Discussion in 'Health & Fitness' started by Fuji, May 10, 2012.
I can agree that saturated fats might not be a problem in terms of obesity, but it does seem linked to heart disease so it's still a problem???
The one thing I'm very interested in understanding is, where do your carbs come from? Is it all from fruit? I don't see any other place it could come from. Most of the carb containing vegetables are off the list (starchy).
Seriously, where would the 30% of your 3,000 calories (1,000 carb calories) come from? That's a lot of fruit.
Found my answer.
Ya, that sounds doable for the rest of my life.
So I need to exercise to burn 1,000 calories per day and eat only that "crap" on the list in the above link as my carb sources?
Bet a lot of people are REALLY following this
Absolutely not. The science simply is not there. Keys falsified his data leaving entire countries out of his seven countries study because it didn't not match his theory.
There is evidence points to sugar and starchy carbohydrates at the primary culprit behinds heart disease. That's the big deal with Paleo diets - and why people are sometimes angry.
They feel they been tricked and manipulated by bad scientists.
Interestingly enough - years ago - in the 60s there was a kind of nutritional battle going on. With an english doctor singling out carbohydrates and sugar as the primary culprit -and the american ancel keys behind the fat hypothesis.
Neither side really had good evidence - and now we have found out keys used some bad science to push his conclusions.
So not only is it not clear that saturated fats aren't bad for you - many people think they are GOOD for you. They raise your HDL and your LDL. But they raise your HDL more then your LDL
But honestly its not mine duty to try to convince you. I am not that interested in a debate on the merits of the Paleo diet. They have entire website already dedicated to that. All you had to do is read the link I already gave you and make up your own mind.
I lost weight and my blood work is better then ever.
My carb sources:
i eat 2 helpings (carrots, zucchini, cucumber and radish) with breakfast (eggs) if i eat breakfast at all. 2-3 helpings with lunch and another 2-3 helpings with dinner. i eat a lot of them - lotus root, spinach, lettuce, eggplant, tomato, cauliflower, broccoli, etc.
banana, apple, berries, orange. i eat 1 banana and a handful or blueberries or an orange or an apple.
cashews, almonds, walnuts
i munch a handful of them everyday.
How much carbs do you really need? I have a fairly physically active lifestyle and i am pretty comfortable with 100-150 gms a day from the above sources.
There is nothing in support of "balanced" except that somehow "balanced" sounds nice and has a "correct" connotation. May be a balanced consumption of opium, heroin, cigarettes and alcohol along with balanced diet is healthier?
What if a diet rich in meat, vegetables with some fruits and nuts was the norm and that the new carb revolution lead to an "extreme" diet of 40-60% carb intake every single day with majority coming from grains and sugar?
My grandfather used to say that rice and rice based food (indian pancakes called dosas and rice cakes called idlies) was only reserved for festivals and other special occasions in his days. Now pretty much everyone back home consumes them every single day (to meet the 40-60% "health recommendation"). Which is extreme? People of my generation now say that eating those stuff just once a week would be considered "extreme". But they go back and wonder how we have 70 million diabetics (and exponentially counting).
You're from India if I remember correctly? Your number of diabetics is more then double the population of my entire country!
^^^If you can stick to those types of restrictions for the rest of your life, I say god bless you.
I have no doubt that it is a healthy diet and a healthy lifestyle. I just question the fact that ANYONE can stick with it, let alone the majority of people.
I certainly couldn't.
Yes. Have been living in HK over the last 5+ years.
That number is expected double in 5 years. Diabetes is going to be a huge problem. Much under appreciated. I visited recently and was appalled to see that TV was flooded with commercials selling sugary sodas, pseudo-juice drinks and sugary snacks mainly targeting kids.
Kids are literally growing up on these things and soon we will have a generation (100s of millions) addicted to sugar and carbs. Pharma and healthcare industry will mint money.
I am not sure about mainland China though.
I agree that it is difficult to adhere to it 100% now. We have different food habits and different imprinting (for me it is about 30+ years of rice+sugar laden diet).
However, as far as i am concerned, it is important to make an attempt . May be you can nudge yourself to 50-50 and then to 70-30 and then 80-20. Who know if you like what you see you might become 100-0.
Its hard to believe the human population would be 7 billion without the neolithic revolution creating huge store houses of usable grains. From an evolutionary point of view, carbs are better than sex.
I have indeed read that the saturated fat and heart disease link is under challenge, but I thought that had to do more with a more nuanced view of fat other than the saturated equals bad hypothesis.
^^ Like I said, in my own personal case, as long as my "biometric health screening" numbers look good, I would never see a need to go to something that extreme. I see no problem with starches, legumes, dairy, or even sugary snacks.
I happen to believe that exercise offers "the fountain of youth" and "magically" keeps me pretty healthy.
But, if you don't do the exercise, then you probably don't need lots of "easy energy" (carbs).
I follow "paleo man" more in terms of being active as opposed to eating fresh kill water buffalo and plantains.
Yes, but if you want to / need to loose weight, cutting carbs (not nescessarilly to the extreme) is a good idea, because it boosts burning of fat. And getting more of your carbs from more nutritious sources than processed sugar and grain is probably a good idea for many people. But this does not replace exercise.
but what if they offered fresh kill water buffalo and plantains wrapped in bacon at your local grocer?
Reading the Wall St Journal this am and they published the diet of World X Country ski champ Kikkan Randall, pretty interesting:
The basic formula for Ms. Randall's diet is protein and carbohydrates during every meal and snack, with more carbs earlier in the day and more protein in the evening and before and after a weight workout.
She starts her day with an early breakfast around 7 a.m. of an egg-white omelette with fresh vegetables and whole-wheat toast. Coffee, too, is a must.
During workouts, she will snack on Power Bars and an energy drink, such as Gatorade. For lunch, Ms. Randall often has a ham or turkey sandwich with vegetables.
Dinner involves another serving of protein and fresh vegetables. She grills salmon or another meat in her backyard and makes a big salad filled with foods she struggles to find on the road: spinach, avocados, dried cranberries and peppers. Dessert is a scoop of mint-chip ice cream.
I thought the world had left egg-white omelettes behind with Seinfeld.
to me, it's all about controlling insulin response, maintaining relativel even blood sugar levels, avoiding the pancreatic and metabolic havoc of blood sugar on a roller coaster.
So when we talk about "fruit", what are we talking about? I don't eat bananas much. For me, they have a lot of calories and sugars without a lot of nutrient value. Same with oranges. But fruits like cherries, blueberries, raspberries, those are foods that are dense with phytonutrients and have far less impact on blood sugar.
A slice of Ezekiel bread with almond butter on it has a much lower impact on blood sugar levels than does a slice of Wonder Bread with Peter Pan smeared across it.
All carbs are not created equal.
I'd say that makes sense. Cutting carbs seems to help many people lose weight. It doesn't work for me I've discovered, but hey, that just sucks for me. I don't think anyone would advocate eating "too many" sugary snacks. I'm not so down on grains and starches myself. I like the energy. Oatmeal is my friend.
I'm still not 100% sold on this idea. I'd rather just monitor my fasting glucose levels annually and keep my bodyweight in an "acceptable" level. Check my cholesterol. That sort of thing. I don't think it needs to be micro-managed. Another way of putting it is, I don't know by what means my body "does what it does" so I'm not really sure if insulin spikes are bad, good, or in between. But I do know that, if my fasting glucose levels start to rise, this will lead to problems. But this doesn't happen overnight. It takes many years typically to develop type 2 diabetes. Its a train you can see coming miles and miles down the tracks.
If you have HBO, check out 'Weight of the Nation'. The first two episodes premiered last night with parts 3 and 4 tonight.
Don't have HBO, but I'm sure it will be on youtube by May 16th.
This type of thing is so interwoven with lifestyle, that the "fix" is nearly impossible. It's easy to talk about. Easy to understand. But it just hits people at too fundamental, too basic of a level. The changes that people would need to make would affect so many areas of their day to day lives.
This isn't the sort of thing people are very good at. You can give them all the information, but it won't make much difference. Its pretty hard to "teach people how to live".
Mmm hmmm. A good quote from a formerly obese lady in the video went something like this: "I haven't made any extraordinary changes in diet/lifestyle, but a hundred little changes that when combined are extraordinary". There's a good segment featuring twins and their lifestyle/diet choices and disease risk and development.
The little changes are harder for most people than the big dramatic changes. It seems like it should be the other way around, but its not.
Granted, people don't stick with the big changes for too long, but making drastic changes can be very motivating. You feel like you are "really" doing something. And in the back of your mind you have to be thinking that the bigger the change, the quicker it will start paying off and the payoffs should be bigger too.
You can also be more conspicuous if you make big changes or are "different" enough. And that is often a huge motivating factor for many people.
"I want to be different........just like everybody else"
True but as shown in the documentary (and per most of the data), those with big, dramatic weight loss follow that up with a bigger, more dramatic weight gain (close to 90% of the time).
Cept this would be wrong. Some of the hardest working people are fat. I seriously doubt that alot of people on this forum get more physical work then a construction worker or someone involved in heavy manual labor.
Exercise wise these guys are WAY ahead of me - cept I am older and leaner then alot of them. The reason is I can afford to know and know how to control my DIET. Diet is the key to good health.
If you know what you are doing you can be pretty lean sitting on your butt, IMHO. You of course might not be muscular or athletic - but you can be lean.
Gary Taubes explores this alot in his book Why we get fat - and makes a pretty good case that many of the fattest people are working the hardest when it comes to physical labor and are the poorest.
This is because of WHAT they eat. Exercise to increase you performance in sports - but control your diet to improve your body composition. I think this is a very important observation - this idea that people who exercise a ton are not particularly lean. And others who exercise little are lean. This is really the key to maintaining a nice weight in the modern era.. Exercise alone is a road to nowhere. Animal studies prove that animals who exercise more eat more then enough to compensate for that. People know it too hence the old school prhase "Work up an appetite"
If we could give every individual the right amount of nourishment and exercise, not too little and not too much, we would have found the safest way to health. ~ Hippocrates
When you start thinking in terms of "silver bullet solutions", I think you are on the wrong path. Diet and exercise are partners.
Anyway, the type of exercise I would advocate would be REGULAR "moderate" running or walking. I'd certainly also recommend REGULAR simple resistence exercise. Just enough to give your muscles some use.
This isn't what construction workers are doing. Just ask yourself this simple question. Do people normally describe a "typical" construction worker as "active"? Paradoxically, I'd say no. They work a physically demanding job, but they don't really "move" much. Most people don't call them "active" (whatever that means to most people).
So instead of using "construction workers" as your example of exercisers, instead think of someone you know that you'd think of as "active" or leading an "active" lifestyle. Someone that jogs / walks / plays tennis / etc. regularly. Is this person you have in mind "fit"? I think probably yes. "Active" people tend to be fit. So this is what I have in mind when I think of "exercise". (So cardiovascular health is MAINLY what I have in mind obviously).
And of course walking for 1/2 hour doesn't give you the green light to eat whatever you want. Oddly enough, "active" people often seem to make "smarter" diet choices too. Its just part of their lifestyle.
I keep coming back to moderation. Boring but effective nonetheless.
Cutting carbs does not boost burning of stored bodyfat. If you have more carbs and less fat in your diet, your body will burn more carbs for fuel, if you have more fat in your diet and less carbs, your body will burn more fat for fuel, but this is not stored BF, this is dietary fat. Whatever you feed your body more of, it will burn more of for fuel. This does not mean what you feed your body has any effect on oxidizing stored BF. The only way to reduce the net balance in your BF stores is with a caloric deficit. In the post-prandial phase (after you eat) nutrients are being broken down and then either oxidized or stored. During this time access to stored BF is inhibited whether you consume carbs or not. Incoming nutrients are dealt with first. It's only in the post-absorptive phase(when post-prandial phase is complete) where stored nutrients are oxidized for fuel. This is when your body burns off its stored fat. If you burn more stored fat in this phase than you stored in the post-prandial phase net fat balance will be negative. Its the cumulitive effect of long term sequences of these phases that determines your long term net fat balance.
Insulin spikes can be a good thing, it depends on your insulin sensitivity, and especially in the brain. The insulin spike is a signal to the brain that you have eaten. People with poor insulin sensitivity in the brain have difficulty receiving the signal though. Type 2 diabetics and people with poor glucose tolerance don't have healthy insulin response and do not produce this spike so the signal is never sent to the brain. This is why people with poor insulin sensitivity and poor insulin function do not do well with more carbs in the diet. The signal is either blunted or the signal is not received well so the carbs never satisfy their hunger leading them to eat more. On top of that they tend to have the large swings in blood sugar levels because they do not have healthy insulin function and the large swings in blood sugar can trigger hunger as well. You, R2, apparently have healthy insulin function so you do well on carbs. Its the same thing with leptin and why IF can work so well for some people. They have poor leptin sensitivity. More leptin is stimulated thru larger meals (and carbs actually have a much greater effect on leptin than fat does) so there is a stronger signal sent to compensate for the poor sensitivty to leptin. With the larger meals they get the message better that they have eaten. Small meals never stimulate enough leptin response for people with poor leptin sensitivty to get the signal that they have eaten so they try eating small meals throughout the day but their hunger is never satisfied. This is what I was talking about why different people need to do different things to satisfy their hunger. Its the sensitivity and function of the hormones that regulate hunger and appetite that needs to be addressed thru different dietary strategies, whether it be regulating your macro levels or your meal timing. If you have healthy function of these hormones that regulate your appetite than a simple balance and moderation diet would work well, but if you don't then other dietary strategies may be necessary.
"To determine whether macronutrient composition of a hypocaloric diet can enhance its effectiveness and whether insulin sensitivity (Si) affects the response to hypocaloric diets.Obese nondiabetic insulin-sensitive (fasting insulin < 10 microU/mL; n = 12) and obese nondiabetic insulin-resistant (fasting insulin > 15 microU/mL; n = 9) women (23 to 53 years old) were randomized to either a high carbohydrate (CHO) (HC)/low fat (LF) (60% CHO, 20% fat) or low CHO (LC)/high fat (HF) (40% CHO, 40% fat) hypocaloric diet. Primary outcome measures after a 16-week dietary intervention were: changes in body weight (BW), Si, resting metabolic rate, and fasting lipids.Insulin-sensitive women on the HC/LF diet lost 13.5 +/- 1.2% (p < 0.001) of their initial BW, whereas those on the LC/HF diet lost 6.8 +/- 1.2% (p < 0.001; p < 0.002 between the groups). In contrast, among the insulin-resistant women, those on the LC/HF diet lost 13.4 +/- 1.3% (p < 0.001) of their initial BW as compared with 8.5 +/- 1.4% (p < 0.001) lost by those on the HC/LF diet (p < 0.04 between two groups). These differences could not be explained by changes in resting metabolic rate, activity, or intake. Overall, changes in Si were associated with the degree of weight loss (r = -0.57, p < 0.05).The state of Si determines the effectiveness of macronutrient composition of hypocaloric diets in obese women. For maximal benefit, the macronutrient composition of a hypocaloric diet may need to be adjusted to correspond to the state of Si."
And here is an excellent series on insulin and some of the misunderstandings about it if you are interested - http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=319
Its not just what they eat, its how much they eat. Taubes doesn't make a good case for anything. He still believes that obese people don't eat any more than lean people do even though this has been studied and shown that obese people tend to think they ate less than they actually did and tend to think they burned more calories thru activity than they actually did. Dietary misreporting has been well established and accepted yet Taubes somehow overlooked these studies when doing his 5 years of thorough research for good calories,bad calories.
Thanks for this. Very informative and written in a language a layman like myself can (sort of) understand.
The rest of what you say makes sense too (the parts I can understand). At least it does to me.
Weightology Weekly seems to be full of good articles. Some of it seems to be only available to subscribers, but most of it appears to be free. Thanks again for the link.
In my opinion a lot of people are OD'ing on processed carbs. So cutting down on them and upping proteins is a great way to a satiating diet that facilitates weight loss without having to starve yourself or count calories. That has been my personal and practical experience.
This article is examined by low-carb advocates
Krieger responds in part 5 of his series:
So, a little something here to satisfy (the prejudices) of everyone
As for me, I confess that I understood very little of it.
Absolutely. Protein is key. Protein is the most satiating of the macros and has the highest thermic effect. Higher protein diets generally show better weight loss than lower protein diets whether they are high protein/low fat or high protein/low carb. Fiber is also very satiating and fats slow gastric emptying so they can help keep you full longer. This is why ultimately I think the Paleo diet is pretty good. It combines these 3 factors to create a satiating diet enabling you to consume fewer calories and lose weight. It's just too low carb for my personal taste though. My athletic performance is so much better with higher levels of CHO.
My diet is about 25% P, 30-35% F, and 40-45% CHO, and I require sweet potatoes, redskin potatoes, grits, flour tortillas, basmati rice, oats, and hamburger buns as CHO sources in addition to fruits and vegetables so paleo is out of the question for me, but that doesn't mean I don't recommend it if someone asks.
To be fair Taubes does a good job of pointing out the low quality science in most of the dietary empirical studies. I always assumed what the docs say on nutrition was supported by solid research until i read Taubes and started reading some of the papers myself.
Think about it. Somewhere in the 20th century (early-middle), we went full ahead low fat. More carbs, and whole grains and less sat fat. And that came from experts and media constantly espousing how cholesterol was bad and how we needed to eat low fat. And, sure thing, in 50 years, the low fat industry is billions of $ strong and every tom, dick and harry thinks fat is bad and would shun egg yolks and ham and prefer refined oil to butter.
Yes to be accurate, you cannot "teach" people to live, but you can scare them to live.
We are only starting to poke around what stress and inflammation can do to our bodies. Medical science is almost at the time when Newton came up with this classical mechanics. There is plenty to find out and understand.
Hopefully in the future we will have more good quality research in nutrition and results based on solid biological foundation rather than correlations from questionnaires.
I've always wondered and I've had this discussion with numerous people, is butter or margarine better for you? I've been an avid butter eater my entire life as I don't care for margarine, but others swear by the opposite as myself. Is there a definite healthier option between the two?
I've heard that margarine is worse than butter because of the trans-fats. I haven't seen anyone defend trans-fats, even though many in the vegetarian crowd (CSPI for instance) originally pushed it as a healthier substitute for saturated animal fats. It isn't very paleo, but french fries cooked in beef tallow are far superior to even those cooked in trans-fats.
In any case, butter is superior in taste to margarine so I won't be eating margarine.
Margarine = trans fat + chemicals.
And is a great example of why listening to what 'they' tell you instead of researching on your own can lead you down the wrong path.
Grass fed butter is actually *good* for you. Try Kerrygold.
It should be mentioned that the FDA is not exactly in it for the health of the people. Their pockets are lined by money from food companies, who pressure them into their 'recommendations'.
Low fat/no fat = sh*tstorm of chemicals that don't belong in your body
Eggs are not the devil.
Your body actually needs and uses cholesterol. The walls of your cells are LIPIDS.
There is also a big difference between vegetable oils and oils such as coconut/olive oils.
Just how carbs are not created equal, neither are fats.
But the basic premise of 'eat real food' will never steer anyone wrong.
Thanks for the info Topaz! I'll check out Kerrygold! I'm a huge butter eater, I love it with my breakfast foods.
(Also, been meaning to ask, is that you in your profile pic? I always assumed so...)
Heck no, that's Kim Clijsters!
I'll take that as a huge compliment though!
I get my kerrygold at trader joes. I think it may be found in 'regular' grocery stores too. If not, just try to find some organic butter. Kerrygold is pretty awesome though.
Hahaha! Good to know!
Cool! I've never even thought of getting organic butter. I'll definitely pick some up next time I'm at my local store!
I'm on the same train as r2473 and agree with pretty much all of his posts. I just don't see the point in restricting entire food groups from one's diet. Moderation in everything.
All these stupid diets are all about making money. People come with these new diets to sell books and make ton of cash off a bunch of dupes looking for a magic cure. We all know how to eat healthy and lose weight, we just don't do it. Its called discipline and moderation but Americans are seemingly incapable of it.
Having said that, if the paleo diet or atkins or whatever works for you then great. If skipping breakfast works for you, do it. If eating 6 meals a day works, then fine. If eating 1 meal a day at 10pm works then stick with that. But I'm a little tired of the diet "industry" telling me what is best and then lo and behold 5 years later the information is different. People should find what works for them and ignore the prognotications of an industry that is solely out to make money.
And carbs rule. As someone who exercises sometimes 2x day there is no way I'm taking that out of the equation. Whoever wrote earlier that you can not burn fat if you eat carbs is completely WRONG. Stop spreading misinformation.
Anyway I will think about this thread when I am eating my croissant on Sunday morning. Mmmmmm.... But by all means enjoy that paleo diet of yours, lol.
I just wanted to add, I'm not actually on the paleo diet.
There is no logic or evidence behind the assertion that moderation is best. It sure sounds like the right thing to do (like fat makes you fat), but thats about it.
Surprisingly, there is hardly any consensus on this.
Again this is along the lines of "work hard. no result? work harder. even harder". It appears convincing because it appeals to morality and lack of self-control.
that is how science progresses. hypothesis. test. reject. another hypothesis and continue. constant supply of new information.
exciting times now. more awareness. hopefully more funding and research into this area and more tested and rejected hypotheses. hopefully our knowledge grows.
i will stick to my sunday breakfast: grain free and no sugar added almond-blueberry pancake with a dollop of fresh butter on top along with bacon and cheese. yummm.
For me, dieting is not science as it is more like an art. If dieting is to be treated as science, a whole lot of facts have to be factored in such as race, sex, age, environment, lifestyle… On one factor like race alone, there are many embedded variations. The probability is endless. On top of that, even science to this day understands little about how a human body works as a whole. There are many different branches of studies about different functions of a human body, but nobody has been able to connect all the dots.
The diet industry picks up bits and pieces of science and creates their own current version of the truth. If they can make it appealing enough to the public and get the media to hype it up… Bang, we have a new cash cow.
We don’t know really how these diets affect from one person to the next and their long term effects. All these diets are guess work at best. If one is willing to be the guinea pig for the diet industry money making machine and it works for you on a short term basis, enjoy your personal success.
The diet industry works because it exploits the fact it’s awfully hard for most of people to make any sustainable changes. Oddly enough, when people can’t change they are always looking for the ‘next change’. The good old ‘carrot and stick’ principle is at work here, it seems.
I eat a paleo diet and since doing so I've actually gained weight. That's a good thing! I've been weight lifting. So far I've gained 30lbs of muscle in around 2 years of lifting, off and on.
My tennis hitting has been good while eating this way, and energy levels improved from before the diet.
I also take a vitamin D3 supplement, which some consider paleo. As with many of us being indoors, I'm not able to get into the noonday sun as much as I wish. I take 6000ius a day of D3 in order to reach a testing level between 60 to 70ng/ml.
I also take a vitamin K2 supplement. At one time I enjoyed Kerry Gold grass fed butter and their cheeses too! Grass fed butter is high in K2. But I found dairy doesn't sit will with the gut so now I just supplement. Kind of nice vitamin, since taking K2 around 5 years ago I have not had a dental cavity. That is something K2 is known for, cavity prevention along with stronger bones, and improved heart health.
Saw this article on Dr. Eenfeldt's sight the other day. It's about a presentation researcher Dr. Cordain gave. Dr. Cordain is a leading researcher on the evolution of humans diet.
"What’s Wrong with the Diet of Today?"
Motivation comes from the results. You don't want to go back when you feel as good as you do on paleo (or doing whatever works for you).
I dont think anyone wrote this. But the balance between carbs, fats and proteins influence what is burned when. And you can have a croissant sunday morning even if you are open to and use the theories of paleo and other diets (or nutritional concepts).
There is no logic or evidence behind the assertion that moderation is best. It sure sounds like the right thing to do (like fat makes you fat), but thats about it.
Surprisingly, there is hardly any consensus on this.
This is probably the reason why programs that spell out precisely what to eat are so well received by certain people. General guides like "moderation", etc are not clear and detailed enough and not what most people want. That is the message I'm getting from this thread.
That's what I think. And this goes for both kinds of "diet" (the lose weight "diet" and "diet" simply meaning what you normally eat on a daily basis).
Separate names with a comma.