Losing weight - resurrecting the old thread

[Guest valueInv]

I've been using these guys:

 

http://www.fitorbit.com/

 

Have lost 7 pounds in 3 months and put on some muscle.

[biaggio]

90% less cancer in Africa

 

I tried to be a vegan for ~ 3m couldn t do it, now I try to limit my animal protein to a few , 3-4 oz per day

[Guest Hester]

This says nothing for nutrition and health, but losing weight isn't complicated. A friend of mine lost 35 pounds by doing nothing different other than taking up golf 3-4 times a week, walking and carrying clubs. Granted, it took him April to October, but still. There are many many ways to eat less and move more. Just get in a routine that takes your mind off of food and includes some moderate excercise. It must be comfortable or you'll never stick with it. A hobby that includes excercise can be all you need in some cases.

[ericd1]

I dropped from 210 to 185 in about a year.  The first 10 lbs came from just cutting back on portions and snacks. The next 10 lbs were harder. I cut back bread and pastries to the bone. Ok maybe one or two servings a week. Added 30 mins treadmill 3x week. The last 5 came from cutting more sugar and sticking with smaller portions 

 

My blood numbers improved a lot with the weight loss but adding flaxseed, walnuts and cinnamon to my diet took me below pre-diabetic range for the first time in many years. It was worth the effort. I feel good and my clothes fit better lol

[Liberty]

Best book I've read on the topic of nutrition is Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes. Despite the cute title, it's a heavy tome that is quite well-researched, synthesizing a lot of research. To give you an idea, it took about a decade to write. Highly recommended.

[tyska]

 

 

The part that is driving my thinking here, the big wakeup call, is the CANCER they are attributing to diets high in animal protein.  Specifically, the experiments around the casein protein in milk -- when fed to rats in amounts typical to our American diets, it gave them cancer.  Then they went back to their research done in the 1970s in China -- people who were exposed to the least animal protein had the least amount of cancer.

 

Just thinking that cancer  along with heart disease is a fairly recent problem, yet the homesteaders diet was neither paleo or low carb. Lots of dairy was used, the cow trailing behind the covered wagon wasn't along as a pet. Lots of egg and poultry and lots of bread. Beef or pork was a special event item mostly as you needed a large group to consume. Most of the herder tribes in Africa and Asia have diets high in milk,  usually raw or cultured as they have no refrigeration.

Looking at the typical ingredient list on a package with all the preservatives and additives, I could probably swallow that probability ahead of something that has been around for centuries.

[rkbabang]

Best book I've read on the topic of nutrition is Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes. Despite the cute title, it's a heavy tome that is quite well-researched, synthesizing a lot of research. To give you an idea, it took about a decade to write. Highly recommended.

 

I agree completely.  I usually recommend his shorter "Why We Get Fat" book to people though, because a 600 page densely written book with 150 pages of footnotes turns many people off.  I'm a engineer, so I just took it all in and loved reading it.  But it has been my experience, that such a tome is quite intimidating to a lot of folks.  I recommended both books to a relative of mine. He read  "Why We Get Fat" twice, but still hasn't been able to bring himself to start "Good Calories, Bad Calories" and it's been 6 months.  Yet he's made the lifestyle changes anyway and is doing great.

 

--Eric

 

[Uccmal]

A couple of comments.  Skeptic magazine has a well done critique of Taubes conclusions:

 

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/11-05-04/#feature

 

I read Good Calories/Bad Calories two years ago and took a stab at the diet.  I had worked out in a gym consistently for 4-5 years but with little aerobics.  It didn't really work for me that well.  Perhaps I was below the line in terms of obesity.  My wife got increasingly annoyed with the diet as well.  She needs her carbs - she runs ~ 15 miles per week.  And cooking separate meals for two fussy children and one fussy adult wore us both out.

 

So, I was Cross Country skiing last February and realized that I had gotten really sluggish and kinda fat.  To be fair part of my weight gain was attributable to lifting extremely heavy weights at the gym. 

 

I gave up the extreme lifting, and went to maintenance workouts.  I got new orthotics, a new pair of running shoes, and started jogging.  I have lost 20 lbs and eat mostly what I want at this point.  I am no longer sore all the time from the extreme weight lifting.  The running sometimes leaves me a little sore but I am careful, and use a walk/run routine from time to time.  I feel fitter than I have since my early 30s (15 years) when I used to mountain bike 2 hours per day.  I am probably stuck with a little middle age fat for good.  I have met marathoners who still have small spare tires so it is probably just a set point that comes with age.

 

I am of the mind that alot of the obesity issues today are caused by the Corn syrup/ and other excess processing in everything but I also disagree with Taubes Calories in Calories out argument.  I think he is correct, to a point.  Alot, however, has got to do with hormones and other things.  Taubes book, as good as it was, is only the first step in recognition that there is alot we dont know about diet, exercise, and weight gain.  The diet he espouses, which is basically the Zone, is perhaps great for diabetics, and other subgroups, but it is probably not meant for people who are mildly overwieght, and in otherwise good health.  The problem I see with blindly following any diet is that none of us knows the untended consequences.  Taubes did a great job researching what was wrong with the low fat/high carb diets but has missed the mark with his recommendations.  There is simply not alot of long term research to back up his higher fat/ low carb option.  What if its discovered in 10 years that carbs are needed to maintain key neurological functions?

 

I also found that I was just as hungry either way, especially when I started running again.

[ERICOPOLY]

I am of the mind that alot of the obesity issues today are caused by the Corn syrup/ and other excess processing in everything but I also disagree with Taubes Calories in Calories out argument.  I think he is correct, to a point.  Alot, however, has got to do with hormones and other things. 

 

I watched his lecture online, "Adiposity 101: Why We Get Fat".  I haven't read the book.

 

What struck me about his is that he DOES spend a lot of time discussing the role of hormones.  He points to a slide of a woman with lipidistrophy and says "what did her bottom half overeat while her top half is on a diet?".

 

That's why I liked his presentation -- comprehensive.  Not pretending that all body types are the same or will respond the same to given foods.

[Liberty]

A couple of comments.  Skeptic magazine has a well done critique of Taubes conclusions:

 

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/11-05-04/#feature

 

Interesting, but still just anecdote.

[ERICOPOLY]

Just thinking that cancer  along with heart disease is a fairly recent problem, yet the homesteaders diet was neither paleo or low carb. Lots of dairy was used, the cow trailing behind the covered wagon wasn't along as a pet. Lots of egg and poultry and lots of bread. Beef or pork was a special event item mostly as you needed a large group to consume. Most of the herder tribes in Africa and Asia have diets high in milk,  usually raw or cultured as they have no refrigeration.

Looking at the typical ingredient list on a package with all the preservatives and additives, I could probably swallow that probability ahead of something that has been around for centuries.

 

Regarding the homesteaders:  The start of the video shows that 100 years ago Americans ate half as much meat, less than half as much sugar, and less than half as much dairy.

 

The study in the video that implicates casein in cancer growth did this:  they exposed the rats to aflotoxin (a known carcinogen).  Then they observed that feeding them a diet high in animal protein (casein) turned on the cancer growth, and then reducing animal protein in the diet turned the cancer off again.

 

So yes, there are more environmental carcinogens that we are exposed to.  That makes us susceptible to getting a cancer started -- the research cited in the video suggests that animal protein plays a part in whether or not the cancer actually develops.

 

As for the heart disease: if you go back to the video by Prof Lustig (Sugar:  The Bitter Truth), that video points out that the high fructose consumption gets your liver to put triglicerides into your blood, and that winds up pairing up with LDL to create vLDL (the bad kind that starts the plaque formations in your arteries).

 

So the homesteaders and the people in Africa are not loading up on fructose, thus don't have the problem with triglycerides. 

 

Anyhow that's my take on what the videos are trying to present.

 

 

[tyska]

Just thinking that cancer  along with heart disease is a fairly recent problem, yet the homesteaders diet was neither paleo or low carb. Lots of dairy was used, the cow trailing behind the covered wagon wasn't along as a pet. Lots of egg and poultry and lots of bread. Beef or pork was a special event item mostly as you needed a large group to consume. Most of the herder tribes in Africa and Asia have diets high in milk,  usually raw or cultured as they have no refrigeration.

Looking at the typical ingredient list on a package with all the preservatives and additives, I could probably swallow that probability ahead of something that has been around for centuries.

 

Regarding the homesteaders:  The start of the video shows that 100 years ago Americans ate half as much meat, less than half as much sugar, and less than half as much dairy.

 

The study in the video that implicates casein in cancer growth did this:  they exposed the rats to aflotoxin (a known carcinogen).  Then they observed that feeding them a diet high in animal protein (casein) turned on the cancer growth, and then reducing animal protein in the diet turned the cancer off again.

 

So yes, there are more environmental carcinogens that we are exposed to.  That makes us susceptible to getting a cancer started -- the research cited in the video suggests that animal protein plays a part in whether or not the cancer actually develops.

 

As for the heart disease: if you go back to the video by Prof Lustig (Sugar:  The Bitter Truth), that video points out that the high fructose consumption gets your liver to put triglicerides into your blood, and that winds up pairing up with LDL to create vLDL (the bad kind that starts the plaque formations in your arteries).

 

So the homesteaders and the people in Africa are not loading up on fructose, thus don't have the problem with triglycerides. 

 

Anyhow that's my take on what the videos are trying to present.

It's all very interesting, if one only knew what was actual truth and what was spin. :) I'm sure that I read an article that something in soybean had been linked to cancer growth also. In that book I mentioned, he talks about how our ability to digest the protein in milk is linked to the pasteurization process that not only changes the protein structure but also kill the naturally occurring enzymes that break it down. He mentions a study with two groups of cats fed pasteurized and raw milk. He also links it to heart disease and such.

 

As far as how much was eaten 100 yrs ago I guess it is all anecdotal as it never went through a supply chain, I guess sugar would have as it is processed. I'm going mostly off what my father talked about eating growing up (born 1915). Milk from twice a day milking, butter, eggs, bread baked almost daily with butter or lard on it. Bread pudding made with the old bread and milk and eggs, chicken cooked up on Sunday. I think the weight problem was solved from just getting sick of what you were eating.  :)

 

As far as African diets, a lot of people over there that would probably love to have the discussion of what to cut out of their diet.

 

 

[alpha231616967560]

To me, the interesting thing about the food supply as far as meat is concerned is that what Americans eat today is far removed from what we (as a culture) ate 35 years ago. The vast majority of beef today comes from factory farms (as opposed to grass fed beef of yesterday, which is "premium" today) and the cattle are fed corn because it is a lot cheaper than grass thanks to subsidies, but also because it creates the marbled fat that people have come to like. So someone who hasn't changed his diet in 35 years is eating *a lot* more unhealthy fat than he was back in the day. Also, the antibiotics and hormones required to keep cows from being constantly sick on this diet are enormous, because their digestive system is custom designed for grass.

 

I don't know how this contributes to the chronic disease correlation, but it barely resembles what our fathers ate back in the day.

[sswan11]

I watched the Esselstyn video, now I'm confused.  Cut out oils - including olive oil?  No dairy at all? No fish (or chicken)?  What about fish oil?  Cholesterol < 150?  But whole grains are ok --

[FFHWatcher]

My 2 cents.

 

Dieting, weight loss, fat loss, performance related nutrition, etc., has been a major interest of mine for just over 20 years.  I studied it in University as well as continuing to study and research it for sport performance afterwards.  I have seen diet after diet after fad after fad after book after gimmick, all come and go ... all eventually went away except for what is the basis for how the human body works.  It is the only constant.  When it comes right down to it, the one and only fundamental formula that you need to understand is quite simple. 

 

1/ If calories in < calories out than you lose weight. 

2/ If calories in = calories out than you maintain your weight. 

3/ If calories in > calories out than you gain weight.

 

As with many other things, people and society never want to accept the simple, obvious solution because while it is simple, it isn't easy and because it doesn't make anyone any money.  I realize that posters will chime in to discuss the 'calorie in' side of the formula and tell me about this study and that study and about HDL and LDL and about heart disease and cancer and milk and animal products and about processed foods and about simple sugars and about low carb diets and about eating smaller more frequent meals and about zone diets and about Atkins and about <insert new study that they heard about in the news> ........  Then we can talk about the other side of the formula which is 'calories out' and they can go on and on about aerobic exercise vs. resistance exercise vs. walking vs. running vs. cycling vs. yoga vs. being active in the morning vs. being active in the evening, putting on muscle mass to burn calories all day long vs <insert new idea of how to make burning calories easy so people don't have to sweat or leave their computer here>

 

(there may be truth to how various foods may cause cancer, health problems, etc.  I am only talking about losing weight...fat specifically).  Most of time when people are active and are somewhere close to an ideal weight, most health problems disappear.

 

Summary : There are about 3500 calories in 1 pound.  If you want to lose 1 pound than you must, through a combination of 'calories in' (aka Food) and 'calories out' (aka activity), have a deficit of 3500 calories.  Repeat if necessary.  I can virtually assure you that if you make this process complicated and fail to grasp the simple fundamentals of how the human body works, than your chances of success will be reduced significantly.  Do not make it complicated.

 

http://calorielab.com/news/2010/11/20/twinkie-diet-results/ 

 

 

[ERICOPOLY]

 

Summary : There are about 3500 calories in 1 pound.  If you want to lose 1 pound than you must, through a combination of 'calories in' (aka Food) and 'calories out' (aka activity), have a deficit of 3500 calories.  Repeat if necessary. 

 

Did you get the chance to hear Taubes' alternative hypothesis?  He strongly disagrees with the simple calories in / calories out.  His reasoning makes sense (to me anyway).

 

http://videomedia2.swedish.org/mediasite/SilverlightPlayer/Default.aspx?peid=cd8c7aa15bc94a0486f4ee9b66ef8f8f

 

The argument is basically this: 

A diet that raises your blood sugar too high will trigger an insulin spike, and this insulin will signal your fat cells to store the energy in fat.  Thus you are left feeling low energy and you tend to want to eat more.

 

So the diet will dictate whether or not you will be able to control your eating to a level where you maintain your weight.  The more fiber you get with your carbs (whole foods), the more likely you are to maintain your weight.  The more processed the food (less fiber), the more you risk getting fat.  The fiber slows down the rate at which the carbs hit your blood stream, thus reducing the insulin spikes.  And of course the energy is there on a steady, slow flow until the next meal (vs a short term flood of carbs).

[alpha231616967560]

The argument is basically this: 

A diet that raises your blood sugar too high will trigger an insulin spike, and this insulin will signal your fat cells to store the energy in fat.  Thus you are left feeling low energy and you tend to want to eat more.

 

This is basically the rationale for my no-sugar habit, based on a steady stream of remarks from my wife (a physician) on my former favorite habit of eating a gigantic (six inch diameter!) chocolate (oh man it was delicious) cookie (oh how I miss it sometimes) from the local co-op. Daily habit. Sometimes twice daily habit. So now no sugar, I no longer crave those damn cookies and I am dropping weight consistently and have more energy. Going dancing right now, in fact.  8)

[maxthetrade]

I watched the Esselstyn video, now I'm confused.  Cut out oils - including olive oil?  No dairy at all? No fish (or chicken)?  What about fish oil?  Cholesterol < 150?  But whole grains are ok --

 

 

Exactly. No added oils. The results of following such a diet are really dramatic: http://www.heartattackproof.com/resolving_cade.htm

BTW, Bill Clinton recently switched to this diet after having bypass surgery, he speaks about it in this video (min. 23): http://edition.cnn.com/video/?/video/podcasts/gupta/site/2011/08/29/sgmd.last.heart.attack.cnn

 

Olive oil, fish oil etc. are only the latest fads (remember the betacarotin or Vit E craze a couple of years ago?), it's a myth that they are health promoting. They are only somewhat healthier alternatives to saturated fats. Here are some other popular food myths: http://www.cbsnews.com/2300-204_162-10004624.html

 

I'm posting these links with some reservation because I usually think it's a bad idea to get your health info from the media or semi-scientific sources, I much prefer to look at the research papers myself just as I read annual reports myself and don't rely on the media to get it right.

 

[sswan11]

My sister is a gastroenterologist - I just talked to her yesterday - she and her family (her husband a surgeon) eat fish everyday.  She believes in HDL's.  She said that Esselstyn's theory's don't jibe with generally accepted current medical kinowledge (no surprise there - she didn't watch the video though).  How do you eat salads w/o any oil? I started just trying to avoid sugar and carbs, this no oil thing has be wondering if I need to go further (though I have no cardiac history family does have a slight problems w/ elevated blood glucose)....What about nuts & oil from nuts? 

 

I don't see mention of randomized controlled trials in his published articles, which might provide "proof".  These seem to be more cohort studies.

[FFHWatcher]

 

Summary : There are about 3500 calories in 1 pound.  If you want to lose 1 pound than you must, through a combination of 'calories in' (aka Food) and 'calories out' (aka activity), have a deficit of 3500 calories.  Repeat if necessary. 

 

Did you get the chance to hear Taubes' alternative hypothesis?  He strongly disagrees with the simple calories in / calories out.  His reasoning makes sense (to me anyway).

 

http://videomedia2.swedish.org/mediasite/SilverlightPlayer/Default.aspx?peid=cd8c7aa15bc94a0486f4ee9b66ef8f8f

 

The argument is basically this: 

A diet that raises your blood sugar too high will trigger an insulin spike, and this insulin will signal your fat cells to store the energy in fat.  Thus you are left feeling low energy and you tend to want to eat more.

 

So the diet will dictate whether or not you will be able to control your eating to a level where you maintain your weight.  The more fiber you get with your carbs (whole foods), the more likely you are to maintain your weight.  The more processed the food (less fiber), the more you risk getting fat.  The fiber slows down the rate at which the carbs hit your blood stream, thus reducing the insulin spikes.  And of course the energy is there on a steady, slow flow until the next meal (vs a short term flood of carbs).

 

Ok, I tried to watch it, lasted a few minutes, skipped ahead but I was not going to spend 90 minutes watching the video so I will use your summary.  I agree that different foods trigger different feelings and cravings.  Foods trigger hormones which trigger feelings and cravings which causes us to eat.  The types of foods you discuss are good foods that have positive characteristics such as slowing the rate that carbs hit your bloodstream, etc.  The reality is, if you eat too much of this food and have a positive caloric balance at the end of each day than you will gain weight, insulin response or not. 

 

There is no need to watch long videos or to learn something new.  Just eat good healthy whole foods (or twinky's if you must as shown in the link I included above) and make sure that expend more calories in a day than you take in...and you will lose fat.  It is that simple (remember, it is simple, not easy).

 

Ericopoly ; how does Taubes explain eating 1800 calories of twinky's/day and burning >1800 calories per day and losing weight?  I certainly do not suggest this type of diet...it is idiotic but it explains a simple truth.  Of course, I bet his insulin must have been on a huge roller coaster ride. 

 

I don't understand why this simple conventional wisdom as Taube says in his lecture, is unacceptable to so many?  Why keep looking for an answer when it is right in front of you?  I doubt that Taube is suggesting that even people who consume way less calories than they burn gain weight.  Is he?

[ERICOPOLY]

I doubt that Taube is suggesting that even people who consume way less calories than they burn gain weight.  Is he?

 

Try listening for a few minutes from 18:40 in the presentation.

 

The key question is why do people get fat?  Why don't they eat exactly as many calories as they expend?  I mean, he says that if you eat less calories than you expend, in the long run you'll be dead from starvation.  And if you eat more than you expend, you'll be fat for sure.

 

Ask yourself how you keep it in check?  Do you measure precisely what you take in and do you carefully plan your day so that you burn off exactly that many calories?

 

Taubes is a physicist, so the thermodynamics isn't a new subject to him.  As he points out, he gets a chuckle out of the people who try to explain it to him.

 

Look, I was a math major, so for me the calories in vs calories out seems completely logical.  I changed my mind after hearing him out.

 

Agree, you can't spend 90 minutes on every single nut on the internet that makes a video.

 

But I found the 90 minutes spent on his lecture to be entirely worth it.

 

Given your logical remarks (and they are logical), I think you'll be quite entertained for the full 90 minutes or so.