, one looks forward to being refreshed with…a faggot and peas. Sometimes one doesn’t even need the peas ,a faggot is enough!
    “Where ya goin’ friend?”
    “Gonna get me a faggot!”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. Some rules for correct nutrition.
    Do not read any stupid diet recommendations they only confuse you.

    Follow these two rules.
    First rule is: Eat as little as possible and as often as possible.
    Second rule is: It cyclically through year.
    At middle of the spring start to loose weight. Eat rice, little potatoes., oils, little fat, best duck fat,
    mostly chicken and beef and fish. Reduce products from wheat ,oats, or any grains yo absolute minimum.Eat mostly meat and vegetables. Eat vegetarian dish one day of the week.
    In the summer introduce two or even more vegetarian dishes a week Absolute minimum sugar in your meals

    In the autumn you may start to put on a little weight. You may start to eat little product from grains
    Eat huge amounts of fruits. You may drop your two vegetarian days at beginning of winter.

    In the winter you may add pork and eat heavy foods (high caloric)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  78. WHAT says:
    @Bruno
    what do you do with the extreme diminution of metabolism experienced by many people who fasten. It makes them gain weigh with almost nothing, when it goes from 2000 kcal a day to 500.

    Don`t do it? It`s so very easy, just calculate your TDEE and subtract 20% or 30%, depending on how agressive you want your diet to be. Divide resulting number between protein, fat and carbs so that you consume at least 150 gr. of protein, around 20% of what`s left should be fat, and everything else is carbs. Add some simple vitamin complex and try to do sports(as in squats and deadlifts, no machines or bosu ball faggotry). Stick with it for a least a month and you`ll see results.

    You even can diet on goddamn soda pop and chocolates this way, not that you should.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. SteveM says:
    @James Thompson
    Thanks for the references, and your detailed and reasoned argument. I see that, once again, my explanations have not been good enough. I will try again.

    I am giving behavioural advice, not nutritional advice. I am not a nutritionist, and have made no comments about those matters because I don't know about them and they are marginal to my argument.

    Imagine that someone has a food intake of a set number of calories, and finds that on that intake they are fatter than they want to be. Of course there may be an error term in calculating how much they have eaten, and an error term in how well the food is digested and made available to the body. Say that term is 8%. If the over-weight person eats another extra calorie of food they will get 92% of a calorie of food that their body will have to deal with. Not having eaten it would be the better strategy if the goal is weight loss.

    Hope this helps explain my point.

    FYI, for a full explication of the theory, implementation and results of a Low Carb/High Fat (LCHF) diet, see the Diet Doctor web page:

    https://www.dietdoctor.com/

    https://www.dietdoctor.com/news

    Membership is free for a month. Meander around the site. It contains many videos and much documentation illustrating many cases of dramatic weight loss and even the complete remission of Type 2 diabetes resulting from the diet.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. botazefa says:
    @Hu Mi Yu

    A garbage calorie will get you no fatter than a new age organic branded calorie.

     

    True, but a fructose calorie will get you fatter than a glucose calorie.

    How many fat vegetarians are out there?
     
    I've known a few. Did you know that donuts are vegan?

    True, but a fructose calorie will get you fatter than a glucose calorie.

    Are you sure about that?

    It may be true that fruit sugars may digest more slowly, which is healthier on the endocrine system.

    I don’t think that a fat person who chooses to replace all his glucose than sucrose will lose a single pound, which seems to be a good way to test your theory.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Johan Meyer
    That might (or might not) be Hu Mi Yu's argument, but it is not Lustig's general argument, although greater conversion to fat may also occur. Lustig's argument is that fructose absorption into the blood requires the liver to convert the fructose to useable energy (versus glucose which cells can burn without liver interaction), and that that process in the liver leads to suppresses satiety, which then leads to overeating.

    A simple way to test Lustig's argument is to take a meal that would normally satisfy you, but replace 200 calories with e.g. cola/pop or fruit juice (something with water-dissolved fructose), and have the fructose at the end. Are you still saited at the end of the meal? His argument, and my experience, is that one is not, hence the serving of fruit juice and cola/pop by restaurants---greater quantities of food sold.

    If one eats enough glucose in one meal, enough glucose will enter the liver to have the same effect, but the quantity of glucose required is much greate than the quantity of fructose for the same effect.

    , @Hu Mi Yu

    I don’t think that a fat person who chooses to replace all his glucose than sucrose will lose a single pound, which seems to be a good way to test your theory.
     
    My hypothesis (not a theory) would say that replacing glucose with sucrose would tend to cause a person to gain weight.

    I reference Dr. Lustig mostly because he agrees that cutting back fructose is important. We do not necessarily agree on every point. I went back to school and studied biochemistry so I could understand the metabolism of sugars. For an introduction you could check the Wikipedia entry for "fructolysis": especially the section titled "Fructose induces hepatic lipogenic enzymes". "Lipogenesis" means "fat creating". Also a web search on "fructose metabolism" should prove enlightening.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    Many people, especially post menopausal women, eat very little and are still overweight. My female cousin eats like a horse and is thin, as is my husband. Yes, there are people who are eating too much and can lose weight by reducing calorie consumption. Obesity is an epidemic in the developed world and there are causes that are just not related to over consumption.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    How much of post-menopausal obesity is due to impaired thyroid function?
    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF03325329

    There is some controversy about the direction of causality for the hypothyroid/obesity connection. This leads me to suspect causality goes both ways and there is a vicious cycle involved.
    , @Anon
    This has been addressed on Fatlogic Reddit many times. Skinny people who "eat much" don't eat so much as it seems. Just an example:

    "My partner even said to me the other day that he eats whatever he wants and doesn't get fat and people hate him for it.

    Even he doesn't realise how little he eats compared to the sort of fat person he thinks he'll become once he's older and his "metabolism changes". In his head he's eating unhealthy food, and he's thin and fit so it must be magic/good genes/fast metabolism/luck. He forgets that he's fairy active and he doesn't snack between meals or drink soft drink so even if his meals are unhealthy (and in reality, its probably only 1/3rd of his meals that are junk) he's not eating as much as he thinks he is.

    As a morbidly obese person, I know what my diet looks like, and I know his intake is easily 2/3rds the size of mine. So it makes sense that as a taller, more active, penis owning person, he's half my weight.

    But If I was using fat logic, I'd be taking what my partner says at face value and cursing him for his good genes and fast metabolism. Rather than actually thinking about it and saying "no, you're expected for your actual calorie intake"."
    https://www.reddit.com/r/fatlogic/comments/494dv4/im_jealous_of_skinny_women_who_can_eat_anything/d0p4ck4/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. @James Thompson
    Thanks for the references, and your detailed and reasoned argument. I see that, once again, my explanations have not been good enough. I will try again.

    I am giving behavioural advice, not nutritional advice. I am not a nutritionist, and have made no comments about those matters because I don't know about them and they are marginal to my argument.

    Imagine that someone has a food intake of a set number of calories, and finds that on that intake they are fatter than they want to be. Of course there may be an error term in calculating how much they have eaten, and an error term in how well the food is digested and made available to the body. Say that term is 8%. If the over-weight person eats another extra calorie of food they will get 92% of a calorie of food that their body will have to deal with. Not having eaten it would be the better strategy if the goal is weight loss.

    Hope this helps explain my point.

    There is a behavioral issue with fructose versus glucose. Fructose undermines the satiety signal much more effectively per calorie than does glucose. Eating too much of either (too large portions) will stop the satiety signal, but glucose is iirc four times more efficient at undermining the satiety signal. Then again, absence of fat in food (low fat diets) have the same effect.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Johan Meyer
    Correction: fructose is four times more effective iirc than glucose, in undermining satiety.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. res says:
    @Anon
    Many people, especially post menopausal women, eat very little and are still overweight. My female cousin eats like a horse and is thin, as is my husband. Yes, there are people who are eating too much and can lose weight by reducing calorie consumption. Obesity is an epidemic in the developed world and there are causes that are just not related to over consumption.

    How much of post-menopausal obesity is due to impaired thyroid function?

    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF03325329

    There is some controversy about the direction of causality for the hypothyroid/obesity connection. This leads me to suspect causality goes both ways and there is a vicious cycle involved.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. @Hu Mi Yu

    The body is a heat machine. Food is the fuel. Thermodynamics applies.
     
    Well, yes, but the devil is in the details. From calories in you subtract calories excreted, calories stored as fat, calories converted into muscle, and calories retained in the intestines. Then you have to account for different nutrients requiring different amounts of energy to metabolize. In all these there are genetic components. I find it strange that someone can be so enthusiastic for genetic influence on IQ while rejecting all genetic influence on appetite, digestion, and metabolism.

    To take one tiny example with fructose, there are two recognized forms of fructose intolerance: fructose malabsorption, and hereditary fructose intolerance. While HFI is rare, about 1/3 of the population has some form of fructose malabsorption. In these cases all fructose consumed does not enter the blood. Instead some is fermented by microorganisms in the intestines to produce methane and hydrogen. These excreted gases represent a form of calories out.

    Will power can make us lose weight, but where is the weight lost? I lost 100 pounds by dieting and reached a plateau. After that point I kept the fat and lost muscle tissue at an alarming rate. This is a metabolic issue addressed by Dr. Lustig that I referenced in a comment to your previous diet blog.

    The evidence to refute the simple-minded CICO theory fills volumes of scientific literature of which you are apparently ignorant. The main problem causing the obesity epidemic is not psychological, but rather involves physiology and biochemistry. You are outside your field of competence.

    Is the malabsorption of fructose to which you refer fructose caught in fibre, or dissolved fructose? My understanding of Lustig’s argument is the fibre-entrapped fructose mainly does give rise to the symptoms described in normal individuals, and that that is a secondary satiety signal.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hu Mi Yu

    Is the malabsorption of fructose to which you refer fructose caught in fibre, or dissolved fructose? My understanding of Lustig’s argument is the fibre-entrapped fructose mainly does give rise to the symptoms described in normal individuals, and that that is a secondary satiety signal.
     
    Dr. Lustig asserts that fructose caught in fiber (for example apples) is not a problem for normal individuals. I have found that fructose with fiber definitely is a problem for me.

    I am not writing of fructose malabsorption here, but of problems with fructose metabolism. Malaborption is the most common problem with fructose. As in the case of lactose intolerance this indicates that we are not adapted to diets high in it. We have increased .ability to digest starch compared to our early ancestors, and correspondingly we have a reduced ability to metabolize fructose on the average. It varies from individual to individual.

    I haven't mentioned this so far, but the diet I use is also low in fructans. Fructans are polymers of fructose, just as starches are polymers of glucose. According to accepted wisdom fructans do not digest, and they are classified as fiber. However there is no question they are a problem for me. For one thing I have a contact allergy to nearly all grasses, and grasses contain fructans in their cell walls. The only grain that I have to restrict in my "paleo" diet is barley. After I found this out, I looked it up and found that barley is the grain highest in fructans. Wheat and rice are low, and I can eat these without restriction. However "wheat" bread and even flour are nearly always mixed with barley in the US, so it is difficult to find wheat based products that I can eat.

    Recently I found out that there are also polymers of galactose called galactans. As far as I can tell, the only food that contains them is agar. I have reserved for the future a challenge to see if I can tolerate agar, but I have no desire to be ill again at present.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. Jimbobla says:

    Gut/brain axis, butyrate, ghrelin, scfa’s, resistant starch, fermentable fiber, gut health and auto-immune disorders: these are all search words and terms anyone trying to improve their health, whether fat or not, should reseach. One needs to get food for the microbiota in your gut through the small intestine and into the colon. This is the main concern. If you starve your colon trying to lose weight you are being counterproductive. Wake up. The medical community is not your friend. Your ill health is their wealth.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  86. Joe Hide says:

    I’ve dealt with resolving overweight people’s issues over decades, with an individual and customized approach. Saying that all foods are okay in moderation and that different dietary approaches, other than caloric limitation, doesn’t work makes my face spontaneously grimace. In the real world, where I and every other non-controlled environment dietary experimental researcher lives, in your face evidence says some foods heighten uncontrolled appetite, and some lessen it. There is more disagreement on my part with the author on other parts of his article, but that said, James Thompson is in general a brilliant and insightful researcher and writer. I would encourage him to adopt a daily habit of progressively more advanced exercise routines and to concentrate more on healthier food choices as he will then live longer and more vibrantly, so as to be able to continue to give us otherwise wonderful articles for decades to come.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  87. Old fogey says:
    @August Hurtel
    I have beat the odds on this one. Ultimately, it does come down to eating less, but carbohydrates drive hunger for a lot of people. Or to put in another way, you've got to figure out what's going to have you shoving something into your mouth again in two hours versus what will not.

    I found, for instance, that after eating a banana, I would get hungry again very quickly. But once I happened to bring some brisket to work, and it was warm from being cooked overnight in a crockpot, so I ate it when I would normally eat the banana. I didn't even think about eating again until quitting time.

    So, if all you think about it is calories, you might pick the banana and never get the appetite suppression necessary to actually maintain self-control.

    Another interesting track to go down with regard to appetite suppression is Seth Roberts Shangri-la diet. I succeeded by being willing to throw all the strategies at the problem, including going paleo and reducing my calories to 1500 a day. But I would not have been able to achieve any of it without reducing my appetite first.

    Thank you for reminding us of Seth Roberts. I miss his blog and his willingness to question and test on himself many of our “accepted” ideas.

    Read More
    • Agree: dearieme
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. Old fogey says:
    @dearieme
    Nor are separate ranges offered for people of different ages. And yet people seem naturally to get fatter in middle age.

    Women definitely become heavier as they enter menopause. I have read that without the estrogen from their ovaries, their body fat becomes the main source of estrogen. This extra fat – especially that around the hips – also cushions against fractures. It is foolish to think that our weight at age 25 should continue to be our weight throughout our life span.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon

    Women definitely become heavier as they enter menopause.
     
    There's no inevitability here. Watch your income, adjust it down according to age and you may become a stick like Brigitte Macron. Traditional lifestyles did it to women without their conscious control. You were allotted less food in a peasant family when you stopped doing hard labor and having babies. These were the normal peasant types in Old Russia:
    http://www.perunica.ru/uploads/posts/2016-05/thumbs/1462400390_29.jpg

    Note that the beauty ideal of the time was a little chubby (except for the upper classes who wore corsets - but even they found round cheeks and big butts beautiful), so no way they conscioisly dieted.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Obesity is a systemic response to capitalism, alleged free markets and punitive destruction of unwanted himan capital. Psychiatric drugs, Frito-Lay and devil take the hindmost in a military police state. Eat up!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  90. @botazefa

    True, but a fructose calorie will get you fatter than a glucose calorie.
     
    Are you sure about that?

    It may be true that fruit sugars may digest more slowly, which is healthier on the endocrine system.

    I don't think that a fat person who chooses to replace all his glucose than sucrose will lose a single pound, which seems to be a good way to test your theory.

    That might (or might not) be Hu Mi Yu’s argument, but it is not Lustig’s general argument, although greater conversion to fat may also occur. Lustig’s argument is that fructose absorption into the blood requires the liver to convert the fructose to useable energy (versus glucose which cells can burn without liver interaction), and that that process in the liver leads to suppresses satiety, which then leads to overeating.

    A simple way to test Lustig’s argument is to take a meal that would normally satisfy you, but replace 200 calories with e.g. cola/pop or fruit juice (something with water-dissolved fructose), and have the fructose at the end. Are you still saited at the end of the meal? His argument, and my experience, is that one is not, hence the serving of fruit juice and cola/pop by restaurants—greater quantities of food sold.

    If one eats enough glucose in one meal, enough glucose will enter the liver to have the same effect, but the quantity of glucose required is much greate than the quantity of fructose for the same effect.

    Read More
    • Replies: @botazefa
    Doing my quick research, I see that:

    350g 12oz can of coke: 24g sugars

    150g medium peach: 13g sugars

    Their sugar content is roughly the same. The reason, as you mentioned, is satiation.

    I think skinny alcoholics who are relatively young who have acquired Type II diabetes are interesting. They've replaced substantially all of the caloric intake with sugars, aren't too good at processing other nutrition (gut problems), and yet are not fat.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. Che Guava says:

    James, and other commentors than me,
    this an old song called ‘Eat Y’Self Fitter.’

    It is seeming to fit.
      

    The relevance is starting by abt. 20 s, full by 3 min.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  92. Exercise more.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  93. Seline says:

    You’re really understimating just how much people DO NOT WANT TO EAT LESS, and just how much they hate to hear that kind of advice.
    That’s pretty much the reason why we get every kind of crazy diet fads, that’s why there are so much furious CICO deniers, that’s why morbidly obese people are actually trying to tell themselves that being that much fat it’s beautiful and healty.
    People. Don’t. Want. To Eat. Less.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  94. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    My argument, which some found difficult to follow, is that the main cause of obesity is eating too much, and the balance between food types is a secondary consideration to that.

    That is the argument your critics reject, not because they reject the principle of the conservation of energy but because what you call a “secondary consideration” is in fact the central consideration.

    Your critics have stated the evidence, you have not refuted it.

    Sure there are cases of pathol0gical obesity that cannot be dealt with simply by changing what is eaten without regard to how much is eaten.

    But the question of major social importance is why is obesity and diabetes increasing. According to your contention, in times past, in Britain for example, when obesity was a rare condition, most people went to bed hungry, either because the could not afford to eat more or because they had more self-control that their present day descendants.

    This seems most unlikely in view of the evidence that the composition of diet has endocrinological effects on appetite and satiety and the fact that there has been a vast increase in the availability and consumption of processed and fast foods rich in sugars and refined carbohydrates that increase appetite and diminish satiety.

    Yes, for many, self-control is required if they are to avoid obesity, but it is self-control over what is eaten, not over how much, is eaten.

    Eat as much beef, broccoli, brown rice and porridge as you like. But no Oreos, no fudge sundaes, no candy bars, no sugar in tea or coffee, no frozen orange juice, no pop, and no beer.

    For most people, that’s it. That’s all they need to know to control their weight: consume no junk.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu

    Yes, for many, self-control is required if they are to avoid obesity, but it is self-control over what is eaten, not over how much, is eaten.
     
    Again you lost control. You know that sentence is not true, so why did you write it?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. AaronB says:

    The real way to lose weight is to eat delicious food. I’ve figured it out.

    The more delicious the cuisine of the country, the thinner. American food is blandest, and people are fattest.

    A while ago I read that American snack companies spend a lot of time making food NOT taste too good, so it won’t be satisfying!

    People – do you understand how significant that admission is! But you ignore it – why, people? Why must you remain forever buffoons, people?

    In other words – you ALL fail Thompson’s IQ test, except for me, who doesn’t believe in IQ tests. Isn’t that great?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  96. Hu Mi Yu says:
    @botazefa

    True, but a fructose calorie will get you fatter than a glucose calorie.
     
    Are you sure about that?

    It may be true that fruit sugars may digest more slowly, which is healthier on the endocrine system.

    I don't think that a fat person who chooses to replace all his glucose than sucrose will lose a single pound, which seems to be a good way to test your theory.

    I don’t think that a fat person who chooses to replace all his glucose than sucrose will lose a single pound, which seems to be a good way to test your theory.

    My hypothesis (not a theory) would say that replacing glucose with sucrose would tend to cause a person to gain weight.

    I reference Dr. Lustig mostly because he agrees that cutting back fructose is important. We do not necessarily agree on every point. I went back to school and studied biochemistry so I could understand the metabolism of sugars. For an introduction you could check the Wikipedia entry for “fructolysis”: especially the section titled “Fructose induces hepatic lipogenic enzymes”. “Lipogenesis” means “fat creating”. Also a web search on “fructose metabolism” should prove enlightening.

    Read More
    • Replies: @botazefa

    My hypothesis (not a theory) would say that replacing glucose with sucrose would tend to cause a person to gain weight.
     
    Where, exactly, does one find food/drink products that contain any significant glucose?
    , @CanSpeccy

    My hypothesis (not a theory) would say that replacing glucose with sucrose would tend to cause a person to gain weight.
     
    This paper in Diabetes supports your hypothesis, inasmuch as it shows that sucrose causes a greater insulin response than glucose. It also shows, however, that equivalent amounts of starch produce much smaller increases in blood glucose and insulin than any sugar.

    Thus, for diabetics, better than substituting glucose for sucrose would be to eliminate sugar from the diet altogether, replacing it with unrefined sources of carbohydrate such as brown rice, root vegetables, etc., which are digested slowly and thus do not cause blood glucose to spike with detrimental consequences for the machinery of blood sugar control.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    you ALL fail Thompson’s IQ test, except for me, who doesn’t believe in IQ tests

    It is something, certainly, not to be so stupid as to believe in IQ tests.

    As for the inverse relationship between the deliciousness of food and obesity, you are correct if by delicious food you mean traditional food like roast beef and Yorkshire pudding with roast potatoes and cabbage and gravy made with beef dripping, followed by suet pudding, or rice pudding, or jam roly poly, etc.

    The mistake about the need for quantity control rather than composition control arises, I suspect, because there are some people, myself included, who can eat almost any rubbish, including every kind of junk food, ad lib without gaining weight. Such people are often mistakenly credited, or unjustifiably credit themselves, with great self-control of their caloric intake, rather than the reality, which is an exceptional tolerance for junk food.

    Even those naturally thin people, however, are likely to gain considerable weight, especially during middle age, if they consume considerable quantities of beer, i.e., they will get a beer belly, consisting of a roll or two of fat around the middle. As they likely know, these people can rid themselves of this excess fat simply by cutting out the beer, thus proving that it is the composition of calories consumed, not the quantity, over which one must have control if one is to avoid undue weight gain.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AaronB

    It is something, certainly, not to be so stupid as to believe in IQ tests.
     
    It is! And thank you for realizing that. With that one small comment you have elevated yourself above thousands, and joined a small elite. Welcome. We are the few, the brave, the non-buffoons.

    As for the inverse relationship between the deliciousness of food and obesity, you are correct if by delicious food you mean traditional food like roast beef and Yorkshire pudding with roast potatoes and cabbage and gravy made with beef dripping, followed by suet pudding, or rice pudding, or jam roly poly, etc.
     
    This can very well be exactly what I mean. Or at least, I may mean something very much like it.

    It's impossible not to notice that traditional food tastes so much better than modern food. What is a revelation is that this is by DESIGN! And yet we persist in being buffoons.

    The mistake about the need for quantity control rather than composition control arises, I suspect, because there are some people, myself included, who can eat almost any rubbish, including every kind of junk food, ad lib without gaining weight. Such people are often mistakenly credited, or unjustifiably credit themselves, with great self-control of their caloric intake, rather than the reality, which is an exceptional tolerance for junk food.
     
    This is already a confusing comment. The crystal clarity of earlier remarks is giving way to a miasmic illogical swamp, where conclusions do not follow. Buffoonery is reimerging.

    As they likely know, these people can rid themselves of this excess fat simply by cutting out the beer, thus proving that it is the composition of calories consumed, not the quantity, over which one must have control if one is to avoid undue weight gain.
     
    Alas, buffoonery has taken control and routed logic! Cutting out beer is also a reduction in quantity of consumption, so nothing is proved! The Spirit of Buffoonery has clouded your vision and led you down a dark path.

    The curious mix of intelligence and buffoonery has thwarted us, once again. Alas.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. botazefa says:
    @Johan Meyer
    That might (or might not) be Hu Mi Yu's argument, but it is not Lustig's general argument, although greater conversion to fat may also occur. Lustig's argument is that fructose absorption into the blood requires the liver to convert the fructose to useable energy (versus glucose which cells can burn without liver interaction), and that that process in the liver leads to suppresses satiety, which then leads to overeating.

    A simple way to test Lustig's argument is to take a meal that would normally satisfy you, but replace 200 calories with e.g. cola/pop or fruit juice (something with water-dissolved fructose), and have the fructose at the end. Are you still saited at the end of the meal? His argument, and my experience, is that one is not, hence the serving of fruit juice and cola/pop by restaurants---greater quantities of food sold.

    If one eats enough glucose in one meal, enough glucose will enter the liver to have the same effect, but the quantity of glucose required is much greate than the quantity of fructose for the same effect.

    Doing my quick research, I see that:

    350g 12oz can of coke: 24g sugars

    150g medium peach: 13g sugars

    Their sugar content is roughly the same. The reason, as you mentioned, is satiation.

    I think skinny alcoholics who are relatively young who have acquired Type II diabetes are interesting. They’ve replaced substantially all of the caloric intake with sugars, aren’t too good at processing other nutrition (gut problems), and yet are not fat.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Olestra is a fat substitute that adds no fat, calories, or cholesterol to products. The FDA approves almost anything that doesn’t cause people to immediately drop dead, so this cure was added to the junk food isle of most grocery stores across the United States and beyond starting in 1996. Proctor and Gamble’s Olestra negated the body’s ability to absorb essential vitamins while creating laxative like diarrhea. The FDA has kept this fake-fat legal today.

    Moral of the story? The “Government” supports industrial scale production of poison food additives, promotes unhealthy eating and sustains business models that produce billions of dollars in crap food. Industry then promotes quackery, political psuedo-science and political ideology to cover the afformentioned abuse by placing the burden of your own health on you. Your next trip to 7-11 will be covered in bernay’s sauce, are you sure you can make the right choices?

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    Olestra is a fat substitute that adds no fat, calories, or cholesterol to products. The FDA approves almost anything that doesn’t cause people to immediately drop dead, so this cure was added to the junk food isle of most grocery stores across the United States and beyond starting in 1996.
     
    The war against fat, meant people had to live either on a diet of meat, which few can afford, or else consume more carbohydrate. Since carbohydrate in the form of sucrose, fructose, glucose, aka dextrose, high fructose syrup, aka glucose plus fructose, and lactose, are all dirt cheap, the food industry happily bulked up their products with sugar (insofar as air, water, salt and artificial colors and flavors were insufficient) hooking millions on an obesity and diabetes inducing diet that is very satisfactorily reducing the life-expectancy of America's deplorable, unemployed, blue collar Trump-voting white trash.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. botazefa says:
    @Hu Mi Yu

    I don’t think that a fat person who chooses to replace all his glucose than sucrose will lose a single pound, which seems to be a good way to test your theory.
     
    My hypothesis (not a theory) would say that replacing glucose with sucrose would tend to cause a person to gain weight.

    I reference Dr. Lustig mostly because he agrees that cutting back fructose is important. We do not necessarily agree on every point. I went back to school and studied biochemistry so I could understand the metabolism of sugars. For an introduction you could check the Wikipedia entry for "fructolysis": especially the section titled "Fructose induces hepatic lipogenic enzymes". "Lipogenesis" means "fat creating". Also a web search on "fructose metabolism" should prove enlightening.

    My hypothesis (not a theory) would say that replacing glucose with sucrose would tend to cause a person to gain weight.

    Where, exactly, does one find food/drink products that contain any significant glucose?

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    Where, exactly, does one find food/drink products that contain any significant glucose?
     
    Top 10 Foods Highest in Glucose

    Don't you love them all? That's why obesity and diabetes have become epidemic.

    , @Hu Mi Yu

    Where, exactly, does one find food/drink products that contain any significant glucose?
     
    The main dietary source of pure glucose is starch. During digestion starches are hydrolyzed into glucose and maltose (contains two glucose molecules). There are other sources as well. The original formula for Gatorade was sweetened with glucose, but after Pepsi bought the brand, they changed the formula to make it sweeter. On a the hereditary fructose intolerance forum (hfi.proboards.com: now defunct), they used to talk about a candy called pixie sticks made with glucose. This morning I made some limeade from fresh limes (no fructose) and glucose I bought from a local health food store. It tasted great.

    Trade synonyms for glucose include dextrose and corn sugar. Corn syrup contains fructose though.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    We have to guess Thompson is trying to sell more Complan, a notorious sugary-shit drink now owned by Glaxxo. Folksy country doctors in the US always had a nasty brand name they would lovingly refer to. Tummy got you down? Kaopectate on order. Wee-wee and anxious travel? Hyoscine.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  102. Hu Mi Yu says:
    @Johan Meyer
    Is the malabsorption of fructose to which you refer fructose caught in fibre, or dissolved fructose? My understanding of Lustig's argument is the fibre-entrapped fructose mainly does give rise to the symptoms described in normal individuals, and that that is a secondary satiety signal.

    Is the malabsorption of fructose to which you refer fructose caught in fibre, or dissolved fructose? My understanding of Lustig’s argument is the fibre-entrapped fructose mainly does give rise to the symptoms described in normal individuals, and that that is a secondary satiety signal.

    Dr. Lustig asserts that fructose caught in fiber (for example apples) is not a problem for normal individuals. I have found that fructose with fiber definitely is a problem for me.

    I am not writing of fructose malabsorption here, but of problems with fructose metabolism. Malaborption is the most common problem with fructose. As in the case of lactose intolerance this indicates that we are not adapted to diets high in it. We have increased .ability to digest starch compared to our early ancestors, and correspondingly we have a reduced ability to metabolize fructose on the average. It varies from individual to individual.

    I haven’t mentioned this so far, but the diet I use is also low in fructans. Fructans are polymers of fructose, just as starches are polymers of glucose. According to accepted wisdom fructans do not digest, and they are classified as fiber. However there is no question they are a problem for me. For one thing I have a contact allergy to nearly all grasses, and grasses contain fructans in their cell walls. The only grain that I have to restrict in my “paleo” diet is barley. After I found this out, I looked it up and found that barley is the grain highest in fructans. Wheat and rice are low, and I can eat these without restriction. However “wheat” bread and even flour are nearly always mixed with barley in the US, so it is difficult to find wheat based products that I can eat.

    Recently I found out that there are also polymers of galactose called galactans. As far as I can tell, the only food that contains them is agar. I have reserved for the future a challenge to see if I can tolerate agar, but I have no desire to be ill again at present.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Johan Meyer
    Do you know what the prevalence of the ability (breaking down 5 carbon sugar polymers) is?

    Another thing I see is xylose (5 carbon sugar, like fructose) being added to wheat flour (six).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Hu Mi Yu

    I don’t think that a fat person who chooses to replace all his glucose than sucrose will lose a single pound, which seems to be a good way to test your theory.
     
    My hypothesis (not a theory) would say that replacing glucose with sucrose would tend to cause a person to gain weight.

    I reference Dr. Lustig mostly because he agrees that cutting back fructose is important. We do not necessarily agree on every point. I went back to school and studied biochemistry so I could understand the metabolism of sugars. For an introduction you could check the Wikipedia entry for "fructolysis": especially the section titled "Fructose induces hepatic lipogenic enzymes". "Lipogenesis" means "fat creating". Also a web search on "fructose metabolism" should prove enlightening.

    My hypothesis (not a theory) would say that replacing glucose with sucrose would tend to cause a person to gain weight.

    This paper in Diabetes supports your hypothesis, inasmuch as it shows that sucrose causes a greater insulin response than glucose. It also shows, however, that equivalent amounts of starch produce much smaller increases in blood glucose and insulin than any sugar.

    Thus, for diabetics, better than substituting glucose for sucrose would be to eliminate sugar from the diet altogether, replacing it with unrefined sources of carbohydrate such as brown rice, root vegetables, etc., which are digested slowly and thus do not cause blood glucose to spike with detrimental consequences for the machinery of blood sugar control.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @botazefa

    My hypothesis (not a theory) would say that replacing glucose with sucrose would tend to cause a person to gain weight.
     
    Where, exactly, does one find food/drink products that contain any significant glucose?

    Where, exactly, does one find food/drink products that contain any significant glucose?

    Top 10 Foods Highest in Glucose

    Don’t you love them all? That’s why obesity and diabetes have become epidemic.

    Read More
    • Replies: @botazefa
    I think that page you are linked to is talking about glycemic index.

    Glucose is manufactured by the body from other sugars in our food.

    My point is, we don't eat glucose.
    , @Hu Mi Yu

    Top 10 Foods Highest in Glucose
     
    Fake news. Honey is about the same thing as corn syrup: Fifty to sixty-four percent fructose and thirty-six to fifty percent glucose in a supersaturated solution with 20% water. Starch has the highest glucose content per weight. It is not even on the list.

    It is the fructose content of the listed foods that is the problem: not the glucose.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. AaronB says:
    @CanSpeccy

    you ALL fail Thompson’s IQ test, except for me, who doesn’t believe in IQ tests
     
    It is something, certainly, not to be so stupid as to believe in IQ tests.

    As for the inverse relationship between the deliciousness of food and obesity, you are correct if by delicious food you mean traditional food like roast beef and Yorkshire pudding with roast potatoes and cabbage and gravy made with beef dripping, followed by suet pudding, or rice pudding, or jam roly poly, etc.

    The mistake about the need for quantity control rather than composition control arises, I suspect, because there are some people, myself included, who can eat almost any rubbish, including every kind of junk food, ad lib without gaining weight. Such people are often mistakenly credited, or unjustifiably credit themselves, with great self-control of their caloric intake, rather than the reality, which is an exceptional tolerance for junk food.

    Even those naturally thin people, however, are likely to gain considerable weight, especially during middle age, if they consume considerable quantities of beer, i.e., they will get a beer belly, consisting of a roll or two of fat around the middle. As they likely know, these people can rid themselves of this excess fat simply by cutting out the beer, thus proving that it is the composition of calories consumed, not the quantity, over which one must have control if one is to avoid undue weight gain.

    It is something, certainly, not to be so stupid as to believe in IQ tests.

    It is! And thank you for realizing that. With that one small comment you have elevated yourself above thousands, and joined a small elite. Welcome. We are the few, the brave, the non-buffoons.

    As for the inverse relationship between the deliciousness of food and obesity, you are correct if by delicious food you mean traditional food like roast beef and Yorkshire pudding with roast potatoes and cabbage and gravy made with beef dripping, followed by suet pudding, or rice pudding, or jam roly poly, etc.

    This can very well be exactly what I mean. Or at least, I may mean something very much like it.

    It’s impossible not to notice that traditional food tastes so much better than modern food. What is a revelation is that this is by DESIGN! And yet we persist in being buffoons.

    The mistake about the need for quantity control rather than composition control arises, I suspect, because there are some people, myself included, who can eat almost any rubbish, including every kind of junk food, ad lib without gaining weight. Such people are often mistakenly credited, or unjustifiably credit themselves, with great self-control of their caloric intake, rather than the reality, which is an exceptional tolerance for junk food.

    This is already a confusing comment. The crystal clarity of earlier remarks is giving way to a miasmic illogical swamp, where conclusions do not follow. Buffoonery is reimerging.

    As they likely know, these people can rid themselves of this excess fat simply by cutting out the beer, thus proving that it is the composition of calories consumed, not the quantity, over which one must have control if one is to avoid undue weight gain.

    Alas, buffoonery has taken control and routed logic! Cutting out beer is also a reduction in quantity of consumption, so nothing is proved! The Spirit of Buffoonery has clouded your vision and led you down a dark path.

    The curious mix of intelligence and buffoonery has thwarted us, once again. Alas.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    I am sorry, but it is the obtunditude of the reader that is the problem, not the author's lack of crystal clarity.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Anonymous
    Olestra is a fat substitute that adds no fat, calories, or cholesterol to products. The FDA approves almost anything that doesn't cause people to immediately drop dead, so this cure was added to the junk food isle of most grocery stores across the United States and beyond starting in 1996. Proctor and Gamble's Olestra negated the body's ability to absorb essential vitamins while creating laxative like diarrhea. The FDA has kept this fake-fat legal today.

    Moral of the story? The "Government" supports industrial scale production of poison food additives, promotes unhealthy eating and sustains business models that produce billions of dollars in crap food. Industry then promotes quackery, political psuedo-science and political ideology to cover the afformentioned abuse by placing the burden of your own health on you. Your next trip to 7-11 will be covered in bernay's sauce, are you sure you can make the right choices?

    Olestra is a fat substitute that adds no fat, calories, or cholesterol to products. The FDA approves almost anything that doesn’t cause people to immediately drop dead, so this cure was added to the junk food isle of most grocery stores across the United States and beyond starting in 1996.

    The war against fat, meant people had to live either on a diet of meat, which few can afford, or else consume more carbohydrate. Since carbohydrate in the form of sucrose, fructose, glucose, aka dextrose, high fructose syrup, aka glucose plus fructose, and lactose, are all dirt cheap, the food industry happily bulked up their products with sugar (insofar as air, water, salt and artificial colors and flavors were insufficient) hooking millions on an obesity and diabetes inducing diet that is very satisfactorily reducing the life-expectancy of America’s deplorable, unemployed, blue collar Trump-voting white trash.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. Hu Mi Yu says:
    @botazefa

    My hypothesis (not a theory) would say that replacing glucose with sucrose would tend to cause a person to gain weight.
     
    Where, exactly, does one find food/drink products that contain any significant glucose?

    Where, exactly, does one find food/drink products that contain any significant glucose?

    The main dietary source of pure glucose is starch. During digestion starches are hydrolyzed into glucose and maltose (contains two glucose molecules). There are other sources as well. The original formula for Gatorade was sweetened with glucose, but after Pepsi bought the brand, they changed the formula to make it sweeter. On a the hereditary fructose intolerance forum (hfi.proboards.com: now defunct), they used to talk about a candy called pixie sticks made with glucose. This morning I made some limeade from fresh limes (no fructose) and glucose I bought from a local health food store. It tasted great.

    Trade synonyms for glucose include dextrose and corn sugar. Corn syrup contains fructose though.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JL

    a candy called pixie sticks
     
    I remember reading on a paleo site once that Sweet Tarts are made exclusively with glucose.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @AaronB

    It is something, certainly, not to be so stupid as to believe in IQ tests.
     
    It is! And thank you for realizing that. With that one small comment you have elevated yourself above thousands, and joined a small elite. Welcome. We are the few, the brave, the non-buffoons.

    As for the inverse relationship between the deliciousness of food and obesity, you are correct if by delicious food you mean traditional food like roast beef and Yorkshire pudding with roast potatoes and cabbage and gravy made with beef dripping, followed by suet pudding, or rice pudding, or jam roly poly, etc.
     
    This can very well be exactly what I mean. Or at least, I may mean something very much like it.

    It's impossible not to notice that traditional food tastes so much better than modern food. What is a revelation is that this is by DESIGN! And yet we persist in being buffoons.

    The mistake about the need for quantity control rather than composition control arises, I suspect, because there are some people, myself included, who can eat almost any rubbish, including every kind of junk food, ad lib without gaining weight. Such people are often mistakenly credited, or unjustifiably credit themselves, with great self-control of their caloric intake, rather than the reality, which is an exceptional tolerance for junk food.
     
    This is already a confusing comment. The crystal clarity of earlier remarks is giving way to a miasmic illogical swamp, where conclusions do not follow. Buffoonery is reimerging.

    As they likely know, these people can rid themselves of this excess fat simply by cutting out the beer, thus proving that it is the composition of calories consumed, not the quantity, over which one must have control if one is to avoid undue weight gain.
     
    Alas, buffoonery has taken control and routed logic! Cutting out beer is also a reduction in quantity of consumption, so nothing is proved! The Spirit of Buffoonery has clouded your vision and led you down a dark path.

    The curious mix of intelligence and buffoonery has thwarted us, once again. Alas.

    I am sorry, but it is the obtunditude of the reader that is the problem, not the author’s lack of crystal clarity.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  109. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Get between me and my sammich, Thompson, and I’ll put you in a world of hurt.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  110. HPLCguru says:

    I am a biochemist. The author is right about eating less – simple thermodynamics but this is science which is rigorous. What media presents (no conspiracy needed) is scientism which is rhetoric and tells a story without the usual “doubts” associated with rigorous science (we don’t know or we can’t be sure etc). The one mistake in the article was about exercise. Exercise increases metabolism (metabolic rate), decreases appetite and increases muscle mass. People who exercise will lose inches but may initially gain weight since muscle is more dense than fat. Diets which only restrict calories always lower metabolism and then the body makes fat to prepare for a famine. Imagine telling someone in 1900 about a stair stepper, a treadmill and a STATIONARY bike: We evolved “getting a lot of exercise” surviving and until industrial revolution agriculture was done by human and animal labor – no one needed “exercise”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Be so good as to consider a reply to #130
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  111. botazefa says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Where, exactly, does one find food/drink products that contain any significant glucose?
     
    Top 10 Foods Highest in Glucose

    Don't you love them all? That's why obesity and diabetes have become epidemic.

    I think that page you are linked to is talking about glycemic index.

    Glucose is manufactured by the body from other sugars in our food.

    My point is, we don’t eat glucose.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hu Mi Yu

    My point is, we don’t eat glucose.
     
    Yes, we do. It is contained in fruits and vegetables as well as starches. When they add it to food, they call it dextrose.

    Other sugars are converted into glucose by the liver with varying degrees of efficiency.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. Hu Mi Yu says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Where, exactly, does one find food/drink products that contain any significant glucose?
     
    Top 10 Foods Highest in Glucose

    Don't you love them all? That's why obesity and diabetes have become epidemic.

    Top 10 Foods Highest in Glucose

    Fake news. Honey is about the same thing as corn syrup: Fifty to sixty-four percent fructose and thirty-six to fifty percent glucose in a supersaturated solution with 20% water. Starch has the highest glucose content per weight. It is not even on the list.

    It is the fructose content of the listed foods that is the problem: not the glucose.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    Fake news.
     
    Hu Mi Yu, you must be even dumber than Utu. You say you're diabetic, yet you advocate diabetics consume glucose, which is idiotic.

    This site is infested with nuts and trolls with whom it is pointless to debate. Some of the rudest and dumbest are in name or by their own contention of Chinese origin or affiliation, which seems weird, as the Chinese people that I know personally are both well mannered and intelligent.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. Hu Mi Yu says:
    @botazefa
    I think that page you are linked to is talking about glycemic index.

    Glucose is manufactured by the body from other sugars in our food.

    My point is, we don't eat glucose.

    My point is, we don’t eat glucose.

    Yes, we do. It is contained in fruits and vegetables as well as starches. When they add it to food, they call it dextrose.

    Other sugars are converted into glucose by the liver with varying degrees of efficiency.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    You seldom find obesity in poor Asia, East European and African countries in 1970s who need to do labour work like farming, with little to eat, very simple natural starchy diet, mostly 2meals a day. It still happen in these countries rural regions, but not cities that invaded by western junk food and chilled drinks culture.

    Artificial food, cold drinks, junk food are luxuries then, and diabetes are privilege for the rich. They usually live till 70's still strong enough for farm work, with lean body and little illness. Starch and sweet things are their main energy source without problem.

    Diabetes are due to malfunctioning pancreas unable to regulate insulin, usually due to taking too much cold foods and drinks. Pancreas is the illness source, high sugar level diabetes is only the symptom. Western medical research and treatments focus on symptoms which can only be temporary suppress, no one ever heal by western medications.

    TCM focus on root cause to eliminate illness, and diabetes is not consider a illness in TCM but only a sign of pancreatic problem. Diabetes usually also cause high BP and cholesterol problem.

    Eat less(70% full), organic food (including brown rice/ sugar is good), simple diet (without refine food like white rice/sugar), work out more for daily perspiration. Nature work itself best when people go back to natural lifestyle.

    This is what Traditional Chinese Medicine physicians have observed, and able to treat 3 High symptoms, high sugar, high BP, high cholesterol, very effectively. That's how i get my old mother decade of 3 highs illnesses treated within a month using TCM herbal treatment to revitalize pancreas(by using warm nature herbs) with diet control, to the great surprise of her geriatric.

    But once she return to her usual junk food and cold drinks lifestyle, the illnesses return. In facts, sugar intake has no effect to her diabetes during treatment in my observation, as healthy pancreas is able to regular itself well. Science is still far from truly understanding how nature work.

    Try this and see if its help.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. SteveM says:

    FYI, here is a 15 minute overview of Dr. Robert Lustig’s theories of obesity:

    He is a proponent of low carb diets and explains the metabolic complexity of weight gain.

    Pretty informative.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  115. @Lars Porsena
    I'd be tempted to comment but once again I have thought better for myself. This is just a humble neo-monarchist racist deplorable antisemitic conspiracy website, I don't want to get dragged into anything too controversial or acrimonious like dietary advice.

    Made me laugh anyway. Doesn’t matter what you believe, everybody’s got triggers.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  116. utu says:

    We have established that CICO is valid and it works. The ones who object to it are misinformed (by pseudoscientific charlatans) cranks. The cranks will point to cases that different diets of the same caloric content lead to different outcomes or that the same diet has different effects on different people. While people may have different metabolisms that may change with age the biggest unknown in the CICO equation is CI, i.e., the energy absorbed. Nobody really measures this energy in studies. Only energy of ingested food is estimated. To estimate the absorbed energy the fecal matter must be analyzed. This is rather unpleasant so it usually is skipped. What determines the amount of the fecal matter and what is in it? Chiefly the flora and fauna that live in out guts. Certainly fauna can be very helpful in reducing CI. Getting a tapeworm will most certainly guarantee a weigh loss.

    Iowa woman tries ‘tapeworm diet’, prompts doctor warning
    https://www.today.com/health/iowa-woman-tries-tapeworm-diet-prompts-doctor-warning-6C10935746

    Everybody has flora but not of the same type. It has been demonstrated that depending on the flora people may have very different outcomes.

    https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/do-gut-bacteria-inhibit-weight-loss
    Then scientists took bacteria from the guts of human identical twins, one of whom was obese and one of whom was lean, and transferred those bacteria into the guts of lean, germ-free mice. Bacteria from the obese twin made the mice become fat, but bacteria from the lean twin did not.

    There are more studies being conducted to transplant the bacteria from fecal matter.

    Eating poop pills could make you thin. Seriously.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/innovations/wp/2016/01/14/eating-poop-pills-could-make-you-thin-seriously/?utm_term=.738425a18b2e

    This should not be considered new or alarming. Already in 1930s German physicians were making pills form fecal matter to transplant “good” bacterias. They had a peculiar interest in stools so toilets were constructed in such a way that a stool could be visually and organoleptically (minus taste) evaluated. Anglo-Saxons somehow preferred to be in denial of this part of human experience which costed them losing to Germans in this area of medical science.

    Now, actually Adolf Hitler was undergoing this therapy. Not for the weigh loss but for some other digestive system ailments. Though he did not seem to be too overweight despite that he loved sweets (kuchen) while on his low protein vegetarian diet.

    Read More
    • Replies: @notanon

    We have established that CICO is valid and it works. The ones who object to it are misinformed...
     
    self-evident nonsense

    CICO only applies if every calorie is burned

    the counter argument is that *not* all the ingested calories are being burned - some are stored as fat or in other ways to counter act excessive blood sugar levels
    , @Anon

    Now, actually Adolf Hitler was undergoing this therapy. Not for the weigh loss but for some other digestive system ailments. Though he did not seem to be too overweight despite that he loved sweets (kuchen) while on his low protein vegetarian diet.
     
    Hitler was high on amphetamines most of the time, and their side effect is suppressed appetite.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. I refuse to believe that 1500 calories of arsenic and formaldehyde are as good for you as 1500 calories of burgers and milkshakes.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  118. JL says:
    @Hu Mi Yu

    Where, exactly, does one find food/drink products that contain any significant glucose?
     
    The main dietary source of pure glucose is starch. During digestion starches are hydrolyzed into glucose and maltose (contains two glucose molecules). There are other sources as well. The original formula for Gatorade was sweetened with glucose, but after Pepsi bought the brand, they changed the formula to make it sweeter. On a the hereditary fructose intolerance forum (hfi.proboards.com: now defunct), they used to talk about a candy called pixie sticks made with glucose. This morning I made some limeade from fresh limes (no fructose) and glucose I bought from a local health food store. It tasted great.

    Trade synonyms for glucose include dextrose and corn sugar. Corn syrup contains fructose though.

    a candy called pixie sticks

    I remember reading on a paleo site once that Sweet Tarts are made exclusively with glucose.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hu Mi Yu

    I remember reading on a paleo site once that Sweet Tarts are made exclusively with glucose.
     
    Thanks. Will check out the ingredients next time I am in the supermarket.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. utu says:
    @CanSpeccy

    My argument, which some found difficult to follow, is that the main cause of obesity is eating too much, and the balance between food types is a secondary consideration to that.
     
    That is the argument your critics reject, not because they reject the principle of the conservation of energy but because what you call a "secondary consideration" is in fact the central consideration.

    Your critics have stated the evidence, you have not refuted it.

    Sure there are cases of pathol0gical obesity that cannot be dealt with simply by changing what is eaten without regard to how much is eaten.

    But the question of major social importance is why is obesity and diabetes increasing. According to your contention, in times past, in Britain for example, when obesity was a rare condition, most people went to bed hungry, either because the could not afford to eat more or because they had more self-control that their present day descendants.

    This seems most unlikely in view of the evidence that the composition of diet has endocrinological effects on appetite and satiety and the fact that there has been a vast increase in the availability and consumption of processed and fast foods rich in sugars and refined carbohydrates that increase appetite and diminish satiety.

    Yes, for many, self-control is required if they are to avoid obesity, but it is self-control over what is eaten, not over how much, is eaten.

    Eat as much beef, broccoli, brown rice and porridge as you like. But no Oreos, no fudge sundaes, no candy bars, no sugar in tea or coffee, no frozen orange juice, no pop, and no beer.

    For most people, that's it. That's all they need to know to control their weight: consume no junk.

    Yes, for many, self-control is required if they are to avoid obesity, but it is self-control over what is eaten, not over how much, is eaten.

    Again you lost control. You know that sentence is not true, so why did you write it?

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    Again you lost control. You know that sentence is not true, so why did you write it?
     
    Oh 'fuck off, Utu. You're such a cretin it gives one the idea that Ron Unz's ongoing software project must be to create AI trolls for regulation of the Internet, you being a prime example of troll gone wrong.

    You just keep repeating your mindless little mathematical equality:

    when input equals output weight gain equals zero.

    Well obviously, you moron. What is not obvious is what controls the balance. Is it self control? Are we supposed like Nikola Tesla to measure the volume of everything on our plate before we begin to eat, ensuring somehow that we don't eat more than we will burn?

    That's not what the vast majority of people do. They eat when hungry and stop eating when "full." That's why the effect eating junk food on the endocrinological and neurological mechanisms that regulate appetite and satiety matter. Its why junk food has resulted in an epidemic of obesity and diabetes.

    But no one should expect a mathematician to understand empirical science. Science cannot be reduced to a set of tautologies.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  120. @Hu Mi Yu

    Is the malabsorption of fructose to which you refer fructose caught in fibre, or dissolved fructose? My understanding of Lustig’s argument is the fibre-entrapped fructose mainly does give rise to the symptoms described in normal individuals, and that that is a secondary satiety signal.
     
    Dr. Lustig asserts that fructose caught in fiber (for example apples) is not a problem for normal individuals. I have found that fructose with fiber definitely is a problem for me.

    I am not writing of fructose malabsorption here, but of problems with fructose metabolism. Malaborption is the most common problem with fructose. As in the case of lactose intolerance this indicates that we are not adapted to diets high in it. We have increased .ability to digest starch compared to our early ancestors, and correspondingly we have a reduced ability to metabolize fructose on the average. It varies from individual to individual.

    I haven't mentioned this so far, but the diet I use is also low in fructans. Fructans are polymers of fructose, just as starches are polymers of glucose. According to accepted wisdom fructans do not digest, and they are classified as fiber. However there is no question they are a problem for me. For one thing I have a contact allergy to nearly all grasses, and grasses contain fructans in their cell walls. The only grain that I have to restrict in my "paleo" diet is barley. After I found this out, I looked it up and found that barley is the grain highest in fructans. Wheat and rice are low, and I can eat these without restriction. However "wheat" bread and even flour are nearly always mixed with barley in the US, so it is difficult to find wheat based products that I can eat.

    Recently I found out that there are also polymers of galactose called galactans. As far as I can tell, the only food that contains them is agar. I have reserved for the future a challenge to see if I can tolerate agar, but I have no desire to be ill again at present.

    Do you know what the prevalence of the ability (breaking down 5 carbon sugar polymers) is?

    Another thing I see is xylose (5 carbon sugar, like fructose) being added to wheat flour (six).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hu Mi Yu

    Do you know what the prevalence of the ability (breaking down 5 carbon sugar polymers) is?
     
    Fructose is a 6-carbon sugar that forms a 5-carbon ring in the blood (one carbon is outside the ring). Glucose is a 6-carbon sugar that forms a 6-carbon ring.

    Fructose polymers (fructans) are not supposed to be digestible (they are counted as fiber). However some people are sensitive to them, apparently including me. This is an area that is still poorly understood. I have had no luck finding even basic information like typical blood fructose levels after ingestion.

    For many years there was a widespread misconception that fructose and glucose were interchangeable due to the fact that the Tollen test taught in basic organic chemistry reports both. Fructose and glucose exist in equilibrium in the high pH of the Tollen test, but this is not true at physiological pH. This news has not completely filtered down to those on the front lines of medicine and nutrition.

    Another thing I see is xylose (5 carbon sugar, like fructose) being added to wheat flour (six).

     

    Xylose is a 5 carbon sugar derived from wood that is not fully understood. Web searches turn up conflicting information. I certainly would not want it in my food.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  121. notanon says:

    Thermodynamics applies.

    if eating certain foods spikes your blood sugar levels to the point where the body does things with those potential calories other than burning them then thermodynamics still applies – but calories in vs calories out doesn’t.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycation#Endogenous

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insulin_resistance

    eat less sugar

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  122. @Johan Meyer
    There is a behavioral issue with fructose versus glucose. Fructose undermines the satiety signal much more effectively per calorie than does glucose. Eating too much of either (too large portions) will stop the satiety signal, but glucose is iirc four times more efficient at undermining the satiety signal. Then again, absence of fat in food (low fat diets) have the same effect.

    Correction: fructose is four times more effective iirc than glucose, in undermining satiety.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. J. D.. says:

    ”Only idiots refuse to acknowledge excess. Society is littered with examples of the consequences. Eating too much results in indigestion and lethargy, and, if done regularly, obesity and an early grave.

    We’d be forgiven for thinking that these simple truths don’t or won’t apply to the financial markets.” :

    Mr Creosote is full

    http://emergingmarkets.me/guest-post-mr-creosote-full/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  124. notanon says:
    @Intelligent Dasein
    I have no opinion on this subject except to say that it is a decidedly First World problem of modern provenance and shallow import. In an earlier century, the immediate danger to most people would have consisted in having too little to eat rather than too much, and yet they were not nearly as obsessed with dietary concerns as we are. In those days men busied themselves about how to please God, how to calculate the paths of the heavenly bodies or navigate around the world. But modern man devotes what remains of his flagging passion to dietary questions and other trivialities, simply because the weary, formless, urbane intellect can find no more important problems than these. Both obesity and the anxiety it inspires belong to the long list of symptoms testifying to the pointlessness of contemporary life.

    In those days men busied themselves about … modern man devotes what remains of his flagging passion to dietary questions and other trivialities

    diabesity epidemic -> metabolic syndrome -> “flagging passion”

    Read More
    • LOL: CanSpeccy
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. notanon says:
    @utu
    We have established that CICO is valid and it works. The ones who object to it are misinformed (by pseudoscientific charlatans) cranks. The cranks will point to cases that different diets of the same caloric content lead to different outcomes or that the same diet has different effects on different people. While people may have different metabolisms that may change with age the biggest unknown in the CICO equation is CI, i.e., the energy absorbed. Nobody really measures this energy in studies. Only energy of ingested food is estimated. To estimate the absorbed energy the fecal matter must be analyzed. This is rather unpleasant so it usually is skipped. What determines the amount of the fecal matter and what is in it? Chiefly the flora and fauna that live in out guts. Certainly fauna can be very helpful in reducing CI. Getting a tapeworm will most certainly guarantee a weigh loss.

    Iowa woman tries 'tapeworm diet', prompts doctor warning
    https://www.today.com/health/iowa-woman-tries-tapeworm-diet-prompts-doctor-warning-6C10935746
     
    Everybody has flora but not of the same type. It has been demonstrated that depending on the flora people may have very different outcomes.

    https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/do-gut-bacteria-inhibit-weight-loss
    Then scientists took bacteria from the guts of human identical twins, one of whom was obese and one of whom was lean, and transferred those bacteria into the guts of lean, germ-free mice. Bacteria from the obese twin made the mice become fat, but bacteria from the lean twin did not.
     
    There are more studies being conducted to transplant the bacteria from fecal matter.

    Eating poop pills could make you thin. Seriously.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/innovations/wp/2016/01/14/eating-poop-pills-could-make-you-thin-seriously/?utm_term=.738425a18b2e
     
    This should not be considered new or alarming. Already in 1930s German physicians were making pills form fecal matter to transplant "good" bacterias. They had a peculiar interest in stools so toilets were constructed in such a way that a stool could be visually and organoleptically (minus taste) evaluated. Anglo-Saxons somehow preferred to be in denial of this part of human experience which costed them losing to Germans in this area of medical science.

    Now, actually Adolf Hitler was undergoing this therapy. Not for the weigh loss but for some other digestive system ailments. Though he did not seem to be too overweight despite that he loved sweets (kuchen) while on his low protein vegetarian diet.

    We have established that CICO is valid and it works. The ones who object to it are misinformed…

    self-evident nonsense

    CICO only applies if every calorie is burned

    the counter argument is that *not* all the ingested calories are being burned – some are stored as fat or in other ways to counter act excessive blood sugar levels

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    You are so confused. You do not distinguish between calories ingested and calories absorbed. Only calories absorbed can be either burned or converted to body mass. I was trying to point out that the biggest problem in empirical studies is that we (they) do not know what fraction of calories ingested is absorbed. They routinely estimate it with Atwater factors but these are very crude estimates. That's why results are all over when diets are compared which creates confusion and plenty of room for charlatans to make special claims about their diets padded with pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo.

    And as I tried to point out the role of digestive system flora is crucial but often overlooked.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  126. There’s food everywhere, restaurants and take-outs everywhere.

    Here’s an NIH article on obesogenic environments.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4015813/

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    You cannot review the "obesegenic" environment without considering the composition of the food that the environment makes available. Its the ubiquity of French fries, chocolate fudge sundaes and Classic Coke that make an environment obeseogenic.
    , @Anon
    Lol, this is downtown Toronto in the picture. Almost nobody's fat there. It's populated by SWPL/hipsters and ambitious careerists who know looking fit is an asset. And you walk or bike everywhere because there's no space for a car.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  127. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @utu

    Yes, for many, self-control is required if they are to avoid obesity, but it is self-control over what is eaten, not over how much, is eaten.
     
    Again you lost control. You know that sentence is not true, so why did you write it?

    Again you lost control. You know that sentence is not true, so why did you write it?

    Oh ‘fuck off, Utu. You’re such a cretin it gives one the idea that Ron Unz’s ongoing software project must be to create AI trolls for regulation of the Internet, you being a prime example of troll gone wrong.

    You just keep repeating your mindless little mathematical equality:

    when input equals output weight gain equals zero.

    Well obviously, you moron. What is not obvious is what controls the balance. Is it self control? Are we supposed like Nikola Tesla to measure the volume of everything on our plate before we begin to eat, ensuring somehow that we don’t eat more than we will burn?

    That’s not what the vast majority of people do. They eat when hungry and stop eating when “full.” That’s why the effect eating junk food on the endocrinological and neurological mechanisms that regulate appetite and satiety matter. Its why junk food has resulted in an epidemic of obesity and diabetes.

    But no one should expect a mathematician to understand empirical science. Science cannot be reduced to a set of tautologies.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    CanSpeccy, I hope you are not at risk of aneurysm. Take it easy. I'll let you be for a while.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  128. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Hu Mi Yu

    Top 10 Foods Highest in Glucose
     
    Fake news. Honey is about the same thing as corn syrup: Fifty to sixty-four percent fructose and thirty-six to fifty percent glucose in a supersaturated solution with 20% water. Starch has the highest glucose content per weight. It is not even on the list.

    It is the fructose content of the listed foods that is the problem: not the glucose.

    Fake news.

    Hu Mi Yu, you must be even dumber than Utu. You say you’re diabetic, yet you advocate diabetics consume glucose, which is idiotic.

    This site is infested with nuts and trolls with whom it is pointless to debate. Some of the rudest and dumbest are in name or by their own contention of Chinese origin or affiliation, which seems weird, as the Chinese people that I know personally are both well mannered and intelligent.

    Read More
    • Agree: RaceRealist88
    • Replies: @Hu Mi Yu

    Hu Mi Yu, you must be even dumber than Utu. You say you’re diabetic, yet you advocate diabetics consume glucose, which is idiotic.
     
    Pretty much everyone consumes glucose in form of starch or sugar. It is in everything. You can treat high blood glucose levels by taking insulin, or you can do as I did, and as Dr. Lustig suggests and stop eating fructose. Most sugar is a mixture of fructose and glucose. I suggest avoiding fructose: not eating more glucose.

    This site is infested with nuts and trolls with whom it is pointless to debate. Some of the rudest and dumbest are in name or by their own contention of Chinese origin or affiliation, which seems weird, as the Chinese people that I know personally are both well mannered and intelligent.
     
    Now we know why you are here! (snicker)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  129. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @PiltdownMan
    There's food everywhere, restaurants and take-outs everywhere.

    Here's an NIH article on obesogenic environments.


    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4015813/

    http://urbantoronto.ca/sites/default/files/imagecache/display-slideshow/images/articles/2014/04/9780/urbantoronto-9780-34527.jpg

    You cannot review the “obesegenic” environment without considering the composition of the food that the environment makes available. Its the ubiquity of French fries, chocolate fudge sundaes and Classic Coke that make an environment obeseogenic.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  130. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Andrew Swift
    I lost 50 pounds over an 18-month period, and gained 60 pounds back over the following four years.

    First: doing sports does not in and of itself cause you to lose weight, but it definitely helped me feel better about myself which in turn led to making better food choices.

    Second: it is absolutely true that if you eat less you lose weight. Eating fewer high-calory foods obviously works better than cutting back on lettuce.

    However (and I think this is why people reacted so strongly), if you push your body into scarcity mode, a whole host of things happen inside you to try to counteract the physical threat of starving.

    You cannot control these things, and they all push you to gain instead of lose weight:

    - Your body will be able to run on fewer calories. Eating the same foods after a diet will leave you with more calories left over to store as fat.

    - Neurological changes will make you more likely to notice food than before dieting.

    - It will become harder to stop thinking about food once you notice it.

    - Food will taste better.

    - Food will give you a bigger rush of dopamine.

    - Your levels of the hormone leptin go down and it will take more food to make you feel full.

    - After dieting, you will be hungrier than before you started. Your regular non-diet lunch won’t make you full any more.

    - Dieting disrupts executive function, the process that helps with self-control. After dieting you will have less willpower when you need more.

    There's an informative but very badly written article at

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-thin-people-dont-understand-about-dieting/
     
    I can confirm from my own experience that these are true. Most noticeably, it takes much more food for me to stop feeling hungry than it did before I dieted.

    I have lots of willpower, and I can reduce my intake without too much difficulty. But, I can't sleep when I'm hungry so I end up eating more than I used to just to, be able to sleep through the night.

    Finally, the biggest reason why I stopped losing weight and started gaining it was that it was such a bother to have to explain to people around me why I was eating differently.

    I cannot emphasize this enough: every single person had an opinion about how I was doing it wrong and how I should eat differently. I got so sick of defending myself that I just stopped monitoring my eating habits.

    Then, given the above bullet points, my weight just drifted steadily upwards.

    With the caveat that putting your body into scarcity mode will most likely cause you to gain weight in the end, you are right that it is the main way to lose weight.

    I have lost some weight recently, and doing regular physical activity has been important in helping me feel good enough to refuse an extra helping of cake. This time I am taking care not to diet but just to make better choices about the small things.

    I love your articles and your blog is prominently listed on my blog's recommendations page.

    Please allow me to enlist you and all on this thread in helping me find an answer to my questions about eating fat.

    My short question is based on this. Since my cardiologist prescribed Rosuvastatin (Crestor) as my regular statin my cholesterol levels have been oustandingly good, low overall and LDL but high HDL (“good cholesterol”). So instead of breakfasting on only smoked salmon on grainy unbuttered toast and coffee without sugar i have indulged my taste for expensive cheeses and have eaten considerably more cheese than smoked salmon together with not eating between 8pm (20:00) and 12:30 to 15:00 the next day as my version of intermittent fastimg. I have also resumed eating quite a lot of high quality – but not low fat – ice cream. Most days I take about 6 fish oil capsules unless eating fish.

    Simple questio….Are my cholesterol (and triglyceride) levels enough evidence yhat I am not eating too much fat? (Of course I used to avoid saturated fats for decades as well as keeping quite fit).

    Although I get bored with exercise like walking a dog I have over my sdult life managed to keep pretty fit with fairly intense exercise, my training for and running a marathon at 42 being uncharacteristically boring. While my weight has been as high as 195 pounds – and was 157 pounds for the marathon and 25 years earlier at 17 for rowing it is now a more typical 184 and BMI I guess a fraction under 25. So…. can I safely stick to my cheese, ice cresm and chocolate ?

    Read More
    • Replies: @dearieme
    "my cholesterol levels have been oustandingly good": what's good about them? How do you know what a "good" level should be? Do you plan to pursue this "good" level for the rest of your life?
    , @notanon
    the French Paradox

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_paradox

    (unusually high saturated fat consumption combined with unusually low rate of heart disease)

    they eat a lot of cheese

    cheese is a good source of vitamin K2

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_K2

    which decalcifies the arteries

    calcification of arteries (CAC test) best predictor of heart attacks

    (not cholesterol)

    #

    TL;DR

    there's fat and then there's the fat-soluble vitamins inside some fats

    if you cut out the fat you cut out those vitamins

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @HPLCguru
    I am a biochemist. The author is right about eating less - simple thermodynamics but this is science which is rigorous. What media presents (no conspiracy needed) is scientism which is rhetoric and tells a story without the usual "doubts" associated with rigorous science (we don't know or we can't be sure etc). The one mistake in the article was about exercise. Exercise increases metabolism (metabolic rate), decreases appetite and increases muscle mass. People who exercise will lose inches but may initially gain weight since muscle is more dense than fat. Diets which only restrict calories always lower metabolism and then the body makes fat to prepare for a famine. Imagine telling someone in 1900 about a stair stepper, a treadmill and a STATIONARY bike: We evolved "getting a lot of exercise" surviving and until industrial revolution agriculture was done by human and animal labor - no one needed "exercise".

    Be so good as to consider a reply to #130

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  132. utu says:
    @notanon

    We have established that CICO is valid and it works. The ones who object to it are misinformed...
     
    self-evident nonsense

    CICO only applies if every calorie is burned

    the counter argument is that *not* all the ingested calories are being burned - some are stored as fat or in other ways to counter act excessive blood sugar levels

    You are so confused. You do not distinguish between calories ingested and calories absorbed. Only calories absorbed can be either burned or converted to body mass. I was trying to point out that the biggest problem in empirical studies is that we (they) do not know what fraction of calories ingested is absorbed. They routinely estimate it with Atwater factors but these are very crude estimates. That’s why results are all over when diets are compared which creates confusion and plenty of room for charlatans to make special claims about their diets padded with pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo.

    And as I tried to point out the role of digestive system flora is crucial but often overlooked.

    Read More
    • Replies: @notanon

    You are so confused. You do not distinguish between calories ingested and calories absorbed.
     
    Nope - that's what people who promote CICO ignore. The counter argument is focused precisely on that distinction.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  133. utu says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Again you lost control. You know that sentence is not true, so why did you write it?
     
    Oh 'fuck off, Utu. You're such a cretin it gives one the idea that Ron Unz's ongoing software project must be to create AI trolls for regulation of the Internet, you being a prime example of troll gone wrong.

    You just keep repeating your mindless little mathematical equality:

    when input equals output weight gain equals zero.

    Well obviously, you moron. What is not obvious is what controls the balance. Is it self control? Are we supposed like Nikola Tesla to measure the volume of everything on our plate before we begin to eat, ensuring somehow that we don't eat more than we will burn?

    That's not what the vast majority of people do. They eat when hungry and stop eating when "full." That's why the effect eating junk food on the endocrinological and neurological mechanisms that regulate appetite and satiety matter. Its why junk food has resulted in an epidemic of obesity and diabetes.

    But no one should expect a mathematician to understand empirical science. Science cannot be reduced to a set of tautologies.

    CanSpeccy, I hope you are not at risk of aneurysm. Take it easy. I’ll let you be for a while.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    CanSpeccy, I hope you are not at risk of aneurysm.
     
    Your obtuseness being due, perhaps, to the fact you've already suffered an aneurysm.

    However, it seems more likely that you are a no more than a mechanical troll gone wrong.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  134. One of the basic principle lesson in the field of Chemical Engineering is as the following:
    IN – OUT = Accumulation
    This simple equation applies to every aspect of human life. An example would be the calories we take in by what we eat minus calories we expend during our active hours equals to accumulation of calories or fat in our bodies! Our target must be to have near zero or even a little less than zero calories accumulated in our body daily or weekly or monthly whichever is convenient for us as a life style! This equation works for me and I’m happy that so far has kept me healthy! Try it because it’s free and it may work for you too!

    Read More
    • Replies: @ScarletNumber
    How many calories do you burn daily?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  135. Hans says:

    Interesting debate.

    I am a mechanical engineer and has worked with development of new products and procedures in mechanical and electronic engineering for many years.
    I am not a into medical science.
    In the following there are parts which I consider facts and parts I have deducted – the last ones will be marked (guess).

    Some years ago I had a heart attack and afterwards I joined a recovery group and was told it would be a good idea to lose weight, what I knew.

    They also gave good advice about food etc., which my wife knew and did not keep as a secret. I was sure, our food was healthy and nutritious.

    I thought about it and tried to find out how to do reduce weight in an efficient way. There are masses of advice available – scientific and otherwise, cures, procedures and medicaments.
    Nearly all has two claims:
    1. That other cures/methods do not work or do not work in the longer run.
    2. That their own cure/method do work and does it quickly.

    My old mother in law once told me that you should eat spinach when it is healthy – she had experienced it had shifted from healthy to unhealthy several times.
    The reading showed the same. The nutritional science is developing, its not yet a set of rules and dependencies which are finally proved. (Guess)

    Some interesting things:
    (Facts): You will loose weight if you eat less. The concentration camps in Germany showed this. Also, the body can survive a long time on extremely low intake of food.

    During the war, most members of the Danish police force were rounded up and send to a German concentration camp. It was not an extermination camp, but the food was scarce and nearly stopped at the end. Most did survive and was busied back to Denmark after the war as near skeletons. They were taken good care of and after a year they had regained their former weight – they could all fit their old clothes. The thins were thin and the fats were fat again.

    Anoter Fact: Many can keep their weight over extended times – 10 years or more.

    If we consider why people can keep their weight instead of why they loose/gain weight some interesting comes up.
    The body works with stuff in – work – stuff out. It is multiple very complex processes and some are most likely not even known.
    The input can change and how the body work may change in but the clothes will still fit.
    Appetite are supposed to regulate the intake so it fits the use of energy but this cannot be the only factor, as it is often is opposed by temptation which is a non-body factor.

    (Guess): In my opinion, there must be another form of regulation. It may be that the body can regulate the efficiency of the process so the food will be used more or less efficient.

    (Guess): This means that the body has a preferred weight and that it will try to maintain this weight if you try to manipulate it by changing the food intake. You may succeed in a shorter time but will fail over long time unless the body accept the new weight as ‘normal’. When changing you weight you must reset the regulator to the wanted level.

    (Guess): The results from the Danish police and people I have talked to which have had a successful slimming shows that a slimming or weight gain may be stable if the end results correspond to a former ‘normal’ weight.
    So, if you slim to a former ‘normal’ weight and maintain this for a short time, the body will try to maintain this weight. If you do not reach this weight (properly best a kilo or two below so the body can regulate up to a ‘normal’), then the body will start to try to reach the ‘normal’ weight it had before the slimming.
    If you try to fix weight at a non-’normal’ weight you may need work hard to keep the weight down and establish a new ‘normal’.

    After all my reading I found that I would not be able to count calories etc. all the time but that the following should work:

    A) Avoid sugar inclusive sweeteners

    B) Take the small potato instead of the big and the small steak instead of the big.
    (For served meals: Decide how much to eat before you start)

    C) No second serve.

    It worked very well for me, I lost more than 10 kilo and can maintain a a weight I had 10 years ago.

    Read More
    • Replies: @notanon

    A) Avoid sugar inclusive sweeteners
     
    engineering approach to diet

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvuGm8VYkQY
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  136. dearieme says:
    @Anonymous
    Please allow me to enlist you and all on this thread in helping me find an answer to my questions about eating fat.

    My short question is based on this. Since my cardiologist prescribed Rosuvastatin (Crestor) as my regular statin my cholesterol levels have been oustandingly good, low overall and LDL but high HDL ("good cholesterol"). So instead of breakfasting on only smoked salmon on grainy unbuttered toast and coffee without sugar i have indulged my taste for expensive cheeses and have eaten considerably more cheese than smoked salmon together with not eating between 8pm (20:00) and 12:30 to 15:00 the next day as my version of intermittent fastimg. I have also resumed eating quite a lot of high quality - but not low fat - ice cream. Most days I take about 6 fish oil capsules unless eating fish.

    Simple questio....Are my cholesterol (and triglyceride) levels enough evidence yhat I am not eating too much fat? (Of course I used to avoid saturated fats for decades as well as keeping quite fit).

    Although I get bored with exercise like walking a dog I have over my sdult life managed to keep pretty fit with fairly intense exercise, my training for and running a marathon at 42 being uncharacteristically boring. While my weight has been as high as 195 pounds - and was 157 pounds for the marathon and 25 years earlier at 17 for rowing it is now a more typical 184 and BMI I guess a fraction under 25. So.... can I safely stick to my cheese, ice cresm and chocolate ?

    “my cholesterol levels have been oustandingly good”: what’s good about them? How do you know what a “good” level should be? Do you plan to pursue this “good” level for the rest of your life?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    I would have just quoted the levels on the assumption that typical readers, e.g. all practising everyday hypochondriacs paying close attention on UR (presumed as obsessive as the Holocaust deniers, WTC7 sub branch members of the 9/11 squad etc.) would know what they signified but I couldn't be bothered to look for the latest pieces of paper in my medical records and couldn't remember whether my HDL level was really a little above the LDL or the other way round. Also the translation from Australian mmol/l to US mg/dl might be dodgy. My recollection is that typical total cholesterol is 5.5 mmol/l and that 6.5 starts to get a bit worrying. Mine is now 4.2 or less. As HDL (the "good cholesterol") removes fats which might otherwise be forming plaque in the arteries (whereas Low Density Lipoprotein lays down plaque that blocks arteries) apparently one should have, for safety, a ratio of HDL to total cholesterol of less than 1 to 3.5. My ratio is right down near 1 to 2. Resuming the eating of lots of cheese since changing statin (previously Lipex twice a day; now Crestor once a day) hasn't changed the good figures.

    So..... i wonder whether I could be as lucky as I seem on my existing diet and drug régime. And I invite knowledgeable comment.

    I note below that French cheese eaters are credited with having their arteries decalcified and retaining a lot of fat soluble vitamins. So far so good. And my blood sugar levels aren't dangerous. What is more I am going over to the Stevia based sweeteners which apparently don't produce odd anomalous sugar like effects wrt insulin that some sweeteners do. (Anything known about that curiosity?).
    , @Wizard of Oz
    OMG! Read this as if I had managed to send it as "Anonymous".
    See my reply as Wizard of Oz. No mystery about my having used "Anonymous". It was because I used a new phone and my particulars were blank and I chose to comment as Anonymous for no particular reason. Wizard of Oz, who boasts a 100 year old aunt will no longer hide his hypochondria.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  137. The calorie model didn’t work for me. When I switched to a high fat intake model, I lost a lot of fat but actually got heavier. My conclusion is that the kind of calories I eat is more important than the numbers. The SAD (standard American diet) leans toward simple carbohydrates and industrial oils masquerading as fats.

    Eating animal fats, coconut oil, palm oil and nutrient dense organ meats and fresh vegetables helps me trim fat from my body and build muscle. Muscle weighs more than fat, so replacing fat with muscle mass makes me weigh more. Also, modern dwarf strains of wheat have a type of gluten that causes me to have inflammation and makes me feel like I’m still hungry even after eating, so I avoid modern wheat flours and use Einkorn flour and spelt flour in my baking instead.

    That picture of the everything burger would have been more appealing to me 12 years ago before I stopped eating that kind of thing.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  138. One thing that the author may wish to try is a study in which IQ is measured in people with diets of the modern satiety suppression variety, and with traditional/satisfying diets. What happens to their IQs a week after the switch? IQ is predictive of scholastic achievement, yet my father, who was a school teacher and later principal, found that the behaviour of problem children could be improved by giving them a meal before the school day started—their parents were often too dysfunctional to give them breakfast. Note that such a hypothesis would not contradict other biological aspects of IQ (genetic, heavy metal, iodine, prenatal and infant malnutrition, etc).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  139. Catdog says:

    People think I’m crazy when I tell them that I’ve had the most success in losing weight by NOT EATING. “That can’t be good for you,” they say.

    Read More
    • Agree: Che Guava
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  140. notanon says:
    @Anonymous
    Please allow me to enlist you and all on this thread in helping me find an answer to my questions about eating fat.

    My short question is based on this. Since my cardiologist prescribed Rosuvastatin (Crestor) as my regular statin my cholesterol levels have been oustandingly good, low overall and LDL but high HDL ("good cholesterol"). So instead of breakfasting on only smoked salmon on grainy unbuttered toast and coffee without sugar i have indulged my taste for expensive cheeses and have eaten considerably more cheese than smoked salmon together with not eating between 8pm (20:00) and 12:30 to 15:00 the next day as my version of intermittent fastimg. I have also resumed eating quite a lot of high quality - but not low fat - ice cream. Most days I take about 6 fish oil capsules unless eating fish.

    Simple questio....Are my cholesterol (and triglyceride) levels enough evidence yhat I am not eating too much fat? (Of course I used to avoid saturated fats for decades as well as keeping quite fit).

    Although I get bored with exercise like walking a dog I have over my sdult life managed to keep pretty fit with fairly intense exercise, my training for and running a marathon at 42 being uncharacteristically boring. While my weight has been as high as 195 pounds - and was 157 pounds for the marathon and 25 years earlier at 17 for rowing it is now a more typical 184 and BMI I guess a fraction under 25. So.... can I safely stick to my cheese, ice cresm and chocolate ?

    the French Paradox

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_paradox

    (unusually high saturated fat consumption combined with unusually low rate of heart disease)

    they eat a lot of cheese

    cheese is a good source of vitamin K2

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_K2

    which decalcifies the arteries

    calcification of arteries (CAC test) best predictor of heart attacks

    (not cholesterol)

    #

    TL;DR

    there’s fat and then there’s the fat-soluble vitamins inside some fats

    if you cut out the fat you cut out those vitamins

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  141. notanon says:
    @utu
    You are so confused. You do not distinguish between calories ingested and calories absorbed. Only calories absorbed can be either burned or converted to body mass. I was trying to point out that the biggest problem in empirical studies is that we (they) do not know what fraction of calories ingested is absorbed. They routinely estimate it with Atwater factors but these are very crude estimates. That's why results are all over when diets are compared which creates confusion and plenty of room for charlatans to make special claims about their diets padded with pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo.

    And as I tried to point out the role of digestive system flora is crucial but often overlooked.

    You are so confused. You do not distinguish between calories ingested and calories absorbed.

    Nope – that’s what people who promote CICO ignore. The counter argument is focused precisely on that distinction.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    Nope – that’s what people who promote CICO ignore.
     
    Might as well save your breath. Unless your argument can be reduced to a tautology, utu will never understand it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  142. notanon says:
    @Hans
    Interesting debate.

    I am a mechanical engineer and has worked with development of new products and procedures in mechanical and electronic engineering for many years.
    I am not a into medical science.
    In the following there are parts which I consider facts and parts I have deducted - the last ones will be marked (guess).

    Some years ago I had a heart attack and afterwards I joined a recovery group and was told it would be a good idea to lose weight, what I knew.

    They also gave good advice about food etc., which my wife knew and did not keep as a secret. I was sure, our food was healthy and nutritious.

    I thought about it and tried to find out how to do reduce weight in an efficient way. There are masses of advice available – scientific and otherwise, cures, procedures and medicaments.
    Nearly all has two claims:
    1. That other cures/methods do not work or do not work in the longer run.
    2. That their own cure/method do work and does it quickly.

    My old mother in law once told me that you should eat spinach when it is healthy - she had experienced it had shifted from healthy to unhealthy several times.
    The reading showed the same. The nutritional science is developing, its not yet a set of rules and dependencies which are finally proved. (Guess)

    Some interesting things:
    (Facts): You will loose weight if you eat less. The concentration camps in Germany showed this. Also, the body can survive a long time on extremely low intake of food.

    During the war, most members of the Danish police force were rounded up and send to a German concentration camp. It was not an extermination camp, but the food was scarce and nearly stopped at the end. Most did survive and was busied back to Denmark after the war as near skeletons. They were taken good care of and after a year they had regained their former weight - they could all fit their old clothes. The thins were thin and the fats were fat again.

    Anoter Fact: Many can keep their weight over extended times - 10 years or more.

    If we consider why people can keep their weight instead of why they loose/gain weight some interesting comes up.
    The body works with stuff in - work - stuff out. It is multiple very complex processes and some are most likely not even known.
    The input can change and how the body work may change in but the clothes will still fit.
    Appetite are supposed to regulate the intake so it fits the use of energy but this cannot be the only factor, as it is often is opposed by temptation which is a non-body factor.

    (Guess): In my opinion, there must be another form of regulation. It may be that the body can regulate the efficiency of the process so the food will be used more or less efficient.

    (Guess): This means that the body has a preferred weight and that it will try to maintain this weight if you try to manipulate it by changing the food intake. You may succeed in a shorter time but will fail over long time unless the body accept the new weight as 'normal'. When changing you weight you must reset the regulator to the wanted level.

    (Guess): The results from the Danish police and people I have talked to which have had a successful slimming shows that a slimming or weight gain may be stable if the end results correspond to a former 'normal' weight.
    So, if you slim to a former 'normal' weight and maintain this for a short time, the body will try to maintain this weight. If you do not reach this weight (properly best a kilo or two below so the body can regulate up to a 'normal'), then the body will start to try to reach the 'normal' weight it had before the slimming.
    If you try to fix weight at a non-'normal' weight you may need work hard to keep the weight down and establish a new 'normal'.

    After all my reading I found that I would not be able to count calories etc. all the time but that the following should work:

    A) Avoid sugar inclusive sweeteners

    B) Take the small potato instead of the big and the small steak instead of the big.
    (For served meals: Decide how much to eat before you start)

    C) No second serve.

    It worked very well for me, I lost more than 10 kilo and can maintain a a weight I had 10 years ago.

    A) Avoid sugar inclusive sweeteners

    engineering approach to diet

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  143. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Dave Pinsen

    There will be individual variations caused by particular foods, digestive upsets, ill-health and other extraneous noise. Some people have a genetic leptin deficiency which denies them feedback about satiation. They eat too much because they still feel hungry. There will always be individual cases, even within the general observation that if you are too fat you should eat less. How much do these variations account for in the general population? Probably not much, in my estimation.
     
    The much bigger variation is in metabolic rates. Some people can eat a lot more than others without getting fat. But, yeah: reducing calories seems the obvious way to go to lose weight.

    One thing I picked up from the comment thread in the post is the 5:2 fast diet. I had thought up something similar on my a year or two ago, but seeing a physician endorse it encouraged me to try it. So that's what I'm doing now.

    Two days per week, I'm limiting myself to 600 calories. To maximize protein intake while doing that (since I lift weights) I'm limiting myself to 2 or 3 shakes made with whey protein powder and black iced coffee (2 shakes with 1.5 scoops of protein powder each or 3 with 1 scoop), plus a few almonds to have something to crunch on. The first time doing that, while going to the gym as normal, I had some painful cramps, presumably from my sodium levels dropping too low. So I added a 0 calorie sports drink this week.

    We'll see how this goes.

    Exercise definitely makes a difference. 10 years ago I lost 50 lbs (for real, not water weight) in 2 months from running 8 miles a day and riding the exercise bike 1 hour in the morning and 1 hour at night. And I reduced my intake to a strict vegan diet (Brussels sprouts, mixed vegetables, berries, etc.) of 1750 calories (minimum caloric restriction can’t fall below 10 times your body weight or your metabolic rate drops). I targeted my abs big time because it is the major fat-burning muscle (see The Abs Diet/workout philosophy). During that time I was getting serious body oder all day as my body became a fat-burning machine. I have seen guy lose even more weight (fat) and they did restrict their diets like I did. I saw a documentary of the some ultramarathoners who ran across the Sahara. I think they would run 50 miles a day for 100 days. They biggest runner had lost 40 lbs in a month. Again, fat, not water weight.

    Running The Sahara Movie Trailer: https://youtu.be/HidKMFClQUU via @YouTube

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    What does "minimum calorific restriction [can't go below] 10 per cent of your body weight" mean? What is the formula when spelled out?
    , @Anon

    Exercise definitely makes a difference.
     
    True. I always hovered at the lower end of normal, but once in a life became actually underweight with a BMI of 18. It was when my baby started to walk - so much more movement all of a sudden. Instead of leisurely walks with a stroller, you either run after your toddler (cardio) or pull and lift him out of forbidden places and dangerous situations (strength training). Contrary to what others say, I didn't become more hungry and didn't replace the lost calories with more eating. I had to consciously make myself eat more when it became uncomfortable and unattractive (not like skeletal anorexics yet, but my chest became bony and it didn't look pretty in low cut dresses). Exercise matters, and it doesn't have to be formal gym exercise.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  144. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon
    Many people, especially post menopausal women, eat very little and are still overweight. My female cousin eats like a horse and is thin, as is my husband. Yes, there are people who are eating too much and can lose weight by reducing calorie consumption. Obesity is an epidemic in the developed world and there are causes that are just not related to over consumption.

    This has been addressed on Fatlogic Reddit many times. Skinny people who “eat much” don’t eat so much as it seems. Just an example:

    “My partner even said to me the other day that he eats whatever he wants and doesn’t get fat and people hate him for it.

    Even he doesn’t realise how little he eats compared to the sort of fat person he thinks he’ll become once he’s older and his “metabolism changes”. In his head he’s eating unhealthy food, and he’s thin and fit so it must be magic/good genes/fast metabolism/luck. He forgets that he’s fairy active and he doesn’t snack between meals or drink soft drink so even if his meals are unhealthy (and in reality, its probably only 1/3rd of his meals that are junk) he’s not eating as much as he thinks he is.

    As a morbidly obese person, I know what my diet looks like, and I know his intake is easily 2/3rds the size of mine. So it makes sense that as a taller, more active, penis owning person, he’s half my weight.

    But If I was using fat logic, I’d be taking what my partner says at face value and cursing him for his good genes and fast metabolism. Rather than actually thinking about it and saying “no, you’re expected for your actual calorie intake”.”

    https://www.reddit.com/r/fatlogic/comments/494dv4/im_jealous_of_skinny_women_who_can_eat_anything/d0p4ck4/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  145. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @utu
    We have established that CICO is valid and it works. The ones who object to it are misinformed (by pseudoscientific charlatans) cranks. The cranks will point to cases that different diets of the same caloric content lead to different outcomes or that the same diet has different effects on different people. While people may have different metabolisms that may change with age the biggest unknown in the CICO equation is CI, i.e., the energy absorbed. Nobody really measures this energy in studies. Only energy of ingested food is estimated. To estimate the absorbed energy the fecal matter must be analyzed. This is rather unpleasant so it usually is skipped. What determines the amount of the fecal matter and what is in it? Chiefly the flora and fauna that live in out guts. Certainly fauna can be very helpful in reducing CI. Getting a tapeworm will most certainly guarantee a weigh loss.

    Iowa woman tries 'tapeworm diet', prompts doctor warning
    https://www.today.com/health/iowa-woman-tries-tapeworm-diet-prompts-doctor-warning-6C10935746
     
    Everybody has flora but not of the same type. It has been demonstrated that depending on the flora people may have very different outcomes.

    https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/do-gut-bacteria-inhibit-weight-loss
    Then scientists took bacteria from the guts of human identical twins, one of whom was obese and one of whom was lean, and transferred those bacteria into the guts of lean, germ-free mice. Bacteria from the obese twin made the mice become fat, but bacteria from the lean twin did not.
     
    There are more studies being conducted to transplant the bacteria from fecal matter.

    Eating poop pills could make you thin. Seriously.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/innovations/wp/2016/01/14/eating-poop-pills-could-make-you-thin-seriously/?utm_term=.738425a18b2e
     
    This should not be considered new or alarming. Already in 1930s German physicians were making pills form fecal matter to transplant "good" bacterias. They had a peculiar interest in stools so toilets were constructed in such a way that a stool could be visually and organoleptically (minus taste) evaluated. Anglo-Saxons somehow preferred to be in denial of this part of human experience which costed them losing to Germans in this area of medical science.

    Now, actually Adolf Hitler was undergoing this therapy. Not for the weigh loss but for some other digestive system ailments. Though he did not seem to be too overweight despite that he loved sweets (kuchen) while on his low protein vegetarian diet.

    Now, actually Adolf Hitler was undergoing this therapy. Not for the weigh loss but for some other digestive system ailments. Though he did not seem to be too overweight despite that he loved sweets (kuchen) while on his low protein vegetarian diet.

    Hitler was high on amphetamines most of the time, and their side effect is suppressed appetite.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu

    Hitler was high on amphetamines
     
    had syphilis, only one testicle and raped his niece. What else have you learned?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  146. utu says:
    @Anon

    Now, actually Adolf Hitler was undergoing this therapy. Not for the weigh loss but for some other digestive system ailments. Though he did not seem to be too overweight despite that he loved sweets (kuchen) while on his low protein vegetarian diet.
     
    Hitler was high on amphetamines most of the time, and their side effect is suppressed appetite.

    Hitler was high on amphetamines

    had syphilis, only one testicle and raped his niece. What else have you learned?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  147. Hu Mi Yu says:
    @Johan Meyer
    Do you know what the prevalence of the ability (breaking down 5 carbon sugar polymers) is?

    Another thing I see is xylose (5 carbon sugar, like fructose) being added to wheat flour (six).

    Do you know what the prevalence of the ability (breaking down 5 carbon sugar polymers) is?

    Fructose is a 6-carbon sugar that forms a 5-carbon ring in the blood (one carbon is outside the ring). Glucose is a 6-carbon sugar that forms a 6-carbon ring.

    Fructose polymers (fructans) are not supposed to be digestible (they are counted as fiber). However some people are sensitive to them, apparently including me. This is an area that is still poorly understood. I have had no luck finding even basic information like typical blood fructose levels after ingestion.

    For many years there was a widespread misconception that fructose and glucose were interchangeable due to the fact that the Tollen test taught in basic organic chemistry reports both. Fructose and glucose exist in equilibrium in the high pH of the Tollen test, but this is not true at physiological pH. This news has not completely filtered down to those on the front lines of medicine and nutrition.

    Another thing I see is xylose (5 carbon sugar, like fructose) being added to wheat flour (six).

    Xylose is a 5 carbon sugar derived from wood that is not fully understood. Web searches turn up conflicting information. I certainly would not want it in my food.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Johan Meyer
    Thanks for the correction---I should have checked, given my lacking biochemistry background (5 versus 6 carbon in fructose).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  148. Hu Mi Yu says:
    @JL

    a candy called pixie sticks
     
    I remember reading on a paleo site once that Sweet Tarts are made exclusively with glucose.

    I remember reading on a paleo site once that Sweet Tarts are made exclusively with glucose.

    Thanks. Will check out the ingredients next time I am in the supermarket.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  149. @dearieme
    "my cholesterol levels have been oustandingly good": what's good about them? How do you know what a "good" level should be? Do you plan to pursue this "good" level for the rest of your life?

    I would have just quoted the levels on the assumption that typical readers, e.g. all practising everyday hypochondriacs paying close attention on UR (presumed as obsessive as the Holocaust deniers, WTC7 sub branch members of the 9/11 squad etc.) would know what they signified but I couldn’t be bothered to look for the latest pieces of paper in my medical records and couldn’t remember whether my HDL level was really a little above the LDL or the other way round. Also the translation from Australian mmol/l to US mg/dl might be dodgy. My recollection is that typical total cholesterol is 5.5 mmol/l and that 6.5 starts to get a bit worrying. Mine is now 4.2 or less. As HDL (the “good cholesterol”) removes fats which might otherwise be forming plaque in the arteries (whereas Low Density Lipoprotein lays down plaque that blocks arteries) apparently one should have, for safety, a ratio of HDL to total cholesterol of less than 1 to 3.5. My ratio is right down near 1 to 2. Resuming the eating of lots of cheese since changing statin (previously Lipex twice a day; now Crestor once a day) hasn’t changed the good figures.

    So….. i wonder whether I could be as lucky as I seem on my existing diet and drug régime. And I invite knowledgeable comment.

    I note below that French cheese eaters are credited with having their arteries decalcified and retaining a lot of fat soluble vitamins. So far so good. And my blood sugar levels aren’t dangerous. What is more I am going over to the Stevia based sweeteners which apparently don’t produce odd anomalous sugar like effects wrt insulin that some sweeteners do. (Anything known about that curiosity?).

    Read More
    • Replies: @dearieme
    Wiz, my point is that the conventional wisdom on cholesterol is probably bollocks: it's certainly contrary to much of the evidence.
    http://www.drdavidgrimes.com
    , @CanSpeccy

    I am going over to the Stevia based sweeteners
     
    Just give up sweeteners altogether, avoid refined carbohydrates and you'll likely do a lot better. After a month with no sugar or other sweeteners and you'll hardly miss them. After six months, and anything with more than a trace of sugar will taste disgusting.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  150. @dearieme
    "my cholesterol levels have been oustandingly good": what's good about them? How do you know what a "good" level should be? Do you plan to pursue this "good" level for the rest of your life?

    OMG! Read this as if I had managed to send it as “Anonymous”.
    See my reply as Wizard of Oz. No mystery about my having used “Anonymous”. It was because I used a new phone and my particulars were blank and I chose to comment as Anonymous for no particular reason. Wizard of Oz, who boasts a 100 year old aunt will no longer hide his hypochondria.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  151. @Anonymous
    Exercise definitely makes a difference. 10 years ago I lost 50 lbs (for real, not water weight) in 2 months from running 8 miles a day and riding the exercise bike 1 hour in the morning and 1 hour at night. And I reduced my intake to a strict vegan diet (Brussels sprouts, mixed vegetables, berries, etc.) of 1750 calories (minimum caloric restriction can’t fall below 10 times your body weight or your metabolic rate drops). I targeted my abs big time because it is the major fat-burning muscle (see The Abs Diet/workout philosophy). During that time I was getting serious body oder all day as my body became a fat-burning machine. I have seen guy lose even more weight (fat) and they did restrict their diets like I did. I saw a documentary of the some ultramarathoners who ran across the Sahara. I think they would run 50 miles a day for 100 days. They biggest runner had lost 40 lbs in a month. Again, fat, not water weight.

    Running The Sahara Movie Trailer: https://youtu.be/HidKMFClQUU via @YouTube

    What does “minimum calorific restriction [can't go below] 10 per cent of your body weight” mean? What is the formula when spelled out?

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu

    What is the formula when spelled out?
     
    Most likely there is no formula. Taken from think air by some charlatan selling his diet method.
    , @Anonymous
    In a diet book I read by Neal Barnard, M.D., professor of medicine at The George Washington University School of Medicine, Washington, D.C. Barnard said to not let your caloric intake drop below 10x your ideal body weight or your metabolic rate will drop. But I wouldn’t trust the height/weight charts. I’m a muscular 6’ and when I was a 20-year old super-fit athlete I was 188 lbs. the charts say I should be around 155! I think at 172 lbs I’d have the body fat of a boxer. So, I always consider 175 lbs as my ideal body weight and when dieting make sure to never drop believe 1750 calories per day. The intermittent fasting (600 calories on 2 days per week separated by 2 or 3 days) might be a way around this.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  152. Hu Mi Yu says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Fake news.
     
    Hu Mi Yu, you must be even dumber than Utu. You say you're diabetic, yet you advocate diabetics consume glucose, which is idiotic.

    This site is infested with nuts and trolls with whom it is pointless to debate. Some of the rudest and dumbest are in name or by their own contention of Chinese origin or affiliation, which seems weird, as the Chinese people that I know personally are both well mannered and intelligent.

    Hu Mi Yu, you must be even dumber than Utu. You say you’re diabetic, yet you advocate diabetics consume glucose, which is idiotic.

    Pretty much everyone consumes glucose in form of starch or sugar. It is in everything. You can treat high blood glucose levels by taking insulin, or you can do as I did, and as Dr. Lustig suggests and stop eating fructose. Most sugar is a mixture of fructose and glucose. I suggest avoiding fructose: not eating more glucose.

    This site is infested with nuts and trolls with whom it is pointless to debate. Some of the rudest and dumbest are in name or by their own contention of Chinese origin or affiliation, which seems weird, as the Chinese people that I know personally are both well mannered and intelligent.

    Now we know why you are here! (snicker)

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    Pretty much everyone consumes glucose in form of starch or sugar. It is in everything.
     
    The trouble with you Hu Mi Yu, is that you are either too lazy to look at any of the numerous linked references I've given you, or you don't understand what you read.

    Starch is hydrolysed to glucose, but because of that preliminary step, the rise in blood glucose on consumption of starch is slower and less extreme than following the consumption of an equivalent amount of glucose. Moreover, if you consume fiber containing starchy foods such as brown rice, assimilation of glucose will be even slower, and will therefore raise blood sugar even less.

    So if you want to minimize or eliminate their dependence on insulin injections should cut out glucose and every other sugar entirely, while increasing their intake of protein and fat at the expense of carbohydrates, especially refined carbohydrates.

    But you would rather snicker, apparently.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  153. @Hu Mi Yu

    Do you know what the prevalence of the ability (breaking down 5 carbon sugar polymers) is?
     
    Fructose is a 6-carbon sugar that forms a 5-carbon ring in the blood (one carbon is outside the ring). Glucose is a 6-carbon sugar that forms a 6-carbon ring.

    Fructose polymers (fructans) are not supposed to be digestible (they are counted as fiber). However some people are sensitive to them, apparently including me. This is an area that is still poorly understood. I have had no luck finding even basic information like typical blood fructose levels after ingestion.

    For many years there was a widespread misconception that fructose and glucose were interchangeable due to the fact that the Tollen test taught in basic organic chemistry reports both. Fructose and glucose exist in equilibrium in the high pH of the Tollen test, but this is not true at physiological pH. This news has not completely filtered down to those on the front lines of medicine and nutrition.

    Another thing I see is xylose (5 carbon sugar, like fructose) being added to wheat flour (six).

     

    Xylose is a 5 carbon sugar derived from wood that is not fully understood. Web searches turn up conflicting information. I certainly would not want it in my food.

    Thanks for the correction—I should have checked, given my lacking biochemistry background (5 versus 6 carbon in fructose).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  154. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @PiltdownMan
    There's food everywhere, restaurants and take-outs everywhere.

    Here's an NIH article on obesogenic environments.


    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4015813/

    http://urbantoronto.ca/sites/default/files/imagecache/display-slideshow/images/articles/2014/04/9780/urbantoronto-9780-34527.jpg

    Lol, this is downtown Toronto in the picture. Almost nobody’s fat there. It’s populated by SWPL/hipsters and ambitious careerists who know looking fit is an asset. And you walk or bike everywhere because there’s no space for a car.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  155. @Monty Ahwazi
    One of the basic principle lesson in the field of Chemical Engineering is as the following:
    IN - OUT = Accumulation
    This simple equation applies to every aspect of human life. An example would be the calories we take in by what we eat minus calories we expend during our active hours equals to accumulation of calories or fat in our bodies! Our target must be to have near zero or even a little less than zero calories accumulated in our body daily or weekly or monthly whichever is convenient for us as a life style! This equation works for me and I’m happy that so far has kept me healthy! Try it because it’s free and it may work for you too!

    How many calories do you burn daily?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  156. dearieme says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    I would have just quoted the levels on the assumption that typical readers, e.g. all practising everyday hypochondriacs paying close attention on UR (presumed as obsessive as the Holocaust deniers, WTC7 sub branch members of the 9/11 squad etc.) would know what they signified but I couldn't be bothered to look for the latest pieces of paper in my medical records and couldn't remember whether my HDL level was really a little above the LDL or the other way round. Also the translation from Australian mmol/l to US mg/dl might be dodgy. My recollection is that typical total cholesterol is 5.5 mmol/l and that 6.5 starts to get a bit worrying. Mine is now 4.2 or less. As HDL (the "good cholesterol") removes fats which might otherwise be forming plaque in the arteries (whereas Low Density Lipoprotein lays down plaque that blocks arteries) apparently one should have, for safety, a ratio of HDL to total cholesterol of less than 1 to 3.5. My ratio is right down near 1 to 2. Resuming the eating of lots of cheese since changing statin (previously Lipex twice a day; now Crestor once a day) hasn't changed the good figures.

    So..... i wonder whether I could be as lucky as I seem on my existing diet and drug régime. And I invite knowledgeable comment.

    I note below that French cheese eaters are credited with having their arteries decalcified and retaining a lot of fat soluble vitamins. So far so good. And my blood sugar levels aren't dangerous. What is more I am going over to the Stevia based sweeteners which apparently don't produce odd anomalous sugar like effects wrt insulin that some sweeteners do. (Anything known about that curiosity?).

    Wiz, my point is that the conventional wisdom on cholesterol is probably bollocks: it’s certainly contrary to much of the evidence.

    http://www.drdavidgrimes.com

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    I was certainly one of those who spent some attention in the first decades of adult life to avoiding saturated fat. Polyunsaturated margarine was a bit of a deterrent to eating lots of toast or bread. I don't know if I ever consumed trsns fats. The fact thst my father had heart attacks st 41 snd 42 (and lived to 59 when he had another) was an incentive to follow medical fashion.

    I am disappointed in the linked material because it seems to be directed, without much precision, to the sort of people who might, at least 25 years late, be deceived by supermarket labels promising no or low cholesterol when it was the internally produced LDL which had long since been accorded the blame.
    , @Sparkon
    Dearieme, you claim "much of the evidence" supports your arguments, but cite just one study, which itself is strongly contradicted by numerous scientific studies used by the CDC to arrive at its recommendations for weight, and warnings about obesity.

    Since you are posturing as an authority on weight and cholesterol here, doing a lot of argument by assertion, and calling everything that disagrees with your opinion "bullocks," perhaps you'd care to share with us your BMI.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  157. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @dearieme
    Wiz, my point is that the conventional wisdom on cholesterol is probably bollocks: it's certainly contrary to much of the evidence.
    http://www.drdavidgrimes.com

    I was certainly one of those who spent some attention in the first decades of adult life to avoiding saturated fat. Polyunsaturated margarine was a bit of a deterrent to eating lots of toast or bread. I don’t know if I ever consumed trsns fats. The fact thst my father had heart attacks st 41 snd 42 (and lived to 59 when he had another) was an incentive to follow medical fashion.

    I am disappointed in the linked material because it seems to be directed, without much precision, to the sort of people who might, at least 25 years late, be deceived by supermarket labels promising no or low cholesterol when it was the internally produced LDL which had long since been accorded the blame.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    Polyunsaturated margarine was a bit of a deterrent to eating lots of toast or bread. I don’t know if I ever consumed trsns fats.
     
    If you ate margarine (or many processed foods) before ~2007 you were probably consuming trans fats. I am curious if there will turn out to be health issues with the newer interesterification approach for creating saturated fat from vegetable oil.

    For those in the US, the conversion factor between US and UK/SI measurements for cholesterol is 0.02586 (i.e. multiply the UK measurement by ~40).
    , @dearieme
    "it was the internally produced LDL which had long since been accorded the blame.": also probably bollocks. Apart from the evidence - which supports the brusque dismissal "bollocks!" - you'd have to tell me how the cholesterol knows whether it was "produced internally".
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  158. Let’s keep it simple. In this growing obesity eprdemic , there is one group of Americans who are not fat on average-vegans. Just like people from India tend to be skinnier than dairy farmers from Wisconsin. We all know this.. The more meat and dairy, the more obesity. Once I stopped kidding myself, losing weight and keeping it off was easy. The fat you eat is the fat you wear.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  159. res says:
    @Anonymous
    I was certainly one of those who spent some attention in the first decades of adult life to avoiding saturated fat. Polyunsaturated margarine was a bit of a deterrent to eating lots of toast or bread. I don't know if I ever consumed trsns fats. The fact thst my father had heart attacks st 41 snd 42 (and lived to 59 when he had another) was an incentive to follow medical fashion.

    I am disappointed in the linked material because it seems to be directed, without much precision, to the sort of people who might, at least 25 years late, be deceived by supermarket labels promising no or low cholesterol when it was the internally produced LDL which had long since been accorded the blame.

    Polyunsaturated margarine was a bit of a deterrent to eating lots of toast or bread. I don’t know if I ever consumed trsns fats.

    If you ate margarine (or many processed foods) before ~2007 you were probably consuming trans fats. I am curious if there will turn out to be health issues with the newer interesterification approach for creating saturated fat from vegetable oil.

    For those in the US, the conversion factor between US and UK/SI measurements for cholesterol is 0.02586 (i.e. multiply the UK measurement by ~40).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  160. utu says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    What does "minimum calorific restriction [can't go below] 10 per cent of your body weight" mean? What is the formula when spelled out?

    What is the formula when spelled out?

    Most likely there is no formula. Taken from think air by some charlatan selling his diet method.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  161. dearieme says:
    @Anonymous
    I was certainly one of those who spent some attention in the first decades of adult life to avoiding saturated fat. Polyunsaturated margarine was a bit of a deterrent to eating lots of toast or bread. I don't know if I ever consumed trsns fats. The fact thst my father had heart attacks st 41 snd 42 (and lived to 59 when he had another) was an incentive to follow medical fashion.

    I am disappointed in the linked material because it seems to be directed, without much precision, to the sort of people who might, at least 25 years late, be deceived by supermarket labels promising no or low cholesterol when it was the internally produced LDL which had long since been accorded the blame.

    “it was the internally produced LDL which had long since been accorded the blame.”: also probably bollocks. Apart from the evidence – which supports the brusque dismissal “bollocks!” – you’d have to tell me how the cholesterol knows whether it was “produced internally”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    I think the point was that no one normally reached excess from the external sources like egg yolk.
    , @Philip Owen
    About 20% of cholestrol level can be varied by diet. The rest is made internally.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  162. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Wizard of Oz
    I would have just quoted the levels on the assumption that typical readers, e.g. all practising everyday hypochondriacs paying close attention on UR (presumed as obsessive as the Holocaust deniers, WTC7 sub branch members of the 9/11 squad etc.) would know what they signified but I couldn't be bothered to look for the latest pieces of paper in my medical records and couldn't remember whether my HDL level was really a little above the LDL or the other way round. Also the translation from Australian mmol/l to US mg/dl might be dodgy. My recollection is that typical total cholesterol is 5.5 mmol/l and that 6.5 starts to get a bit worrying. Mine is now 4.2 or less. As HDL (the "good cholesterol") removes fats which might otherwise be forming plaque in the arteries (whereas Low Density Lipoprotein lays down plaque that blocks arteries) apparently one should have, for safety, a ratio of HDL to total cholesterol of less than 1 to 3.5. My ratio is right down near 1 to 2. Resuming the eating of lots of cheese since changing statin (previously Lipex twice a day; now Crestor once a day) hasn't changed the good figures.

    So..... i wonder whether I could be as lucky as I seem on my existing diet and drug régime. And I invite knowledgeable comment.

    I note below that French cheese eaters are credited with having their arteries decalcified and retaining a lot of fat soluble vitamins. So far so good. And my blood sugar levels aren't dangerous. What is more I am going over to the Stevia based sweeteners which apparently don't produce odd anomalous sugar like effects wrt insulin that some sweeteners do. (Anything known about that curiosity?).

    I am going over to the Stevia based sweeteners

    Just give up sweeteners altogether, avoid refined carbohydrates and you’ll likely do a lot better. After a month with no sugar or other sweeteners and you’ll hardly miss them. After six months, and anything with more than a trace of sugar will taste disgusting.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  163. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @notanon

    You are so confused. You do not distinguish between calories ingested and calories absorbed.
     
    Nope - that's what people who promote CICO ignore. The counter argument is focused precisely on that distinction.

    Nope – that’s what people who promote CICO ignore.

    Might as well save your breath. Unless your argument can be reduced to a tautology, utu will never understand it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  164. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Hu Mi Yu

    Hu Mi Yu, you must be even dumber than Utu. You say you’re diabetic, yet you advocate diabetics consume glucose, which is idiotic.
     
    Pretty much everyone consumes glucose in form of starch or sugar. It is in everything. You can treat high blood glucose levels by taking insulin, or you can do as I did, and as Dr. Lustig suggests and stop eating fructose. Most sugar is a mixture of fructose and glucose. I suggest avoiding fructose: not eating more glucose.

    This site is infested with nuts and trolls with whom it is pointless to debate. Some of the rudest and dumbest are in name or by their own contention of Chinese origin or affiliation, which seems weird, as the Chinese people that I know personally are both well mannered and intelligent.
     
    Now we know why you are here! (snicker)

    Pretty much everyone consumes glucose in form of starch or sugar. It is in everything.

    The trouble with you Hu Mi Yu, is that you are either too lazy to look at any of the numerous linked references I’ve given you, or you don’t understand what you read.

    Starch is hydrolysed to glucose, but because of that preliminary step, the rise in blood glucose on consumption of starch is slower and less extreme than following the consumption of an equivalent amount of glucose. Moreover, if you consume fiber containing starchy foods such as brown rice, assimilation of glucose will be even slower, and will therefore raise blood sugar even less.

    So if you want to minimize or eliminate their dependence on insulin injections should cut out glucose and every other sugar entirely, while increasing their intake of protein and fat at the expense of carbohydrates, especially refined carbohydrates.

    But you would rather snicker, apparently.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Philip Owen
    If you have Type One you are inevitably going to need insulin.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  165. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @utu
    CanSpeccy, I hope you are not at risk of aneurysm. Take it easy. I'll let you be for a while.

    CanSpeccy, I hope you are not at risk of aneurysm.

    Your obtuseness being due, perhaps, to the fact you’ve already suffered an aneurysm.

    However, it seems more likely that you are a no more than a mechanical troll gone wrong.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  166. @dearieme
    "it was the internally produced LDL which had long since been accorded the blame.": also probably bollocks. Apart from the evidence - which supports the brusque dismissal "bollocks!" - you'd have to tell me how the cholesterol knows whether it was "produced internally".

    I think the point was that no one normally reached excess from the external sources like egg yolk.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dearieme
    What is "excess"? The whole giddy invited pyramid of the Lipid Hypothesis is wrong; that is to say, the evidence is strongly against it. What's remarkable is how thin and shoddy (and possibly dishonest) the evidence for it ever was.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  167. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    What does "minimum calorific restriction [can't go below] 10 per cent of your body weight" mean? What is the formula when spelled out?

    In a diet book I read by Neal Barnard, M.D., professor of medicine at The George Washington University School of Medicine, Washington, D.C. Barnard said to not let your caloric intake drop below 10x your ideal body weight or your metabolic rate will drop. But I wouldn’t trust the height/weight charts. I’m a muscular 6’ and when I was a 20-year old super-fit athlete I was 188 lbs. the charts say I should be around 155! I think at 172 lbs I’d have the body fat of a boxer. So, I always consider 175 lbs as my ideal body weight and when dieting make sure to never drop believe 1750 calories per day. The intermittent fasting (600 calories on 2 days per week separated by 2 or 3 days) might be a way around this.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Aha! Thanks. (Desired) Pounds x 10 equals (sort of) desired calories!
    , @Anonymous
    "should be around 155"?? Something has slipped. If you were aiming to have a BMI (just under) 25 the weight a dix footer would need to aim for would have béen about 184 pounds....
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  168. dearieme says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    I think the point was that no one normally reached excess from the external sources like egg yolk.

    What is “excess”? The whole giddy invited pyramid of the Lipid Hypothesis is wrong; that is to say, the evidence is strongly against it. What’s remarkable is how thin and shoddy (and possibly dishonest) the evidence for it ever was.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    You and other commenters have ptompted a bit of Googling to update me. Happily I don't think I have too much to worry about that the personable Irish biochemist spoke about, such as ggt and ferritin, and the statins that keep my HDL up and LDL down appear to be worth taking.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  169. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous
    In a diet book I read by Neal Barnard, M.D., professor of medicine at The George Washington University School of Medicine, Washington, D.C. Barnard said to not let your caloric intake drop below 10x your ideal body weight or your metabolic rate will drop. But I wouldn’t trust the height/weight charts. I’m a muscular 6’ and when I was a 20-year old super-fit athlete I was 188 lbs. the charts say I should be around 155! I think at 172 lbs I’d have the body fat of a boxer. So, I always consider 175 lbs as my ideal body weight and when dieting make sure to never drop believe 1750 calories per day. The intermittent fasting (600 calories on 2 days per week separated by 2 or 3 days) might be a way around this.

    Aha! Thanks. (Desired) Pounds x 10 equals (sort of) desired calories!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  170. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @dearieme
    What is "excess"? The whole giddy invited pyramid of the Lipid Hypothesis is wrong; that is to say, the evidence is strongly against it. What's remarkable is how thin and shoddy (and possibly dishonest) the evidence for it ever was.

    You and other commenters have ptompted a bit of Googling to update me. Happily I don’t think I have too much to worry about that the personable Irish biochemist spoke about, such as ggt and ferritin, and the statins that keep my HDL up and LDL down appear to be worth taking.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dearieme
    "the statins that keep my HDL up and LDL down appear to be worth taking." Then you must be a symptomatic middle-aged male who is prepared to risk the side effects in hopes of being one of the few who will gain from statins.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  171. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous
    In a diet book I read by Neal Barnard, M.D., professor of medicine at The George Washington University School of Medicine, Washington, D.C. Barnard said to not let your caloric intake drop below 10x your ideal body weight or your metabolic rate will drop. But I wouldn’t trust the height/weight charts. I’m a muscular 6’ and when I was a 20-year old super-fit athlete I was 188 lbs. the charts say I should be around 155! I think at 172 lbs I’d have the body fat of a boxer. So, I always consider 175 lbs as my ideal body weight and when dieting make sure to never drop believe 1750 calories per day. The intermittent fasting (600 calories on 2 days per week separated by 2 or 3 days) might be a way around this.

    “should be around 155″?? Something has slipped. If you were aiming to have a BMI (just under) 25 the weight a dix footer would need to aim for would have béen about 184 pounds….

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  172. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    My comments last night seem to have been grammatically and syntactically deficient: the result of a glass too many of the Dom Perignon over dinner.

    Thus for the sake of greater clarity, here is the point I was trying to make:

    The CICO crowd (how do you pronounce CICO? Is it “Sicko,” or “Psycho”*) are sadly mistaken if they confuse Warren Buffett’s investment advice for nutritional advice.

    They should be better aware of Gore Vidal’s assessment that the business of America is to make as much money as possible while doing as much harm as possible to as many people as possible.

    So if you wish to join the psychopathic financial crowd, invest in Pepsi, KraftHeinz, Macdonalds, etc., by all means, but for goodness sake don’t eat what they produce, unless you don’t mind becoming a sick diabetic lump of lard.

    ______

    * Could America’s problem with regular mass shootings of innocents be something to do with high-fructose-syrup-induced CICOsis?

    Read More
    • Replies: @dearieme
    "* Could America’s problem with regular mass shootings of innocents be something to do with high-fructose-syrup-induced CICOsis?" I suppose it could be. You got any evidence?

    What about people in other countries who decided to copy this vile American custom? Are they full of syrup too?

    Which syrup do you have in mind anyway?
    , @ScarletNumber
    I pronounce it like it rhymes with Geico, but I don't know if that's correct.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  173. dearieme says:
    @Anonymous
    You and other commenters have ptompted a bit of Googling to update me. Happily I don't think I have too much to worry about that the personable Irish biochemist spoke about, such as ggt and ferritin, and the statins that keep my HDL up and LDL down appear to be worth taking.

    “the statins that keep my HDL up and LDL down appear to be worth taking.” Then you must be a symptomatic middle-aged male who is prepared to risk the side effects in hopes of being one of the few who will gain from statins.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    prepared to risk the side effects in hopes of being one of the few who will gain from statins.
     
    That is an important point which is worth expansion (I am guessing you already know these details, but for others who might be interested). The metric used to quantify this idea is the number needed to treat (NNT). This letter to the editor talks about statins in that context: https://www.aafp.org/afp/2010/1001/p741.html

    The review stated that the relative risk reduction for all-cause mortality was 12 percent, which sounds very good; however, I think it is important to look at the absolute risk reduction. All-cause mortality after a mean follow-up of 4.1 years was 5.1percent in the group treated with statins and 5.7 percent in the control group. That translates into an absolute risk reduction of 0.6 percent and a number needed to treat (NNT) of 167. This means that 167 patients would need to be treated with a statin for 4.1 years to prevent one death. Additionally, based on the study data, the NNT to prevent one major coronary event is 77, and the NNT to prevent one major cerebrovascular event is 250.
     
    , @JL
    The guy is in his nineties, I doubt he's giving much thought to the side effects. I tried to get my father off of statins, but he's an ultra conformist and does what his doctors tell him. Even after having cataracts removed, he was sure the doctors were right. I'll never understand the implicit trust people put into the health care industry.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  174. dearieme says:
    @CanSpeccy
    My comments last night seem to have been grammatically and syntactically deficient: the result of a glass too many of the Dom Perignon over dinner.

    Thus for the sake of greater clarity, here is the point I was trying to make:

    The CICO crowd (how do you pronounce CICO? Is it "Sicko," or "Psycho"*) are sadly mistaken if they confuse Warren Buffett's investment advice for nutritional advice.

    They should be better aware of Gore Vidal's assessment that the business of America is to make as much money as possible while doing as much harm as possible to as many people as possible.

    So if you wish to join the psychopathic financial crowd, invest in Pepsi, KraftHeinz, Macdonalds, etc., by all means, but for goodness sake don't eat what they produce, unless you don't mind becoming a sick diabetic lump of lard.

    ______

    * Could America's problem with regular mass shootings of innocents be something to do with high-fructose-syrup-induced CICOsis?

    “* Could America’s problem with regular mass shootings of innocents be something to do with high-fructose-syrup-induced CICOsis?” I suppose it could be. You got any evidence?

    What about people in other countries who decided to copy this vile American custom? Are they full of syrup too?

    Which syrup do you have in mind anyway?

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    Could America’s problem with regular mass shootings of innocents be something to do with high-fructose-syrup-induced CICOsis?” I suppose it could be. You got any evidence?
     
    Er, well, Psychology Today considers it a plausible hypothesis.

    Makes you wonder, does Utu live on potato chips and candy bars?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  175. res says:
    @dearieme
    "the statins that keep my HDL up and LDL down appear to be worth taking." Then you must be a symptomatic middle-aged male who is prepared to risk the side effects in hopes of being one of the few who will gain from statins.

    prepared to risk the side effects in hopes of being one of the few who will gain from statins.

    That is an important point which is worth expansion (I am guessing you already know these details, but for others who might be interested). The metric used to quantify this idea is the number needed to treat (NNT). This letter to the editor talks about statins in that context: https://www.aafp.org/afp/2010/1001/p741.html

    The review stated that the relative risk reduction for all-cause mortality was 12 percent, which sounds very good; however, I think it is important to look at the absolute risk reduction. All-cause mortality after a mean follow-up of 4.1 years was 5.1percent in the group treated with statins and 5.7 percent in the control group. That translates into an absolute risk reduction of 0.6 percent and a number needed to treat (NNT) of 167. This means that 167 patients would need to be treated with a statin for 4.1 years to prevent one death. Additionally, based on the study data, the NNT to prevent one major coronary event is 77, and the NNT to prevent one major cerebrovascular event is 250.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  176. Sparkon says:
    @dearieme
    Wiz, my point is that the conventional wisdom on cholesterol is probably bollocks: it's certainly contrary to much of the evidence.
    http://www.drdavidgrimes.com

    Dearieme, you claim “much of the evidence” supports your arguments, but cite just one study, which itself is strongly contradicted by numerous scientific studies used by the CDC to arrive at its recommendations for weight, and warnings about obesity.

    Since you are posturing as an authority on weight and cholesterol here, doing a lot of argument by assertion, and calling everything that disagrees with your opinion “bullocks,” perhaps you’d care to share with us your BMI.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dearieme
    My BMI = too fat.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  177. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @dearieme
    "* Could America’s problem with regular mass shootings of innocents be something to do with high-fructose-syrup-induced CICOsis?" I suppose it could be. You got any evidence?

    What about people in other countries who decided to copy this vile American custom? Are they full of syrup too?

    Which syrup do you have in mind anyway?

    Could America’s problem with regular mass shootings of innocents be something to do with high-fructose-syrup-induced CICOsis?” I suppose it could be. You got any evidence?

    Er, well, Psychology Today considers it a plausible hypothesis.

    Makes you wonder, does Utu live on potato chips and candy bars?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  178. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous
    Exercise definitely makes a difference. 10 years ago I lost 50 lbs (for real, not water weight) in 2 months from running 8 miles a day and riding the exercise bike 1 hour in the morning and 1 hour at night. And I reduced my intake to a strict vegan diet (Brussels sprouts, mixed vegetables, berries, etc.) of 1750 calories (minimum caloric restriction can’t fall below 10 times your body weight or your metabolic rate drops). I targeted my abs big time because it is the major fat-burning muscle (see The Abs Diet/workout philosophy). During that time I was getting serious body oder all day as my body became a fat-burning machine. I have seen guy lose even more weight (fat) and they did restrict their diets like I did. I saw a documentary of the some ultramarathoners who ran across the Sahara. I think they would run 50 miles a day for 100 days. They biggest runner had lost 40 lbs in a month. Again, fat, not water weight.

    Running The Sahara Movie Trailer: https://youtu.be/HidKMFClQUU via @YouTube

    Exercise definitely makes a difference.

    True. I always hovered at the lower end of normal, but once in a life became actually underweight with a BMI of 18. It was when my baby started to walk – so much more movement all of a sudden. Instead of leisurely walks with a stroller, you either run after your toddler (cardio) or pull and lift him out of forbidden places and dangerous situations (strength training). Contrary to what others say, I didn’t become more hungry and didn’t replace the lost calories with more eating. I had to consciously make myself eat more when it became uncomfortable and unattractive (not like skeletal anorexics yet, but my chest became bony and it didn’t look pretty in low cut dresses). Exercise matters, and it doesn’t have to be formal gym exercise.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  179. @CanSpeccy
    My comments last night seem to have been grammatically and syntactically deficient: the result of a glass too many of the Dom Perignon over dinner.

    Thus for the sake of greater clarity, here is the point I was trying to make:

    The CICO crowd (how do you pronounce CICO? Is it "Sicko," or "Psycho"*) are sadly mistaken if they confuse Warren Buffett's investment advice for nutritional advice.

    They should be better aware of Gore Vidal's assessment that the business of America is to make as much money as possible while doing as much harm as possible to as many people as possible.

    So if you wish to join the psychopathic financial crowd, invest in Pepsi, KraftHeinz, Macdonalds, etc., by all means, but for goodness sake don't eat what they produce, unless you don't mind becoming a sick diabetic lump of lard.

    ______

    * Could America's problem with regular mass shootings of innocents be something to do with high-fructose-syrup-induced CICOsis?

    I pronounce it like it rhymes with Geico, but I don’t know if that’s correct.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  180. JL says:
    @dearieme
    "the statins that keep my HDL up and LDL down appear to be worth taking." Then you must be a symptomatic middle-aged male who is prepared to risk the side effects in hopes of being one of the few who will gain from statins.

    The guy is in his nineties, I doubt he’s giving much thought to the side effects. I tried to get my father off of statins, but he’s an ultra conformist and does what his doctors tell him. Even after having cataracts removed, he was sure the doctors were right. I’ll never understand the implicit trust people put into the health care industry.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  181. dearieme says:
    @Sparkon
    Dearieme, you claim "much of the evidence" supports your arguments, but cite just one study, which itself is strongly contradicted by numerous scientific studies used by the CDC to arrive at its recommendations for weight, and warnings about obesity.

    Since you are posturing as an authority on weight and cholesterol here, doing a lot of argument by assertion, and calling everything that disagrees with your opinion "bullocks," perhaps you'd care to share with us your BMI.

    My BMI = too fat.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dearieme
    And by the way, my cholesterol = absolutely super, as it has been for thirty years even as I put on weight slowly over those years. It may have been equally absolutely super when I was a slim young man keen on sport, but I'll never know. Maybe I should begin to wonder whether its superbity is actually a bit on the low side for a bloke my age. Is there an anti-statin available?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  182. dearieme says:
    @dearieme
    My BMI = too fat.

    And by the way, my cholesterol = absolutely super, as it has been for thirty years even as I put on weight slowly over those years. It may have been equally absolutely super when I was a slim young man keen on sport, but I’ll never know. Maybe I should begin to wonder whether its superbity is actually a bit on the low side for a bloke my age. Is there an anti-statin available?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  183. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Hu Mi Yu

    My point is, we don’t eat glucose.
     
    Yes, we do. It is contained in fruits and vegetables as well as starches. When they add it to food, they call it dextrose.

    Other sugars are converted into glucose by the liver with varying degrees of efficiency.

    You seldom find obesity in poor Asia, East European and African countries in 1970s who need to do labour work like farming, with little to eat, very simple natural starchy diet, mostly 2meals a day. It still happen in these countries rural regions, but not cities that invaded by western junk food and chilled drinks culture.

    Artificial food, cold drinks, junk food are luxuries then, and diabetes are privilege for the rich. They usually live till 70′s still strong enough for farm work, with lean body and little illness. Starch and sweet things are their main energy source without problem.

    Diabetes are due to malfunctioning pancreas unable to regulate insulin, usually due to taking too much cold foods and drinks. Pancreas is the illness source, high sugar level diabetes is only the symptom. Western medical research and treatments focus on symptoms which can only be temporary suppress, no one ever heal by western medications.

    TCM focus on root cause to eliminate illness, and diabetes is not consider a illness in TCM but only a sign of pancreatic problem. Diabetes usually also cause high BP and cholesterol problem.

    Eat less(70% full), organic food (including brown rice/ sugar is good), simple diet (without refine food like white rice/sugar), work out more for daily perspiration. Nature work itself best when people go back to natural lifestyle.

    This is what Traditional Chinese Medicine physicians have observed, and able to treat 3 High symptoms, high sugar, high BP, high cholesterol, very effectively. That’s how i get my old mother decade of 3 highs illnesses treated within a month using TCM herbal treatment to revitalize pancreas(by using warm nature herbs) with diet control, to the great surprise of her geriatric.

    But once she return to her usual junk food and cold drinks lifestyle, the illnesses return. In facts, sugar intake has no effect to her diabetes during treatment in my observation, as healthy pancreas is able to regular itself well. Science is still far from truly understanding how nature work.

    Try this and see if its help.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  184. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    The issue, I bet, with the CICO (sicko/psycho?) crowd is that they are all junk food addicts, so they refuse to contemplate quitting junk food, and make up ridiculous theories consistent with their suicidal eating behavior. It’s called cognitive dissonance reduction.

    It’s like when I smoked three packs of cigarettes a day: any thought that it might be killing me, and I’d light another cigarette and the worry go away.

    Same with the CICO’s. Anyone tell them they’re getting fat and unhealthy because of the junk they eat and they just reach for another donut and the worry go away.

    I quit smoking 40 years ago, not because I cared that smoking would likely kill me, but because I wanted to test a physiological theory. The theory proved incorrect, but by the time I realized that, I’d quit the habit (though I’ve never felt quite normal since).

    Maybe CICO’s could do the same. Think up some theory to test by going on a diet of reasonably healthy food eaten ad lib (plus a bit of exercise would be a good idea too).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  185. @dearieme
    "it was the internally produced LDL which had long since been accorded the blame.": also probably bollocks. Apart from the evidence - which supports the brusque dismissal "bollocks!" - you'd have to tell me how the cholesterol knows whether it was "produced internally".

    About 20% of cholestrol level can be varied by diet. The rest is made internally.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  186. @CanSpeccy

    Pretty much everyone consumes glucose in form of starch or sugar. It is in everything.
     
    The trouble with you Hu Mi Yu, is that you are either too lazy to look at any of the numerous linked references I've given you, or you don't understand what you read.

    Starch is hydrolysed to glucose, but because of that preliminary step, the rise in blood glucose on consumption of starch is slower and less extreme than following the consumption of an equivalent amount of glucose. Moreover, if you consume fiber containing starchy foods such as brown rice, assimilation of glucose will be even slower, and will therefore raise blood sugar even less.

    So if you want to minimize or eliminate their dependence on insulin injections should cut out glucose and every other sugar entirely, while increasing their intake of protein and fat at the expense of carbohydrates, especially refined carbohydrates.

    But you would rather snicker, apparently.

    If you have Type One you are inevitably going to need insulin.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    If you have Type One you are inevitably going to need insulin.
     
    Yes apparently so, but less, one would expect, with the right diet, i.e., with low intake of sugar, particularly fructose, and refined carbohydrates.

    Type 2 diabetes, it seems, can usually be moderated if not eliminated altogether with the right diet.

    Since obesity is the best predictor of the Type 2 diabetes, a diet that prevents obesity should greatly reduce if not eliminate the risk of Type 2 diabetes. Such a diet will be low in sugars and refined carbohydrates.

    Whether the onset of Type 1 diabetes is diet/obesity related seems uncertain.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  187. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Philip Owen
    If you have Type One you are inevitably going to need insulin.

    If you have Type One you are inevitably going to need insulin.

    Yes apparently so, but less, one would expect, with the right diet, i.e., with low intake of sugar, particularly fructose, and refined carbohydrates.

    Type 2 diabetes, it seems, can usually be moderated if not eliminated altogether with the right diet.

    Since obesity is the best predictor of the Type 2 diabetes, a diet that prevents obesity should greatly reduce if not eliminate the risk of Type 2 diabetes. Such a diet will be low in sugars and refined carbohydrates.

    Whether the onset of Type 1 diabetes is diet/obesity related seems uncertain.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  188. Personal, anecdotal

    Restricting intake is a losing game.
    Counting calories isn’t the way
    If f your body craves calories, it will get it…

    The only way to lose weight and keep it off is to reset the “set point” environmentally by vigorous daily exercise preferably pumping iron.

    The genetic set point exists, but vigorous iron pumping 5-6 times a week for 45 minutes to an hour will, I postulate, prevent your body from reasserting your genetic destiny.

    I know…it woorkd for me

    But I do love to lift weights and look forward to it…that may be a determining variable….

    Beat the genes with daily 45 min to 1 hour weight-lifting…you don’t really beat them, you just keep them from acting out each day

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  189. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Old fogey
    Women definitely become heavier as they enter menopause. I have read that without the estrogen from their ovaries, their body fat becomes the main source of estrogen. This extra fat - especially that around the hips - also cushions against fractures. It is foolish to think that our weight at age 25 should continue to be our weight throughout our life span.

    Women definitely become heavier as they enter menopause.

    There’s no inevitability here. Watch your income, adjust it down according to age and you may become a stick like Brigitte Macron. Traditional lifestyles did it to women without their conscious control. You were allotted less food in a peasant family when you stopped doing hard labor and having babies. These were the normal peasant types in Old Russia:
    Note that the beauty ideal of the time was a little chubby (except for the upper classes who wore corsets – but even they found round cheeks and big butts beautiful), so no way they conscioisly dieted.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  190. @Anon
    The best diet advice I ever met was in Lunch in Paris by Elizabeth Bard, chapter "Family Values". It's a fictionalized diary/romance/recipe book for female audience, so probably none of you guys know of it. In the said chapter, the 10 pounds too heavy American heroine learns the ways of her skinny French mother-in-law. The takeaways:
    - mother-in-law doesn't finish her portion at a restaurant;
    - doesn't take any snacks to the beach;
    - doesn't snack between meals at all (can eat yoghurt at night if she worked till 10 p.m.);
    - always has a bottle of water with her;
    - drinks water, tea, coffee, wine and sometimes beer, but never soda;
    - meals are eaten on strict schedule 4 times a day (intermittent fasting is not a thing);
    - French home meal portions are two times smaller than American, and eating takes twice longer.
    The dreaded carbs are there in bread and desserts, but don't seem to make a difference. In the end, the French diet is just order and discipline.

    One thing I read somewhere is that the diameter of dinner plates has increased over the last half century in the Western world, and this may be a factor in people eating too much.
    I did some serious fasting once and noticed that the odour of my sweat changed – it reminded me of the smell of hops. It may have been something to do with ketone bodies.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketone_bodies

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  191. jayze says:

    List of advantages to obesity:
    1) when subject to major trauma, the obese body has thick padding to absorb the impact, and all the organs are packed in thick padding.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  192. Weaver1 says:

    Regarding diets, it’s important to eat a balanced diet. A focus on calories isn’t everything.

    If a person eats healthily, he’ll feel a great deal better. It’s also good to be thin, of course.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  193. Hi,

    Thanks for sharing a very interesting article about Eat Less. This is very useful information for online blog review readers. Keep it up such a nice posting like this.

    From,
    Retailmass.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All James Thompson Comments via RSS