If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Atlantic)   Low-carb high-fat diets, once deemed bad for cholesterol, then good for cholesterol, then bad, then good, are now considered bad until tomorrow's rigorous scientific study finds the opposite   (theatlantic.com) divider line 177
    More: Obvious, scientific methods, low-carbohydrate diet, cholesterol, food faddism, saturated fats, fat diets, peas, fat  
•       •       •

1406 clicks; posted to Geek » on 12 Jun 2012 at 12:18 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



177 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-06-12 12:21:03 AM
"Low anything-high anything else" diets are all bad. Your body was made to have a balance of all three of fat, protein, and carbs.
 
2012-06-12 12:24:15 AM
Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.

(Though, as Pollan himself has attested, Inuit subsist rather well on a diet comprising mostly seal meat.)
 
2012-06-12 12:25:23 AM
What's the matter, subby? Lose the URL for the Daily Mail?
 
2012-06-12 12:28:55 AM

TofuTheAlmighty: Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.

(Though, as Pollan himself has attested, Inuit subsist rather well on a diet comprising mostly seal meat.)


And blubber. Don't forget the blubber.
 
2012-06-12 12:38:47 AM
As someone who just got put on high blood pressure meds, this article is relevant to my interests.
 
2012-06-12 12:41:23 AM

TofuTheAlmighty: Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.

(Though, as Pollan himself has attested, Inuit subsist rather well on a diet comprising mostly seal meat.)


Why mostly plants?

what is "mostly".
 
2012-06-12 12:41:52 AM
Considering how massively carb-centric our modern diets are, a little high cholesterol probably beats the fark out of the 'beetus.
 
2012-06-12 12:54:41 AM

Smackledorfer: what is "mostly".


bestuff.com
 
2012-06-12 12:56:47 AM
How is taking in 45% of your calories by way of carbs a low-carb diet? I'm fairly certain people who are pushing for high fats are only taking in like 5-10% carbs.
 
2012-06-12 12:57:51 AM
When did anyone (who wasn't selling a book) consider low carb, high fat diets to be good?
 
2012-06-12 01:01:55 AM
Is coffee still good for you...this week?
 
2012-06-12 01:06:29 AM
The processed food companies that licensed the names of all the low carb diets managed to find plenty of interesting ways to make low carb diets unhealthy.
 
2012-06-12 01:10:32 AM

whatshisname: When did anyone (who wasn't selling a book) consider low carb, high fat diets to be good?


The millions of people who bought the books maybe?
 
2012-06-12 01:11:00 AM
i486.photobucket.com
It's not good for motorcycles, either.
 
2012-06-12 01:11:55 AM
Eat whatever the hell you want. Make sure you include lots of delicious cheese.
My friend Christina is running in the Cheesemonger Inivitational and is collecting votes to win a large wheel of delicious cheese. If you love cheese check it out, and make sure to click vote/like for Christina here:

http://www.cheesemongerinvitational.com/gourmet-library/

Please! She'll share the cheese with me!
 
2012-06-12 01:12:25 AM
I'm following the "It tastes like shiat" diet.

Basically if it tastes like shiat, you eat it. Invariably, if something tastes good, it's bad for you. So buy more of the stuff that tastes like shiat.

Seems to be working.
 
2012-06-12 01:15:27 AM
Yes, many people have lost weight on a low carbohydrate diet, and an entire industry has sprouted up around that claim. But while complex carbohydrate consumption in the U.S. has declined significantly since the late 1990s, American obesity rates remain the highest on the planet.

Uh, what? When did this happen?

Seriously, we're at a point where even water is now loaded with sugar.

They'll make their usual claim: that this is yet another conspiracy of scientists who just don't get it, scientists who don't understand nutrition, scientists who somehow made it through their PhD's and MD's without knowing the first thing about how the human body works. But let's face it -- most of us know in our hearts that eschewing a breakfast of whole grains and fruit crowned with a dab of yogurt for a greasy pile of sausage, bacon, and eggs is not the road to health.

I didn't realize that your heart was now considered a scientific source.

Also, the paper doesn't even refute the idea of low carb diets. It refutes the idea of diets where fat consumption went up slightly. Here's an except:

In conclusion, men and women in northern Sweden decreased their reported intake of total and saturated fat in the first years following the introduction of an intervention programme, but after 2004 fat intake increased, especially saturated fat and butter-based spread for bread and butter for cooking. Supportive opinions in media for high-fat diets seem to have had an impact on consumer behaviour. Initially beneficial and thereafter deleterious changes in blood cholesterol paralleled these trends in food selection, whereas a claimed weight reduction by high-fat diets was not seen in the most recent years. In contrast, BMI increased continuously over the 25-year period. These changes in risk factors may have important effects on primary and secondary prevention of CVD.

I'm pretty sure that the low carb diet doesn't encourage people to eat lots and lots of bread.
 
2012-06-12 01:19:04 AM

Lipspinach: whatshisname: When did anyone (who wasn't selling a book) consider low carb, high fat diets to be good?

The millions of people who bought the books maybe?


I've never seen a long-term "low-carb" diet plan that was really all that low carb anyways. None that I've seen say "ketosis for life!" and every one I've seen recommends tracking what you eat and tweaking what you eat based on your activity level. If you are active, you can up your carbs quite a bit.

On top of that, you look at a lot of the low-carb advice and it biggest focus is cutting out sugar snacks and bullshiat like white bread. 1 cup of berries is fewer carbs than a slice of wonder bread. An active person still eat quite a bit of fruits, veggies, milk, etc.

I think the low-carb plans get a much worse rap than they should.
 
2012-06-12 01:19:24 AM
Yeah, look at figure 2.

This study is talking about people who (in the mens' case) went from roughly 240g of carbohydrates per day per 2000 calories to 200g (on a 2000 calorie diet, 40% of energy from carbs would = 800cal from carbs. 1g/4cal = 200g). At the same time they approached 40% of their energy as an upper bound from fat - again, same calorie diet = 800/cal * 1g/9cal = 88.8g of fat. (Now, as a bonus question - wonder how many of these people ate anything close to a 2000 calorie diet?)

This study doesn't say anything about "low-carb/high-fat" diets at all.
 
2012-06-12 01:20:44 AM
I've heard that those keto diets are really good for kids with epilepsy.

And by "heard" I mean "read on the interwebs"
 
2012-06-12 01:25:30 AM

schrodinger: Yes, many people have lost weight on a low carbohydrate diet, and an entire industry has sprouted up around that claim. But while complex carbohydrate consumption in the U.S. has declined significantly since the late 1990s, American obesity rates remain the highest on the planet.

Uh, what? When did this happen?

Seriously, we're at a point where even water is now loaded with sugar.

They'll make their usual claim: that this is yet another conspiracy of scientists who just don't get it, scientists who don't understand nutrition, scientists who somehow made it through their PhD's and MD's without knowing the first thing about how the human body works. But let's face it -- most of us know in our hearts that eschewing a breakfast of whole grains and fruit crowned with a dab of yogurt for a greasy pile of sausage, bacon, and eggs is not the road to health.

I didn't realize that your heart was now considered a scientific source.

Also, the paper doesn't even refute the idea of low carb diets. It refutes the idea of diets where fat consumption went up slightly. Here's an except:

In conclusion, men and women in northern Sweden decreased their reported intake of total and saturated fat in the first years following the introduction of an intervention programme, but after 2004 fat intake increased, especially saturated fat and butter-based spread for bread and butter for cooking. Supportive opinions in media for high-fat diets seem to have had an impact on consumer behaviour. Initially beneficial and thereafter deleterious changes in blood cholesterol paralleled these trends in food selection, whereas a claimed weight reduction by high-fat diets was not seen in the most recent years. In contrast, BMI increased continuously over the 25-year period. These changes in risk factors may have important effects on primary and secondary prevention of CVD.

I'm pretty sure that the low carb diet doesn't encourage people to eat lots and lots of bread.


HFCS is a simple sugar.
 
2012-06-12 01:32:45 AM

meat0918:

HFCS isn't a simple sugar.


fixt
 
2012-06-12 01:37:01 AM
What about the frogurt?
 
2012-06-12 01:41:54 AM
If it weren't for grappellispizza.com, I'd be an Adonis.
 
2012-06-12 01:42:51 AM

Stile4aly: What about the frogurt?


It's cursed. But you get your choice of topping.
 
2012-06-12 02:04:09 AM

lewismarktwo: meat0918:

HFCS isn't a simple sugar.

fixt


HFCS is just bad.
 
2012-06-12 02:06:11 AM

GearishFear: How is taking in 45% of your calories by way of carbs a low-carb diet? I'm fairly certain people who are pushing for high fats are only taking in like 5-10% carbs.


Exactly. Even back when Atkins wrote his book he specifically mentioned that most "low-carb" studies only dropped the cabs a little bit. In the initial phase of his diet carbs are dropped to well under 30 grams a day, or 10% of normal intake. It needs to be this low for his diet to actually force your metabolism to change. So whoever wrote this drivel obviously knows nothing about an actual low-carb diet.

But that's nothing compared to this whopper:

FTA: But the popular folk lore that carbohydrates found naturally in fruits, vegetables and grains are responsible for the nation's epidemic of obesity...

Lol wut?

Ok, does it even count as a straw man argument if you obviously live in a fantasy land?

/been on Atkins and yes, it works like crazy for weight loss. Is it healthy for you long term? Almost certainly not.
 
2012-06-12 02:17:28 AM

LordOfThePings: Stile4aly: What about the frogurt?

It's cursed. But you get your choice of topping.


That's good.
 
2012-06-12 02:21:45 AM

Zombalupagus: /been on Atkins and yes, it works like crazy for weight loss. Is it healthy for you long term? Almost certainly not.


It actually has multiple phases. Once you get past the actual weight-losing phase you can add quite a bit more carbs.

And, to add to my earlier post, regardless of what diet you choose for your lifetime goals, exercise and activity is your friend. If you are doing much of either, you will be eating plenty of carbs even on a relatively low-carb diet.
 
2012-06-12 02:22:47 AM

AbbeySomeone: lewismarktwo: meat0918:

HFCS isn't a simple sugar.

fixt

HFCS is just bad.


All refined sugars are bad when you consume too much.
 
2012-06-12 02:36:44 AM
I've seen this article already. The study is bad and the article is worse. I could go into it more, but you should be skeptical of the language alone.
 
2012-06-12 02:50:21 AM

Harry_Seldon: AbbeySomeone: lewismarktwo: meat0918:

HFCS isn't a simple sugar.

fixt

HFCS is just bad.

All refined sugars are Everything is bad when you consume too much.


FTFY.
 
2012-06-12 03:07:12 AM

Benjimin_Dover: "Low anything-high anything else" diets are all bad. Your body was made to have a balance of all three of fat, protein, and carbs.


CITATION NEEDED
 
2012-06-12 03:08:35 AM
In the last 3 weeks i've cut out Fast Food, Chips, regular and diet soda, candy, and added salt. I've been traveling for work, and somehow i got into these crap food habits over the course of the last 8 months. Mind you i've never stopped working out or exercising (a couple years ago I had my bench press at 300lbs, while my body weight was 195). I had gotten up to 240lbs and just decided that if i didnt fix this mess i put myself in, i was going to get fat as can be. I had basically gotten to the point where I was addicted to shiat food. Now, i'm mentally focused. I've been working on a go-live for a hospital, for the last four nights doing 12 hour nights. Junk food everywhere, and all i'm doing is water, black coffee, apples and oranges, and protein shakes.

I've already dropped 14lbs and starting to see some of my old muscle definition again. Coupled with doing cardio and lifting, I'm about 20lbs away from being at a good weight again. its a huge burden off my shoulders, because I knew what i was doing but for whatever reason the light wasn't going off in my head telling me to freaking STOP!.

I completely understand people that struggle with food. Its the same brain processes that get you addicted to whatever else, eating shiatty foods just feels good. Its been very, very, very hard the last few weeks to deal with. especially cutting out salt. but like i said, its a relief that i got my mind right with bad eating.

in any case, i have noticed i'm eating less carbs. but not out of forcing myself; I just havent been craving them since i started really dieting hard.
 
2012-06-12 03:20:12 AM

Smackledorfer: Zombalupagus: /been on Atkins and yes, it works like crazy for weight loss. Is it healthy for you long term? Almost certainly not.

It actually has multiple phases. Once you get past the actual weight-losing phase you can add quite a bit more carbs.

And, to add to my earlier post, regardless of what diet you choose for your lifetime goals, exercise and activity is your friend. If you are doing much of either, you will be eating plenty of carbs even on a relatively low-carb diet.


Been using Atkins for almost two years and have lost 160 pounds. Even under the first stage of it your eating tons of veggies. 4-6 ounce of meat per meal. No where in Dr Atkins book does it say go crazy on butter or other fats.
 
2012-06-12 03:35:15 AM

LordJiro: Harry_Seldon: AbbeySomeone: lewismarktwo: meat0918:

HFCS isn't a simple sugar.

fixt

HFCS is just bad.

All refined sugars are Everything is bad when you consume too much.

FTFY.


I ate a giant bowls of raw veggies for dinner with a little balsamic vinegar and hot sesame chili oil ( and 56 grams of baked chicken). I like it, but it makes me gassy.

//the kind of thing you will confess to Farkers, but not your best friends.
 
2012-06-12 06:46:02 AM
Most people just need to indulge the low-everything diet.

It solves the entire issue.
 
2012-06-12 07:20:19 AM
I prefer the, "exercise vigorously, est whatever the hell i want" diet.

/""
 
2012-06-12 07:32:08 AM

TofuTheAlmighty: Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.

(Though, as Pollan himself has attested, Inuit subsist rather well on a diet comprising mostly seal meat.)


I have been eating asparagus and salmon almost everyday this month. My urine smells horrid but I feel grrrrreat.
 
2012-06-12 07:52:24 AM

meat0918: TofuTheAlmighty: Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.

(Though, as Pollan himself has attested, Inuit subsist rather well on a diet comprising mostly seal meat.)

And blubber. Don't forget the blubber.


Macadamia.
 
2012-06-12 08:01:01 AM

Benjimin_Dover: "Low anything-high anything else" diets are all bad. Your body was made to have a balance of all three of fat, protein, and carbs.


Yeah, but the carbs weren't things like processed sugar, high fructose corn syrup, or stuff like bread and potatoes. It was more like the natural sugars in fruits and such, and unprocessed whole grains.

The problem becomes when your diet consists mostly of stuff like potatoes, bread, pasta, etc. Those are easily absorbed and calorie dense foods that make it far too easy to take in more energy than you burn. I went on a low-carb, low-fat diet over a year ago, and I've lost over 60 lbs. I even *FEEL* healthier. And it's not just a diet, it's how I eat now.
 
2012-06-12 08:08:32 AM

schrodinger:
They'll make their usual claim: that this is yet another conspiracy of scientists who just don't get it, scientists who don't understand nutrition, scientists who somehow made it through their PhD's and MD's without knowing the first thing about how the human body works. But let's face it -- most of us know in our hearts that eschewing a breakfast of whole grains and fruit crowned with a dab of yogurt for a greasy pile of sausage, bacon, and eggs is not the road to health.

I didn't realize that your heart was now considered a scientific source.


ConAgra loves me, this I know.
For Monsanto tells me so.
All our base belong to it.
So eat your corn; stop talking shiat.
 
2012-06-12 08:12:23 AM
I lost 60 pounds over the last year on a low-ish carb, reasonable-calorie diet. 1,500 calories on days I don't work out, 1,800 calories on days I do. Cut way back on "dense" carbs (pasta, potatoes,) still have whole wheat bread a few times a week. Get out and walk about 3 miles when I get home from work rather than sit on the couch and drink beer. No fast food, & keep a huge box of 1-oz packs of peanuts from Sam's in the office for when I need a mid-afternoon snack.

Sounds radical, I know.
 
2012-06-12 08:17:58 AM

Mid_mo_mad_man: No where in Dr Atkins book does it say go crazy on butter or other fats.


Exactly. He says that they aren't as bad as most people assume, so people shouldn't be afraid of them, but recommends as balanced a diet as possible while maintaining whatever amount of carbs causes you to still lose weight.
 
2012-06-12 08:18:08 AM

Old enough to know better: As someone who just got put on high blood pressure meds, this article is relevant to my interests.


Having just got myself OFF of high blood pressure meds and anti-inflammatories, you owe it to yourself to check out this book and this site:

- 53 lbs and counting...

The Primal Blueprint

http://www.marksdailyapple.com
 
2012-06-12 08:19:08 AM
Look its not that hard. Like someone said above me most high carb foods are calorie dense and nutritionally vacuous. Bread, potatoes, pasta, staples of the american diet are composed of nothing but pure make-you-fatium molecules. Eat meat, eat cheese, eat veggies. Their nutrition to calorie ratio is a lot higher. Hell I even stay away from fruit, because honestly you can get most of the nutrition you can get from fruit in vegetables without the huge amounts of sugar. If most americans would stop drinking carbonated syrup and chugging bread like its a requirement with every meal they'd be fine. and guess what, if you do that its carb restriction. You dont have to freebase butter to be on a low carb diet.
 
2012-06-12 08:23:48 AM

TofuTheAlmighty: Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.

(Though, as Pollan himself has attested, Inuit subsist rather well on a diet comprising mostly seal meat.)


you can eat mostly plants, and still eat low-carb. I do.
My diet is around 50-60 % non starchy plants, the rest fat and protein. No grains! No sugar!

Im a type 1 diabetic and have reduced my insulin requirements to 0-3 units per meal (before I was taking 7-12 units per meal). Im 32 and my bloodwork looks like a teenagers (cholesterol, hA1C). I'm under 8% bodyfat.
And to anyone who thinks you need carbs for 'energy'. I did this brutal crossfit workout last month while in ketosis (zero carb for a few days) and had one of the best scores at my gym- "Murph" (1 mile run, 100 pullups, 200 pushups, 300 Squats, another 1 mile run, all wearing a 20 pound vest)- I did it in 43 minutes.

If someone can get this can of success eating high carb... Bravo! But I havent seen it, or been able to do it myself.
 
2012-06-12 08:25:14 AM
We need to add basic nutrition as a class starting in 1st grade. An entire generation doesn't have any idea how to eat healthy so they can't pass that information on to their kids. If we teach people how to eat and exercise young maybe in 30 or 40 years well start reducing obesity numbers.
 
2012-06-12 08:25:35 AM
I lost 50 pounds of unsightly fat on low-carb, then I became physically active again, upped the carbs to match my level of physical activity, works like a charm.

Haven't eaten fast food since 2008

/jonesing for a Wendy's cheeseburger and fries and frostee
 
2012-06-12 08:29:02 AM
Low carbohydrate evangelists will almost certainly attack today's announcement--and perhaps this post -- with biblical fury. They'll make their usual claim: that this is yet another conspiracy of scientists who just don't get it, scientists who don't understand nutrition, scientists who somehow made it through their PhD's and MD's without knowing the first thing about how the human body works.

How activists are destroying the public's trust in science... but it's for your own good!
 
2012-06-12 08:30:33 AM

Benjimin_Dover: "Low anything-high anything else" diets are all bad. Your body was made to have a balance of all three of fat, protein, and carbs mostly from vegetables.


I would like to add this important detail.
 
2012-06-12 08:31:16 AM

Lyonid: schrodinger:
They'll make their usual claim: that this is yet another conspiracy of scientists who just don't get it, scientists who don't understand nutrition, scientists who somehow made it through their PhD's and MD's without knowing the first thing about how the human body works. But let's face it -- most of us know in our hearts that eschewing a breakfast of whole grains and fruit crowned with a dab of yogurt for a greasy pile of sausage, bacon, and eggs is not the road to health.

I didn't realize that your heart was now considered a scientific source.


ConAgra loves me, this I know.
For Monsanto tells me so.
All our base belong to it.
So eat your corn; stop talking shiat.


I love this. Is it yours?
 
2012-06-12 08:38:23 AM
Low carbohydrate evangelists will almost certainly attack today's announcement--and perhaps this post -- with biblical fury. They'll make their usual claim: that this is yet another conspiracy of scientists who just don't get it, scientists who don't understand nutrition, scientists who somehow made it through their PhD's and MD's without knowing the first thing about how the human body works.

Yeah, those stupid people wanting evidence rather than just statements from authority figures!

But let's face it -- most of us know in our hearts that eschewing a breakfast of whole grains and fruit crowned with a dab of yogurt for a greasy pile of sausage, bacon, and eggs is not the road to health.

/facepalm
 
2012-06-12 08:39:17 AM

Demise: Old enough to know better: As someone who just got put on high blood pressure meds, this article is relevant to my interests.

Having just got myself OFF of high blood pressure meds and anti-inflammatories, you owe it to yourself to check out this book and this site:

- 53 lbs and counting...

The Primal Blueprint

http://www.marksdailyapple.com


I've got his book, and it you read the website you'll get everything you need. The book is more of a high overview of what/why and such. The web explains it just as well, and he's pretty honest about 'you don't need this book'.

My understanding of 'low carb' diets are that they more accurately mean 'no sugar grain starch or pasta' diets. You still get tons and tons of carbs from veg and fruit, as well as sugar. Fruit and veg are just nutrient dense and calorie mild to light. As opposed to grains being nutrient empty and super calorie dense.
 
2012-06-12 08:41:35 AM

kroonermanblack: Demise: Old enough to know better: As someone who just got put on high blood pressure meds, this article is relevant to my interests.

Having just got myself OFF of high blood pressure meds and anti-inflammatories, you owe it to yourself to check out this book and this site:

- 53 lbs and counting...

The Primal Blueprint

http://www.marksdailyapple.com

I've got his book, and it you read the website you'll get everything you need. The book is more of a high overview of what/why and such. The web explains it just as well, and he's pretty honest about 'you don't need this book'.

My understanding of 'low carb' diets are that they more accurately mean 'no sugar grain starch or pasta' diets. You still get tons and tons of carbs from veg and fruit, as well as sugar. Fruit and veg are just nutrient dense and calorie mild to light. As opposed to grains being nutrient empty and super calorie dense.


No, "low carb" means "no carb," it makes no sense to eat fruit or starchy vegetables on a low carb diet
 
2012-06-12 08:44:14 AM

kroonermanblack: My understanding of 'low carb' diets are that they more accurately mean 'no sugar grain starch or pasta' diets. You still get tons and tons of carbs from veg and fruit, as well as sugar. Fruit and veg are just nutrient dense and calorie mild to light. As opposed to grains being nutrient empty and super calorie dense.


There's a few kinds of carbs that don't count against your total, like sugar alcohol and fiber. There also isn't a general goal to hit, some people's metabolisms are such that they can have whole grain pasta once or twice a week and still lose weight (since their maintenance intake's up in the like 150/day range), other people need to have it much lower at the like 20-30/day range. Exercise helps significantly along multiple vectors, as it not only makes you lose weight faster (since your body uses stored fat for energy rather than intaked carbs) but it also pushes your allowable intake upwards.

It also depends heavily on the flavor of 'low carb', as some (like the paleo diet) are fine with as many carbs as you want from certain sources like fruit, while others (like Atkins) treat all net carbs the same.
 
2012-06-12 08:51:38 AM
I just hope those responsible for the original study have been sacked.
 
2012-06-12 08:59:27 AM

limboslam: [i486.photobucket.com image 562x465]
It's not good for motorcycles, either.


Those sparks are going the wrong way if they are being caused by the rotation of the wheel...

And what the fark, how many times does it really need to be said? Sensible diet and exercise. That's it. There's no tricks or magic secrets to not being a fat piece of shiat.
 
2012-06-12 09:00:26 AM

TheOriginalEd: You dont have to freebase butter to be on a low carb diet.


Butter's a great source of energy... not sure how you'd freebase it, though. I prefer it in coffee with a couple of tablespoons of coconut oil to start my morning. Keeps me energetic and alert through lunch.
 
2012-06-12 09:05:38 AM

star_topology: Lyonid: schrodinger:
They'll make their usual claim: that this is yet another conspiracy of scientists who just don't get it, scientists who don't understand nutrition, scientists who somehow made it through their PhD's and MD's without knowing the first thing about how the human body works. But let's face it -- most of us know in our hearts that eschewing a breakfast of whole grains and fruit crowned with a dab of yogurt for a greasy pile of sausage, bacon, and eggs is not the road to health.

I didn't realize that your heart was now considered a scientific source.


ConAgra loves me, this I know.
For Monsanto tells me so.
All our base belong to it.
So eat your corn; stop talking shiat.

I love this. Is it yours?


Ever have one of those moments when something springs into your head so quickly that you wonder whether you made it up on the spot or just suddenly recalled it from some obscure corner of your mind? Yeah, that right there. Perhaps teh googles can reveal whether I was a clever lyricist or skilled plagiarist this morning...
 
2012-06-12 09:10:15 AM

star_topology: Benjimin_Dover: "Low anything-high anything else" diets are all bad. Your body was made to have a balance of all three of fat, protein, and carbs mostly from vegetables.

I would like to add this important detail.


Sadly many people miss that part. Friend's daughter is a vegetarian; no big deal, but I forgot that the last time they came over for some grilled perch. I apologized and said next time I'd hook up some vegie-kabobs with garlic butter marinette. She said oh, she doesn't eat vegetables either... So it's basically fruit and cake, and sadly it shows. The mother is one of those free-range hippy types too so any advice would just be met with "but she has to be allowed to be her own person!"
 
2012-06-12 09:18:08 AM

StrangeQ: She said oh, she doesn't eat vegetables either...


What the fark... I hope she has a good supplementation plan.
 
2012-06-12 09:27:14 AM

Benjimin_Dover: "Low anything-high anything else" diets are all bad. Your body was made to have a balance of all three of fat, protein, and carbs.


No, it wasn't. By a wide margin you need more carbs than anything else since it's a basic, readily-available form of fuel that your body uses constantly through the day. Carbs are a key form of easily accessed energy for your heart and brain, in particular. If you Google you'll find all kinds of sources ranging from multiple governmental health organizations to doctor's groups to trainers and dieticians who all say almost across the board that a healthy target is fifty to sixty percent of your intake being carbs.

Low carb diets are just shortcuts for stupid people who don't understand the difference between fruits and vegetables and 64 oz cups of carbonated sugar water. Instead of wasting their money on fad after fad diet they'd be better just paying the same amount up front one time to talk to a nutritionist and trainer who can educate them on good eating habits and construct an exercise plan for them.
 
2012-06-12 09:28:37 AM

StrangeQ: Those sparks are going the wrong way if they are being caused by the rotation of the wheel...


Not to mention that rubber doesn't normally spark.
 
2012-06-12 09:29:05 AM

StrangeQ: star_topology: Benjimin_Dover: "Low anything-high anything else" diets are all bad. Your body was made to have a balance of all three of fat, protein, and carbs mostly from vegetables.

I would like to add this important detail.

Sadly many people miss that part. Friend's daughter is a vegetarian; no big deal, but I forgot that the last time they came over for some grilled perch. I apologized and said next time I'd hook up some vegie-kabobs with garlic butter marinette. She said oh, she doesn't eat vegetables either... So it's basically fruit and cake, and sadly it shows. The mother is one of those free-range hippy types too so any advice would just be met with "but she has to be allowed to be her own person!"


Crikey.

Almost as scary as my wife's (now ex-best) friend disowning us because we eat healthy and exercise and that makes them feel bad so we should never ever discuss those things (Hey, this stuff can improve your life) with them in order for them to remain friends. Yes, that conversation actually happened.

/paleo + crossfit
//we're not crazy, honest
///moar bacon
 
2012-06-12 09:31:47 AM

Benjimin_Dover: "Low anything-high anything else" diets are all bad. Your body was made to have a balance of all three of fat, protein, and carbs.


If you're overfat, chances are that your body has stuff stored in fat cells. If you're trying to lose weight, going low-carb means that your body is probably going to start burning the stuff in the fat cells, making you lose weight, and your body won't miss a whole lot.

Your overgeneralization is bad, just like all overgeneralizations.

Also, define "balance". I grew up eating cereal in the morning, a sandwich at lunch, and an extra slice of bread served with dinner, because bread is good for you. Chances are I didn't need all that, but that was considered "balance" then.
 
2012-06-12 09:36:13 AM

star_topology: Almost as scary as my wife's (now ex-best) friend disowning us because we eat healthy and exercise and that makes them feel bad so we should never ever discuss those things (Hey, this stuff can improve your life) with them in order for them to remain friends. Yes, that conversation actually happened.


Were you preaching to them and trying to convert them to your lifestyle? I thought FARKers hated that.
 
2012-06-12 09:40:32 AM

Splinshints: By a wide margin you need more carbs than anything else since it's a basic, readily-available form of fuel that your body uses constantly through the day.


I'd suggest googling Ketosis. Your body is more adaptable than you think.
 
2012-06-12 09:45:48 AM

GilRuiz1: star_topology: Almost as scary as my wife's (now ex-best) friend disowning us because we eat healthy and exercise and that makes them feel bad so we should never ever discuss those things (Hey, this stuff can improve your life) with them in order for them to remain friends. Yes, that conversation actually happened.

Were you preaching to them and trying to convert them to your lifestyle? I thought FARKers hated that.


As the objective one in the relationship, I am the first one to realize that and often warn the wifey to not come across as pushy or elitist. But I can honestly say no we have not been evangelical in our suggestion of the Paleo Diet to our friends. In fact, we have recommended it to many of our friends, and have generally received a lot of positive feedback.
 
2012-06-12 09:46:22 AM

Splinshints: Low carb diets are just shortcuts for stupid people who don't understand the difference between fruits and vegetables and 64 oz cups of carbonated sugar water.


The problem with your statement is that much modern foodstuffs are as bad as that sugar water. The plethora of wheat, corn, rice, and potato based foods weren't really around when we evolved into modern humans. Fruits and vegetables are great. I eat what I consider to be a "low carb" diet, and I'm about to consume an apple for my mid-morning snack. What I got away from wasn't all carbs, but all modern, high calorie nutrient free carbs, things like added sugar/HFCS, pasta, bread, potatoes, and rice. I still have them occasionally, but they are a much, much smaller part of my food intake than they used to be.

It works:

i56.tinypic.com

Me at the 2011 Southern Vermont Primitive Biathlon

i41.tinypic.com

Me at the 2012 SVTPB. Note the distinct lack of gut. I was actually able to *RUN* most of the course this year.
 
2012-06-12 09:50:21 AM
Oh it's this thread again.

I don't eat red meat (no special reason, I just don't like it much), eat tons of carbs, and I've never had a weight problem. I even tend to be a little on the skinny side.

Anecdotal evidence indeed: Most of the big fat farks I know eat a lot of meat.
 
2012-06-12 09:51:00 AM

Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: Considering how massively carb-centric our modern diets are, a little high cholesterol probably beats the fark out of the 'beetus.


Well, yes, simple carbs. And fat. People are not eating a lot of complex carbs. That means whole grain, unprocessed or minimally processed grain. Avoid processed foods. Make things with real ingredients. Eat no more than 5 ounces of animal protein a day, and make it lean protein most of the time. Eat fried foods rarely, and use oils with the proper smoke point if you do fry. Make vegetables and fruit the primary components of your meals.

This is not the typical American diet.
 
2012-06-12 09:53:32 AM

dittybopper: Splinshints: Low carb diets are just shortcuts for stupid people who don't understand the difference between fruits and vegetables and 64 oz cups of carbonated sugar water.

The problem with your statement is that much modern foodstuffs are as bad as that sugar water. The plethora of wheat, corn, rice, and potato based foods weren't really around when we evolved into modern humans. Fruits and vegetables are great. I eat what I consider to be a "low carb" diet, and I'm about to consume an apple for my mid-morning snack. What I got away from wasn't all carbs, but all modern, high calorie nutrient free carbs, things like added sugar/HFCS, pasta, bread, potatoes, and rice. I still have them occasionally, but they are a much, much smaller part of my food intake than they used to be.

It works:

[i56.tinypic.com image 632x482]

Me at the 2011 Southern Vermont Primitive Biathlon

[i41.tinypic.com image 640x544]

Me at the 2012 SVTPB. Note the distinct lack of gut. I was actually able to *RUN* most of the course this year.


*thumbs up*
 
2012-06-12 09:54:28 AM

star_topology: /paleo + crossfit
//we're not crazy, honest
///moar bacon


Honestly, you can eat damn near anything you want if you're active enough. I looove the bacon (honestly, if you're not supposed to eat an entire pack at once, why does it come in single-serving packaging?), but I also run, swim, kayak and hit the gym after work every other day. What was worse was that when I expressed some chagrin that she didn't eat vegetables, my quasi-hippy friend says oh, but that's just was vegetarians do, they eat whatever's left that isn't meat... They're good people and I didn't want to launch into a condescending lecture about how incredibly wrong that is, but damn it made me facepalm after they left.
 
2012-06-12 09:56:59 AM

Splinshints: Low carb diets are just shortcuts for stupid people who don't understand the difference between fruits and vegetables and 64 oz cups of carbonated sugar water. Instead of wasting their money on fad after fad diet they'd be better just paying the same amount up front one time to talk to a nutritionist and trainer who can educate them on good eating habits and construct an exercise plan for them.


Bullshiat. Utter Bullshiat.

Low carb means just that. Lowering the amount of carbs you eat. Additionally, you're better off going slow carb, meaning the carbs you ingest should break down slowly, avoiding an insulin spike, which causes your body to store sugars as fat.

Splinshints: No, it wasn't. By a wide margin you need more carbs than anything else since it's a basic, readily-available form of fuel that your body uses constantly through the day.

I'm 4 months in on slow carb, was 230 to start, now 190. Feel better than ever, have more energy than when I was eating all those carbs you claim I need. All of that with no exercise beyond daily movement etc. No ketosis involved, have beans and veggies providing a limited amount of carbs during the day.

The old "calories in, calories out is the only thing that matters" adage is dead. It's all about insulemic response, and grains and fruit are a big part of that. I also cut out most dairy, as lactose stimulates insulemic response.
 
2012-06-12 10:04:05 AM

sprawl15: Mid_mo_mad_man: No where in Dr Atkins book does it say go crazy on butter or other fats.

Exactly. He says that they aren't as bad as most people assume, so people shouldn't be afraid of them, but recommends as balanced a diet as possible while maintaining whatever amount of carbs causes you to still lose weight.


Here's the thing: most cooked vegetables taste better with a pat of butter. A pat of butter is about 35 calories and 4 grams of fat. When vegetables taste good, people are more likely to eat them, and the fat actually helps your body use certain vitamins better. That's not to say you should be eating a half a stick of butter a day, but a pat of butter on a pile of broccoli is not going to hurt you - assuming you're not eating tons of fried foods or lots of highly processed foods.

Oh, and sprinkle a little bit of salt on top of the veggies with butter, too. If you eliminate processed foods which have TONS of hidden sodium, salting your food is also not going to kill you.
 
2012-06-12 10:14:30 AM

StrangeQ: star_topology: /paleo + crossfit
//we're not crazy, honest
///moar bacon

Honestly, you can eat damn near anything you want if you're active enough. I looove the bacon (honestly, if you're not supposed to eat an entire pack at once, why does it come in single-serving packaging?), but I also run, swim, kayak and hit the gym after work every other day. What was worse was that when I expressed some chagrin that she didn't eat vegetables, my quasi-hippy friend says oh, but that's just was vegetarians do, they eat whatever's left that isn't meat... They're good people and I didn't want to launch into a condescending lecture about how incredibly wrong that is, but damn it made me facepalm after they left.


It's a tough problem to have. You don't want to fray the relationship by coming across as pushy. Besides, you're sharing the knowledge because you're a friend--and wouldn't you want your friend to look out for your best interests?

Also, is she big into soy? Just a hunch, as most vegetarian women tend to be. Have her give this a read:

Scrutinizing Soy
 
2012-06-12 10:15:42 AM

star_topology: *thumbs up*


The best part is that it's heart healthy, unless you happen to be the Gray Hair.
 
2012-06-12 10:15:45 AM
I have a couple cow-orkers doing variations of the paleo diet. It's working for them but I think it's mostly that they're actually paying attention to what they're eating as opposed to just shoving whatever strikes their fancy into their gob until they're full. I don't mind that they found something that works for them, I just wish these diets didn't come with a sense of smug self satisfaction and the need to criticize what everybody around them is eating. Oh, and the wonderful "facts" that get stuck in their head are hilarious. One guy said something to the effect of "bread and grains have no nutritional value" and basically everybody within earshot called bullshiat. It's great that you're losing weight but don't just squat down and drop a turd like that in front of everybody and expect nobody to call you on it.

My wife and I went on this new fad diet called "Stop eating so much fast food and move around once in a while, you fat f*ck!". So far I'm down 40 and she's pushing 85 pounds lost (she's waaaaay more diligent than I am).
 
2012-06-12 10:40:40 AM

Splinshints: No, it wasn't. By a wide margin you need more carbs than anything else since it's a basic, r


Balanced doesn't mean equal. Thank you for your input though.


jonny_q: Also, define "balance".


I'm not a nutritionist. Balance is what the majority of they have determined is balanced. Yes. It has changed through the years.
 
2012-06-12 10:47:53 AM

TofuTheAlmighty: Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.

(Though, as Pollan himself has attested, Inuit subsist rather well on a diet comprising mostly seal meat.)


Their lifestyle though can handle that, they live in freezing conditions where they need that many calories to stay warm.
 
2012-06-12 11:05:21 AM

dittybopper: Me at the 2011 Southern Vermont Primitive Biathlon


What the shiat?!?!

That sounds pretty ridiculious, but I want to do it.
 
2012-06-12 11:17:20 AM

lewismarktwo: meat0918:

HFCS isn't a simple sugar.

fixt


Goddamn.

I've read some stupid things on Fark, but this is one of the dumbest. Sugars are a generic term for things like sucrose(common table sugar), glucose/dextrose(dextrose is AKA D-glucose and AKA corn sugar, so a big fark you to the corn lobby trying to rebrand HFCS to corn sugar when we already have corn sugar for purchase at home brew stores), lactose(you could call it milk sugar), and fructose(fruit sugar).

You may not like what High Fructose Corn Syrup is, but it is sugar. It's 55%-42% fructose and 42%-55% glucose, (respectively) depending on the type. Link

Just eat less refined sugar, and if you must have refined sugar, pair it with a good source of fiber at least.
 
2012-06-12 11:27:12 AM

liam76: dittybopper: Me at the 2011 Southern Vermont Primitive Biathlon

What the shiat?!?!

That sounds pretty ridiculious, but I want to do it.


Southern Vermont Primitive Biathlon. I also competed in the Smuggler's Notch PB up in northern Vermont, and the Shandaken PB down in the Catskills.

It's roughly similar to modern biathlon, but instead of cross-country skis you use snowshoes, and instead of a modern target rifle, you use a muzzleloader. It's a fun event. People often dress the part, but you don't have to.
 
2012-06-12 11:42:53 AM

Carth: We need to add basic nutrition as a class starting in 1st grade. An entire generation doesn't have any idea how to eat healthy so they can't pass that information on to their kids. If we teach people how to eat and exercise young maybe in 30 or 40 years well start reducing obesity numbers.


They do this in Japan up through the 9th grade. Not surprisingly, not many fatties around there.
 
2012-06-12 11:50:10 AM

Lyonid: schrodinger:
They'll make their usual claim: that this is yet another conspiracy of scientists who just don't get it, scientists who don't understand nutrition, scientists who somehow made it through their PhD's and MD's without knowing the first thing about how the human body works. But let's face it -- most of us know in our hearts that eschewing a breakfast of whole grains and fruit crowned with a dab of yogurt for a greasy pile of sausage, bacon, and eggs is not the road to health.

I didn't realize that your heart was now considered a scientific source.


ConAgra loves me, this I know.
For Monsanto tells me so.
All our base belong to it.
So eat your corn; stop talking shiat.


bravo
 
2012-06-12 11:52:34 AM

Hebalo: Splinshints: Low carb diets are just shortcuts for stupid people who don't understand the difference between fruits and vegetables and 64 oz cups of carbonated sugar water. Instead of wasting their money on fad after fad diet they'd be better just paying the same amount up front one time to talk to a nutritionist and trainer who can educate them on good eating habits and construct an exercise plan for them.

Bullshiat. Utter Bullshiat.

Low carb means just that. Lowering the amount of carbs you eat. Additionally, you're better off going slow carb, meaning the carbs you ingest should break down slowly, avoiding an insulin spike, which causes your body to store sugars as fat.

Splinshints: No, it wasn't. By a wide margin you need more carbs than anything else since it's a basic, readily-available form of fuel that your body uses constantly through the day.
I'm 4 months in on slow carb, was 230 to start, now 190. Feel better than ever, have more energy than when I was eating all those carbs you claim I need. All of that with no exercise beyond daily movement etc. No ketosis involved, have beans and veggies providing a limited amount of carbs during the day.

The old "calories in, calories out is the only thing that matters" adage is dead. It's all about insulemic response, and grains and fruit are a big part of that. I also cut out most dairy, as lactose stimulates insulemic response.


I see you're still pushing this BS about how your body can magically make energy disappear if it comes a different sources.

In order to lose weight you need to burn more energy than you put in your body. Don't ever let anyone tell you otherwise, they are either uniformed or lying to you to sell you the latest scam diet.

If you want to lose weight, write down everything you eat and exercise alot. The only thing that matters is calories in must be less than calories out. Different combinations of foods will give you differing energy levels due to the complexity of the human digestive and respiratory systems. You will find your balance. You will learn that eating a 16oz steak will leave you feeling lethargic and you will also find eating a big plate of steam broccoli will soon leave you drained and hungry.
 
2012-06-12 12:03:21 PM

star_topology: /paleo + crossfit
//we're not crazy, honest


The paleo diet isn't a bad eating plan. You are still crazy if you buy into it on any level beyond "meh, I like those foods, it seems to work, and I'm too lazy to figure out which foods are good/bad for me without a catchy theme".

EVOLUTION DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY. You don't evolve TO DO something. Random changes occur over long periods of time, and if those changes help you breed, then they may become more prevalent in your species. Human beings can subsist on damn near anything we want to and still procreate just fine; combine that with the active lifestyle of our ancestors, and its highly unlikely any evolutionary pressure was put on us to eat healthy.

Even IF you want to believe that evolution is going to by default make a species more suited to a particular environment, that still doesn't mean that something new added to the environment is automatically bad. And yet, the paleo idiots I know lecture me about eating motherfarking beans because cave-men didn't eat them.

So ya, you guys are certifiable.
 
2012-06-12 12:33:12 PM

Smackledorfer: And yet, the paleo idiots I know lecture me about eating motherfarking beans because cave-men didn't eat them.


THIS

I joined CrossFit several months ago and did the pure paleo bit in January. I lost 20 pounds, but most of it was in 2 weeks, then plateau. Basic low carb & lots of water will do that.

I'm having a hard time with CrossFit because of the paleo marketing nonsense. Cavemen didn't eat pigs, turkeys, carrots, beans, and about 10,000 other things because they didn't exist. Most of our vegetables are just a few hundred years old. Cavemen ate a few hundred calories per day however the fark they could manage. And they certainly were not loaded down with meat, much less bacon.

A lot of the paleo crap is geared toward the 20-something gym crowd. BIG MAN EAT MEAT! A Wendy's Baconator is not good health, even if you drop the bun.

Doing my best to ignore the crap and exercise CrossFit style and go back to a diet that lost me 60 lbs. It was a Biggest Loser diet. Which is basically eat less, no junk food, no sugary drinks.
 
2012-06-12 12:39:32 PM

Smackledorfer: star_topology: /paleo + crossfit
//we're not crazy, honest

The paleo diet isn't a bad eating plan. You are still crazy if you buy into it on any level beyond "meh, I like those foods, it seems to work, and I'm too lazy to figure out which foods are good/bad for me without a catchy theme".

EVOLUTION DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY. You don't evolve TO DO something. Random changes occur over long periods of time, and if those changes help you breed, then they may become more prevalent in your species. Human beings can subsist on damn near anything we want to and still procreate just fine; combine that with the active lifestyle of our ancestors, and its highly unlikely any evolutionary pressure was put on us to eat healthy.

Even IF you want to believe that evolution is going to by default make a species more suited to a particular environment, that still doesn't mean that something new added to the environment is automatically bad. And yet, the paleo idiots I know lecture me about eating motherfarking beans because cave-men didn't eat them.

So ya, you guys are certifiable.


"You don't evolve TO DO something."
[Inigo Montoya.jpg]

While my knee-jerk response was somewhere between "Y u mad tho" and "You sound fat," I will instead apologize for the bad experience(s) you've had with Paleoers. First off, the diet isn't "evolutionary," it's "ancestrial." Second, if you want beans, farking eat beans. They're a "gray area" anyway.

I 100% agree with "Do what works." Paleo works for me. There is a lot of evidence (scientific and anecdotal) of an optimal way to eat.

At the very worst, this is proactive maintenance. I'll be damned if I'm hitting up the doctor for meds like most of my middle-aged co-workers.
 
2012-06-12 12:47:03 PM

Benjimin_Dover: "Low anything-high anything else" diets are all bad. Your body was made to have a balance of all three of fat, protein, and carbs.


Nice "common sense" sentiment, but dead wrong scientifically..
 
2012-06-12 12:47:30 PM

Smackledorfer: star_topology: /paleo + crossfit
//we're not crazy, honest

The paleo diet isn't a bad eating plan. You are still crazy if you buy into it on any level beyond "meh, I like those foods, it seems to work, and I'm too lazy to figure out which foods are good/bad for me without a catchy theme".

EVOLUTION DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY. You don't evolve TO DO something. Random changes occur over long periods of time, and if those changes help you breed, then they may become more prevalent in your species. Human beings can subsist on damn near anything we want to and still procreate just fine; combine that with the active lifestyle of our ancestors, and its highly unlikely any evolutionary pressure was put on us to eat healthy.

Even IF you want to believe that evolution is going to by default make a species more suited to a particular environment, that still doesn't mean that something new added to the environment is automatically bad. And yet, the paleo idiots I know lecture me about eating motherfarking beans because cave-men didn't eat them.

So ya, you guys are certifiable.


Paleo isn't based on humans evolving "to do" something. it is based on us doing to day what we did thousands of years ago as that is what is most healthy for our body.

Beans aren't bad because cavemen didn't eat them, beans are "bad" because of lectins. i am putting bad in quotes because I don't think they need to be completely eliminated, but they aren;t some healthfood that you shoudl eat tons of.
 
2012-06-12 12:49:34 PM

Smackledorfer: EVOLUTION DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY. You don't evolve TO DO something. Random changes occur over long periods of time, and if those changes help you breed, then they may become more prevalent in your species. Human beings can subsist on damn near anything we want to and still procreate just fine; combine that with the active lifestyle of our ancestors, and its highly unlikely any evolutionary pressure was put on us to eat healthy.

Even IF you want to believe that evolution is going to by default make a species more suited to a particular environment, that still doesn't mean that something new added to the environment is automatically bad. And yet, the paleo idiots I know lecture me about eating motherfarking beans because cave-men didn't eat them.

So ya, you guys are certifiable.


Some of us are. Usually it's the ones with the poorest understanding of the reasoning behind things that get the preachiest.

Evolution is, as you pointed out, a slow and random process. The paleo/primal community generally agrees that we're not well adapted for the modern diet (we may be in a few more thousand years). Some people go with "Hurrr all modern is bad, if cavemen didn't eat it then it's evil" while others go with "We seem to have a lot of health problems that look like they're caused by the introduction of grains and further exacerbated by the excessive sugar we add to everything, because we didn't seem to have these problems before we started doing that. Maybe if we eliminate the new stuff, we'll feel better. Oh shiat, that worked. I wonder what it is that's so bad about this stuff? Maybe I'll do some research and find out. Oh look at that, sugars and simple carbohydrates that weren't available to pre-agricultural communities play bloody hell on your insulin regulation systems, making you more inclined to be lazy, fat, and diabetic."

If he couldn't provide a reason why beans are bad other than "cavemen didn't eat them", he probably falls into the former category.

/Phytates inhibit nutrient absorption and lectins mess with your endocrine system, you should at least give 'em a good soak and a couple of rinses prior to cooking.
//Yes, there's also a lot of "Cavemen didn't eat this, let's figure out a reason to say why it's horrible for you" going around
///My sample size 1 study shows it works and I feel great, but your mileage may vary.
 
2012-06-12 12:50:05 PM

Old enough to know better: As someone who just got put on high blood pressure meds, this article is relevant to my interests.


on a cocktail of Diovan, Toporol, and HCTZ taken twice daily, my natually 190/110 BP , gets controlled down to 135/80.

After a week of eating low-carb (40-60 grams per day) I can achieve almost the exact same result (within 1 point- a result that continues to baffle me and my doctors)
 
2012-06-12 12:53:16 PM

whatshisname: When did anyone (who wasn't selling a book) consider low carb, high fat diets to be good?


when they had a basic understand of endocrinology rather than "Nutrition" and know what Eicosanoids are and how the presence and/or absence of Insulin in your system regulates them and what effects they have.

or Me personally when I abandoned 3 years of Low-fat high carb eating and an hour a day of lifting and Aerobic excercise, for a low-carb high-fat diet and working out once a week, and lost 100lbs in 3 months
 
2012-06-12 12:59:06 PM

schrodinger: Yes, many people have lost weight on a low carbohydrate diet, and an entire industry has sprouted up around that claim. But while complex carbohydrate consumption in the U.S. has declined significantly since the late 1990s, American obesity rates remain the highest on the planet.

Uh, what? When did this happen?

Seriously, we're at a point where even water is now loaded with sugar.

They'll make their usual claim: that this is yet another conspiracy of scientists who just don't get it, scientists who don't understand nutrition, scientists who somehow made it through their PhD's and MD's without knowing the first thing about how the human body works. But let's face it -- most of us know in our hearts that eschewing a breakfast of whole grains and fruit crowned with a dab of yogurt for a greasy pile of sausage, bacon, and eggs is not the road to health.

I didn't realize that your heart was now considered a scientific source.

Also, the paper doesn't even refute the idea of low carb diets. It refutes the idea of diets where fat consumption went up slightly. Here's an except:

In conclusion, men and women in northern Sweden decreased their reported intake of total and saturated fat in the first years following the introduction of an intervention programme, but after 2004 fat intake increased, especially saturated fat and butter-based spread for bread and butter for cooking. Supportive opinions in media for high-fat diets seem to have had an impact on consumer behaviour. Initially beneficial and thereafter deleterious changes in blood cholesterol paralleled these trends in food selection, whereas a claimed weight reduction by high-fat diets was not seen in the most recent years. In contrast, BMI increased continuously over the 25-year period. These changes in risk factors may have important effects on primary and secondary prevention of CVD.

I'm pretty sure that the low carb diet doesn't encourage people to eat lots and lots of bread.


The "Obesity Epidemic" in this country started almost exactly when real sugar was replaced in many packaged foods with High-Fructose corn syrup. It accelarated dramatically about the same time as the "Low fat "craze hit the country and many food manufacturers replaced the fat in items with extra sweeteners (Low fat ice cream being the worst offender)

Dietary fat CANNOT be converted into Body fat without insulin and the microhormones it produces. Thus the only consequence of eating lots of deeply satisfying fat ( fat makes you feel saitiated faster than any other nutrient) is, to be blunt, slightly looser bowel movements. It doesn't clog your arteries or accumulate in your belly at all
 
2012-06-12 01:18:08 PM

bionicjoe: Smackledorfer: And yet, the paleo idiots I know lecture me about eating motherfarking beans because cave-men didn't eat them.
A Wendy's Baconator is not good health, even if you drop the bun.
.


if you knew anything about paleo you know a paleo eater wouldn't touch a wendy's baconator. they only would eat grass fed beef.
 
2012-06-12 01:31:01 PM

star_topology: While my knee-jerk response was somewhere between "Y u mad tho" and "You sound fat,"


Not fat. I've done cross-fit, its a good work out. I prefer working to my own pace though. Some days I'd rather just do a strength training in the morning and go for a run after work.

star_topology: First off, the diet isn't "evolutionary," it's "ancestrial.

liam76: Paleo isn't based on humans evolving "to do" something. it is based on us doing to day what we did thousands of years ago as that is what is most healthy for our body.


Equally invalid reasoning. There is nothing logical about assuming that what cave-men did was healthy, either for their vastly different lifestyle or our own. They did the same thing every other species on earth does: breed to area capacity and eat whatever they could get their hands on.

incendi: ///My sample size 1 study shows it works and I feel great, but your mileage may vary.


Oh, as I said, on the whole its not a bad diet. The majority of what it cuts out (and honestly this applies to damn near all diets, be they low-fat or low-carb) are things people shouldn't be eating much of. I just take issue with the way that otherwise reasonable, intelligent people seem to jump on this cave-man shenanigans. I don't see it as any different than the frequently used "all-natural" sales pitch.
 
2012-06-12 01:44:40 PM

Smackledorfer: There is nothing logical about assuming that what cave-men did was healthy, either for their vastly different lifestyle or our own.


There's the argument in the Paleo diet books that looking at remains of humans both pre-agriculture and post-agriculture reveals a significant decline in health as humans shifted from 'paleo' foods to farmed foods.

I don't know/care if it's true, but it would be a pretty straightforward test case of seeing an impact.
 
2012-06-12 01:45:04 PM

max_pooper: The only thing that matters is calories in must be less than calories out.


We've already gone a few rounds on why, in terms of losing weight, that's just nonsense.

But you prefer to argue semantics, instead the actualities.

Again, you eat 2000 cals a day of nothing but bread and sugar, I'll eat 2000 of nothing but protein and veg, and in a few months, you can waddle in and tell me how we've gained the exact same amount of weight.
 
2012-06-12 01:51:31 PM

Smackledorfer: star_topology: While my knee-jerk response was somewhere between "Y u mad tho" and "You sound fat,"

Not fat. I've done cross-fit, its a good work out. I prefer working to my own pace though. Some days I'd rather just do a strength training in the morning and go for a run after work.

star_topology: First off, the diet isn't "evolutionary," it's "ancestrial.
liam76: Paleo isn't based on humans evolving "to do" something. it is based on us doing to day what we did thousands of years ago as that is what is most healthy for our body.

Equally invalid reasoning. There is nothing logical about assuming that what cave-men did was healthy, either for their vastly different lifestyle or our own. They did the same thing every other species on earth does: breed to area capacity and eat whatever they could get their hands on.

incendi: ///My sample size 1 study shows it works and I feel great, but your mileage may vary.

Oh, as I said, on the whole its not a bad diet. The majority of what it cuts out (and honestly this applies to damn near all diets, be they low-fat or low-carb) are things people shouldn't be eating much of. I just take issue with the way that otherwise reasonable, intelligent people seem to jump on this cave-man shenanigans. I don't see it as any different than the frequently used "all-natural" sales pitch.


Except for that whole 'survived thousands of years' thing.

That might indicate general health.

As a baseline, paleo is supposed to recreate the general diet we ate for much of our evolutionary history. Not duplicate, just approach. The reasoning is that it is what our bodies evolved to make ideal use of.
 
2012-06-12 01:57:11 PM

Smackledorfer: Equally invalid reasoning. There is nothing logical about assuming that what cave-men did was healthy, either for their vastly different lifestyle or our own. They did the same thing every other species on earth does: breed to area capacity and eat whatever they could get their hands on.

...
Oh, as I said, on the whole its not a bad diet. The majority of what it cuts out (and honestly this applies to damn near all diets, be they low-fat or low-carb) are things people shouldn't be eating much of.

I'm not clear on your argument. I would assume you're saying that if Encino Man were alive today, he would grab and eat anything that he could? In that, modern-day humans are victims of our own success (through agriculture?)

Why not roll back the clock then?
 
2012-06-12 02:05:58 PM

Hebalo: Lowering the amount of carbs you eat


No. "Low" does not mean "lower". They're distinct words with distinct meanings. Eating less of something doesn't inherently mean eating little of it. A "low carb" diet is not normal, it does not meet the nutritional needs of your body, and it's a good way to have a heart attack. That is a distinct thing from controlling your intake by "lowering" it. You can "lower" your intake in a healthy way to reduce calories and increase nutrients. We are not necessarily discussing the same things then.

Hebalo: Additionally, you're better off going slow carb, meaning the carbs you ingest should break down slowly, avoiding an insulin spike, which causes your body to store sugars as fat.


Yea, hence the crack about people who can't differentiate between a banana and a Coke when it comes to sugar intake. Those books and fad diets are aimed at people who think they can just stop drinking soda to lose weight or who don't understand why they're not losing weight when they've cut their calories elsewhere but continue to get substantial calories from sugary drinks and candy bars. You know. Dumb people. If they'd stop buying fad book after fad book and just use that money to consult a professional who can give them a stable eating plan and exercise routine most of them (assuming they stick to the plans) will probably do fine instead of yo yoing all the time.

Hebalo: I'm 4 months in on slow carb, was 230 to start, now 190.


Being skinny and being healthy are not the same thing and I'm not talking about being skinny. I never said the diets don't work for their intended purpose, I said they're foolish and short-sighted. Sharply cutting your carb intake and increasing fats and proteins can make you nice and skinny.... right up until your final and fatal heart attack.

Benjimin_Dover: Balanced doesn't mean equal.


You said:

Low anything-high anything else


That's wrong. A high carb diet is the norm that your body expects and is built for. This makes a very simple sense when you consider the high carb fruit and vegetable heavy diets of our ancestors who often ate meat and dairy sparingly because of the difficultly or cost of obtaining it. You need nearly twice as many carbs as fats and twice as many fats as proteins, hence "high carb, low protein", therefore you're wrong. High/low is normal.
 
2012-06-12 02:09:43 PM

Splinshints: Sharply cutting your carb intake and increasing fats and proteins can make you nice and skinny.... right up until your final and fatal heart attack.


Nonsense. I've lost 15% of my total weight, fat % is way down, cholesterol levels are down.

I'm gonna die because I stopped eating bread?
 
2012-06-12 02:10:53 PM

Splinshints: No. "Low" does not mean "lower". They're distinct words with distinct meanings. Eating less of something doesn't inherently mean eating little of it. A "low carb" diet is not normal, it does not meet the nutritional needs of your body, and it's a good way to have a heart attack. That is a distinct thing from controlling your intake by "lowering" it. You can "lower" your intake in a healthy way to reduce calories and increase nutrients. We are not necessarily discussing the same things then.


And that there is the textbook definition of "splitting hairs".
 
2012-06-12 02:24:56 PM

Splinshints: Hebalo: Lowering the amount of carbs you eat

No. "Low" does not mean "lower". They're distinct words with distinct meanings. Eating less of something doesn't inherently mean eating little of it. A "low carb" diet is not normal, it does not meet the nutritional needs of your body, and it's a good way to have a heart attack. That is a distinct thing from controlling your intake by "lowering" it. You can "lower" your intake in a healthy way to reduce calories and increase nutrients. We are not necessarily discussing the same things then.

Hebalo: Additionally, you're better off going slow carb, meaning the carbs you ingest should break down slowly, avoiding an insulin spike, which causes your body to store sugars as fat.

Yea, hence the crack about people who can't differentiate between a banana and a Coke when it comes to sugar intake. Those books and fad diets are aimed at people who think they can just stop drinking soda to lose weight or who don't understand why they're not losing weight when they've cut their calories elsewhere but continue to get substantial calories from sugary drinks and candy bars. You know. Dumb people. If they'd stop buying fad book after fad book and just use that money to consult a professional who can give them a stable eating plan and exercise routine most of them (assuming they stick to the plans) will probably do fine instead of yo yoing all the time.

Hebalo: I'm 4 months in on slow carb, was 230 to start, now 190.

Being skinny and being healthy are not the same thing and I'm not talking about being skinny. I never said the diets don't work for their intended purpose, I said they're foolish and short-sighted. Sharply cutting your carb intake and increasing fats and proteins can make you nice and skinny.... right up until your final and fatal heart attack.

Benjimin_Dover: Balanced doesn't mean equal.

You said:

Low anything-high anything else

That's wrong. A high carb diet is the norm that your body expects and is built for. This ...


Okay I'll bite: explain the mechanism by which youthink eliminating carbohydrates from your diet causes heart attacks?

You do know that

A)people have lived for years on nothing but protien and fat in both controlled scientific experiements and as a way of Life (Inuits living a traditional lifestyle had access to almost zero carbs)?

B) That lack of carbs (and therefore insulin ) means your blood is much less prone to clotting (blood clots being the primary cause of heart attacks)

C) most evidence shows that sustained low-carb eating reverses arterial plaque build up regardless of how much fat is consumed?
 
2012-06-12 02:40:14 PM

incendi: Smackledorfer: EVOLUTION DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY. You don't evolve TO DO something. Random changes occur over long periods of time, and if those changes help you breed, then they may become more prevalent in your species. Human beings can subsist on damn near anything we want to and still procreate just fine; combine that with the active lifestyle of our ancestors, and its highly unlikely any evolutionary pressure was put on us to eat healthy.

Even IF you want to believe that evolution is going to by default make a species more suited to a particular environment, that still doesn't mean that something new added to the environment is automatically bad. And yet, the paleo idiots I know lecture me about eating motherfarking beans because cave-men didn't eat them.

So ya, you guys are certifiable.

Some of us are. Usually it's the ones with the poorest understanding of the reasoning behind things that get the preachiest.

Evolution is, as you pointed out, a slow and random process. The paleo/primal community generally agrees that we're not well adapted for the modern diet (we may be in a few more thousand years). Some people go with "Hurrr all modern is bad, if cavemen didn't eat it then it's evil" while others go with "We seem to have a lot of health problems that look like they're caused by the introduction of grains and further exacerbated by the excessive sugar we add to everything, because we didn't seem to have these problems before we started doing that. Maybe if we eliminate the new stuff, we'll feel better. Oh shiat, that worked. I wonder what it is that's so bad about this stuff? Maybe I'll do some research and find out. Oh look at that, sugars and simple carbohydrates that weren't available to pre-agricultural communities play bloody hell on your insulin regulation systems, making you more inclined to be lazy, fat, and diabetic."

If he couldn't provide a reason why beans are bad other than "cavemen didn't eat them", he probably falls into the former category ...


Well said and to the point.
 
2012-06-12 02:46:06 PM

Splinshints: Hebalo: Lowering the amount of carbs you eat

No. "Low" does not mean "lower". They're distinct words with distinct meanings. Eating less of something doesn't inherently mean eating little of it. A "low carb" diet is not normal, it does not meet the nutritional needs of your body, and it's a good way to have a heart attack. That is a distinct thing from controlling your intake by "lowering" it. You can "lower" your intake in a healthy way to reduce calories and increase nutrients. We are not necessarily discussing the same things then.

Hebalo: Additionally, you're better off going slow carb, meaning the carbs you ingest should break down slowly, avoiding an insulin spike, which causes your body to store sugars as fat.

Yea, hence the crack about people who can't differentiate between a banana and a Coke when it comes to sugar intake. Those books and fad diets are aimed at people who think they can just stop drinking soda to lose weight or who don't understand why they're not losing weight when they've cut their calories elsewhere but continue to get substantial calories from sugary drinks and candy bars. You know. Dumb people. If they'd stop buying fad book after fad book and just use that money to consult a professional who can give them a stable eating plan and exercise routine most of them (assuming they stick to the plans) will probably do fine instead of yo yoing all the time.

Hebalo: I'm 4 months in on slow carb, was 230 to start, now 190.

Being skinny and being healthy are not the same thing and I'm not talking about being skinny. I never said the diets don't work for their intended purpose, I said they're foolish and short-sighted. Sharply cutting your carb intake and increasing fats and proteins can make you nice and skinny.... right up until your final and fatal heart attack.

Benjimin_Dover: Balanced doesn't mean equal.

You said:

Low anything-high anything else

That's wrong. A high carb diet is the norm that your body expects and is built for. This ...


Wow. Just.....wow. You must be one of the "nutritional experts" that works for the government and is simply baffled by the nation's obesity epidemic.
 
2012-06-12 02:54:36 PM

Splinshints: Benjimin_Dover: "Low anything-high anything else" diets are all bad. Your body was made to have a balance of all three of fat, protein, and carbs.

No, it wasn't. By a wide margin you need more carbs than anything else since it's a basic, readily-available form of fuel that your body uses constantly through the day. Carbs are a key form of easily accessed energy for your heart and brain, in particular. If you Google you'll find all kinds of sources ranging from multiple governmental health organizations to doctor's groups to trainers and dieticians who all say almost across the board that a healthy target is fifty to sixty percent of your intake being carbs.

Low carb diets are just shortcuts for stupid people who don't understand the difference between fruits and vegetables and 64 oz cups of carbonated sugar water. Instead of wasting their money on fad after fad diet they'd be better just paying the same amount up front one time to talk to a nutritionist and trainer who can educate them on good eating habits and construct an exercise plan for them.


lolno
 
2012-06-12 03:00:47 PM

Smackledorfer: Equally invalid reasoning. There is nothing logical about assuming that what cave-men did was healthy, either for their vastly different lifestyle or our own.


In general terms, no.

When talking specificially about food, yes there is.


They did the same thing every other species on earth does: breed to area capacity and eat whatever they could get their hands on

The types of food we ate were relatively static for a very long time. Beans, dairy, and processed foods are all newcomers. Yes we can eat them, and live long enough to brred, but our bodies aren't as adapted to them.
 
2012-06-12 03:11:52 PM

max_pooper: In order to lose weight you need to burn more energy than you put in your body. Don't ever let anyone tell you otherwise, they are either uniformed or lying to you to sell you the latest scam diet.


Close. But it is calories IN versus calories OUT.

Not all the calories in the OUT column are burned. Some of them go OUT through the anus. The alimentary canal doesn't absorb 100% of the calories.

Without knowing the details, I would even say that a pretty good chunk doesn't get absorbed.
 
2012-06-12 03:12:27 PM

liam76: When talking specificially about food, yes there is.


Why should you assume that the foods that cave-men ate were healthy choices then?
Why does that imply they are healthy choices today?
 
2012-06-12 03:23:05 PM

Smackledorfer: liam76: When talking specificially about food, yes there is.

Why should you assume that the foods that cave-men ate were healthy choices then?
Why does that imply they are healthy choices today?


As I said above.

The types of food we ate were relatively static for a very long time. Beans, dairy, and processed foods are all newcomers. Yes we can eat them, and live long enough to brred, but our bodies aren't as adapted to them.

Unless you don't believe in evolution this isn't that complicated.
 
2012-06-12 03:27:47 PM

star_topology: Smackledorfer: Equally invalid reasoning. There is nothing logical about assuming that what cave-men did was healthy, either for their vastly different lifestyle or our own. They did the same thing every other species on earth does: breed to area capacity and eat whatever they could get their hands on.
...
Oh, as I said, on the whole its not a bad diet. The majority of what it cuts out (and honestly this applies to damn near all diets, be they low-fat or low-carb) are things people shouldn't be eating much of.

I'm not clear on your argument. I would assume you're saying that if Encino Man were alive today, he would grab and eat anything that he could? In that, modern-day humans are victims of our own success (through agriculture?)

Why not roll back the clock then?




Do you disagree with the first bolded point, that our ancestors would have expanded their population to the limits that could support them, at which point they would be forced to eat whatever was available to survive? And that, therefore, their average diet would not necessarily be healthy?

As far as the second, what does that have to do with my dislike of the logic that "cave men did it, therefore it's good (for them, or us)" ?

Look, if you said "beets are healthy because superman can leap tall buildings" I would mock that too. That doesn't mean that I believe, or don't believe, that beets are unhealthy.

The rolling back the clock point is simply ridiculous. Why the fark would we have to roll back the clock and eat like cavemen, when we could instead be intelligent and keep the good and throw out the bad?
 
2012-06-12 03:28:24 PM

liam76: Smackledorfer: liam76: When talking specificially about food, yes there is.

Why should you assume that the foods that cave-men ate were healthy choices then?
Why does that imply they are healthy choices today?

As I said above.

The types of food we ate were relatively static for a very long time. Beans, dairy, and processed foods are all newcomers. Yes we can eat them, and live long enough to brred, but our bodies aren't as adapted to them.

Unless you don't believe in evolution this isn't that complicated.


Let me put some context for that "very long time", 2.5 million years, as opposed to about 10,000 years for grains and legumes, and even less for dairy.
 
2012-06-12 03:31:40 PM

liam76: The types of food we ate were relatively static for a very long time. Beans, dairy, and processed foods are all newcomers. Yes we can eat them, and live long enough to brred, but our bodies aren't as adapted to them.

Unless you don't believe in evolution this isn't that complicated.


Do you have the slightest understanding of how natural selection and survival of the fittest work?
 
2012-06-12 03:36:51 PM

Smackledorfer: liam76: The types of food we ate were relatively static for a very long time. Beans, dairy, and processed foods are all newcomers. Yes we can eat them, and live long enough to brred, but our bodies aren't as adapted to them.

Unless you don't believe in evolution this isn't that complicated.

Do you have the slightest understanding of how natural selection and survival of the fittest work?


If you don't understand how eating pretty much the same thing for 2.5 million years is going to influence what is best for the human body more than what came about in the last 10,000 then I have much more of an understanding than you.
 
2012-06-12 03:47:58 PM

liam76: If you don't understand how eating pretty much the same thing for 2.5 million years is going to influence what is best for the human body more than what came about in the last 10,000 then I have much more of an understanding than you.


Ridiculous. You've made no argument behind "cave men did it so its good" without ever connecting your dots.

liam76: Let me put some context for that "very long time", 2.5 million years, as opposed to about 10,000 years for grains and legumes, and even less for dairy.


That's exactly my point: grains, legumes, and dairy may be a poor dietary choice for us, and yet our species thrived none-the-less, with no significant natural selection pressures against that diet. People ate bad, it didn't affect their ability to breed, and the species thrived despite what may or may not have been a sub-optimal decision. The heavy grain and dairy diet of the last 10,000 years has proved absolutely sufficient for us to breed and pass those genes on.

This is why I accuse people making your argument of acting as though there is some guiding force behind evolution. There is not one. There is merely genetics, mutations, and selections. You have to actually make the argument for how the diet would add selective pressure to the passing on of genes. You either don't have such an argument, or aren't bothering to make one. You're side is essentially saying that the paleo diet is optimal because cavemen. But all that proves is that the diet eaten by cavemen was sufficient. That is all 2.5 million years of our species eating such a diet proves: sufficiency.
 
2012-06-12 03:56:27 PM

Smackledorfer:
Ridiculous. You've made no argument behind "cave men did it so its good" without ever connecting your dots.


So you don't understand how pretty much the same thing for 2.5 million years is going to influence what is best for the human body more than what came about in the last 10,000?


Smackledorfer: That's exactly my point: grains, legumes, and dairy may be a poor dietary choice for us, and yet our species thrived none-the-less, with no significant natural selection pressures against that diet. People ate bad, it didn't affect their ability to breed, and the species thrived despite what may or may not have been a sub-optimal decision. The heavy grain and dairy diet of the last 10,000 years has proved absolutely sufficient for us to breed and pass those genes on.


If your idea of a healthy diet is nothing more then surviving long enough to breed, then you are right Paleo is no more helathy than eating whatever you want.

Smackledorfer: This is why I accuse people making your argument of acting as though there is some guiding force behind evolution. There is not one. There is merely genetics, mutations, and selections. You have to actually make the argument for how the diet would add selective pressure to the passing on of genes. You either don't have such an argument, or aren't bothering to make one. You're side is essentially saying that the paleo diet is optimal because cavemen. But all that proves is that the diet eaten by cavemen was sufficient. That is all 2.5 million years of our species eating such a diet proves: sufficiency


I never once mentioned a "guiding force" you are imagining arguments here.

If a species is eating the same basic years for 2.5 million years then selection will dictate that diet is the optimal diet for that species. For the people in that group for whom it is only "suffecient" they will be less likely to breed than the people for who it is optimum.
 
2012-06-12 03:57:24 PM

Smackledorfer: Do you disagree with the first bolded point, that our ancestors would have expanded their population to the limits that could support them, at which point they would be forced to eat whatever was available to survive? And that, therefore, their average diet would not necessarily be healthy?


I do not disagree. Why would I? That is exactly what happened with the agricultural revolution. Grains = Cheap and (relatively) easy way to feed an exploding population.

As far as the second, what does that have to do with my dislike of the logic that "cave men did it, therefore it's good (for them, or us)" ?

It doesn't have anything to do with it? I think that's terrible logic and I haven't used that as a crutch to hold up my side of things.

Look, if you said "beets are healthy because superman can leap tall buildings" I would mock that too. That doesn't mean that I believe, or don't believe, that beets are unhealthy.

As you should. Again. I agree. That's stupid.

The rolling back the clock point is simply ridiculous. Why the fark would we have to roll back the clock and eat like cavemen, when we could instead be intelligent and keep the good and throw out the bad?

I think we're losing each other. I think my use of "rolling back the clock" is merely a re-wording of throwing out the bad and keeping the good: Lean meats, veggies, fruits, nuts... and dark chocolate. :)
 
2012-06-12 04:01:34 PM

star_topology: I think we're losing each other. I think my use of "rolling back the clock" is merely a re-wording of throwing out the bad and keeping the good: Lean meats, veggies, fruits, nuts... and dark chocolate. :)


And popsicles. They're mostly water, right?
 
2012-06-12 04:03:36 PM

liam76: Smackledorfer: liam76: When talking specificially about food, yes there is.

Why should you assume that the foods that cave-men ate were healthy choices then?
Why does that imply they are healthy choices today?

As I said above.

The types of food we ate were relatively static for a very long time. Beans, dairy, and processed foods are all newcomers. Yes we can eat them, and live long enough to brred, but our bodies aren't as adapted to them.

Unless you don't believe in evolution this isn't that complicated.


Precisely. The missing oiece in thsi equation is that most people fail to realize that most of human existance was a race to collect sufficent calories and use them eifficently rather than a struggle to avoid overeating. Therefore it is natural and logical to assume that we evolved a mechanism for storing excess calories as well as utilizing them . Obviously body fat is the way we store excess food. And when do we most need to store excess food? When food is about to become scarce, as it does in winter time. However body fat ,as we all know can slow you down and make you a less sucessful hunter. So evolutionarily it most beneficial for survival to pack on pounds just before winter and hopefully have them gone by early spring. (the extra insulation the fat gives you is another surivival bonus).

Now since carbs, before the advent of agriculture, were most available in late summer and throughout the fall, does it not make sense that the eating of carbohydrates became the body's "winter is coming, time to store food" signal?
Thus can it be any kind of suprise that the presence of Insulin, the chemical the body uses to process carbs, also became the hormonal trigger for things like the creation of body fat?
 
2012-06-12 04:18:20 PM

Hebalo: max_pooper: The only thing that matters is calories in must be less than calories out.

We've already gone a few rounds on why, in terms of losing weight, that's just nonsense.

But you prefer to argue semantics, instead the actualities.

Again, you eat 2000 cals a day of nothing but bread and sugar, I'll eat 2000 of nothing but protein and veg, and in a few months, you can waddle in and tell me how we've gained the exact same amount of weight.


Your lack understanding of basic science is well documented. You do not need to continue to prove your ignorance. We get it, you think the human body is a magical machine that need not follow the laws of thermodynamics.

Eating 2000 calories per day, I would lose a lot of weight. I maintain my weight with around 3000 calories per day, with lots of bread and pasta.
 
2012-06-12 04:23:29 PM

liam76: So you don't understand how pretty much the same thing for 2.5 million years is going to influence what is best for the human body more than what came about in the last 10,000?


Influence? Yes.
Select for perfection as the paleo diet assumes? Absolutely not.

liam76: If your idea of a healthy diet is nothing more then surviving long enough to breed, then you are right Paleo is no more helathy than eating whatever you want.


Of course its not. And again, as I noted multiple times in this thread, I don't consider the foods on the paleo diet to be bad for you. I merely point out that the existence of new foods that cavemen didn't eat shouldn't be defaulted to "bad" and that all foods eaten by cave men shouldn't be defaulted to "perfect". Why you are fighting this so much, I don't know. Read my Boobies regarding paleo in this thread. If you like the foods, and it fits with you, and its convenient, then by all means hop on the paleo bandwagon. But don't expect others to accept poor logic and stop eating beans or milk just because of that.

liam76: For the people in that group for whom it is only "suffecient" they will be less likely to breed than the people for who it is optimum.


Not necessarily. If two lifestyle factors are close, and one lets you live say, 5 years longer on average, then there may be no significant change in the breeding of one group vs. the other. This can be especially true depending on how our ancestors bred: if might-makes-right was the primary factor for the bulk of those millions of years, then being an old man for a little longer because your diet prevents heart disease really wouldn't have an impact: you probably wouldn't have been getting laid anyways.

Look at the sun. Sunlight still burns us and gives us skin cancer. High levels of sun exposure is not optimal, despite millions of years of living on this planet. By the time any negative effects show up, it is well past the point at which our ancestors had already passed on their genes. There was nothing to select against.

Was it enough that we have dark skinned and light-skinned people? Yes, the sun had influence.
Was it enough that anyone, light or dark skin, ended up optimally suited to any climate? Absolutely not. I'm a pasty white guy, and there is no environment that my ancestors ever lived in in which I would be best served by the amount of exposure my ancestors likely got.

For another example, read up on sickle-cell. Where is the optimal result from evolution of mankind as it pertains to malaria? You have 3 options: hope you don't get malaria and die if you do, have that malaria resistance, or sickle-cell. None of those is optimal, despite that area having millions of years worth of breeding to sort things out. Even with strong evolutionary pressure there was no guarantee that the randomness of genetics would "solve" the problem. Similarly, there is no guarantee that a caveman diet, if it was only sufficient and not perfect, would gradually result in a human being perfectly suited to that diet.

An evolutionary pressure will not necessarily create change. If nothing changed in the world for millions of years, would human beings automatically live longer and longer when compared between millenia? Nope. You might think you'd see better and better telomere-related genetics passed on, but that could only occur if the actual mutations even existed. If the mutation doesn't pop up, then the change simply will not occur, regardless of whether or not such a change would make for a superior human being.

So millions of years of the same diet won't necessarily enact the change that seems like an obvious one were you in charge of making the change in a species.
 
2012-06-12 04:24:40 PM

star_topology: I think we're losing each other. I think my use of "rolling back the clock" is merely a re-wording of throwing out the bad and keeping the good: Lean meats, veggies, fruits, nuts... and dark chocolate. :)


I guess we must be.
 
2012-06-12 04:51:23 PM

max_pooper: Your lack understanding of basic science is well documented. You do not need to continue to prove your ignorance. We get it, you think the human body is a magical machine that need not follow the laws of thermodynamics.

Eating 2000 calories per day, I would lose a lot of weight. I maintain my weight with around 3000 calories per day, with lots of bread and pasta.



And you refuse to budge from a pedantic viewpoint, in which the body must burn everything that enters it. Whatever. I'm done with you. You're closed minded, and not furthering the discussion at all, you just keep retreading the same old ground.
 
2012-06-12 04:52:25 PM

cryinoutloud: Oh it's this thread again.

I don't eat red meat (no special reason, I just don't like it much), eat tons of carbs, and I've never had a weight problem. I even tend to be a little on the skinny side.


I know people who smoke several packs a day, and they don't have any signs of getting lung cancer.

Anecdotal evidence indeed: Most of the big fat farks I know eat a lot of meat.

There is no such thing as a "high meat" diet plan. There is a such thing as a "low carb" diet plan. How many of your fat, meat eating friends are also going low carb?
 
2012-06-12 05:03:27 PM

max_pooper: I see you're still pushing this BS about how your body can magically make energy disappear if it comes a different sources.

In order to lose weight you need to burn more energy than you put in your body. Don't ever let anyone tell you otherwise, they are either uniformed or lying to you to sell you the latest scam diet.

If you want to lose weight, write down everything you eat and exercise alot. The only thing that matters is calories in must be less than calories out.


Just out of curiosity, how do think that carnivorous animals avoid being overweight in the wild? Why do individual specimens maintain such similar weight levels, even when the food supply can vary greatly from region to region? Do you think that these animals are keeping careful track of their calories, and how much exercise they do? Or do you think that their bodies somehow automatically know know when they've had enough food, and they stop eating after a certain point? If humans can't do this, despite the social pressure to stay thin, it either means that they ignore the fact they feel full, or they lose the ability to stay full.

Also, when farmers want to fatten their livestock, why do they feed the livestock grain? For instance, even butchers that specialize in grassfed meat will have "grain finished" beef, where the cow is fed grain in the last few months in order to promote marbling? Why can't the cows simply get marbling from eating grass, if it's simply a matter of calorie count?

Don't tell me that they do it because grass is cheaper, because if farmers could find away to sell grass finished beef with lots of marbling, they would, and customers would be happy to pay extra for it. The only reason to finish off with grain is if grain somehow alters the metabolism to promote fat building.

You remind me of the creationists who insist that evolution somehow violates thermodynamics. You are taking a very simplified notion ("Energy can't be destroyed") and completely ignoring all biological processes.
 
2012-06-12 05:04:05 PM

Hebalo: max_pooper: Your lack understanding of basic science is well documented. You do not need to continue to prove your ignorance. We get it, you think the human body is a magical machine that need not follow the laws of thermodynamics.

Eating 2000 calories per day, I would lose a lot of weight. I maintain my weight with around 3000 calories per day, with lots of bread and pasta.


And you refuse to budge from a pedantic viewpoint, in which the body must burn everything that enters it. Whatever. I'm done with you. You're closed minded, and not furthering the discussion at all, you just keep retreading the same old ground.


Yes, I refuse to budge from this very basic scientific fact. I'm looking up a blue sky and you are claiming it is orange.

Energy can not simply disappear as you claim. If you put energy in your body, it will either get used by the process of life or it will be converted into fat. In your fantasy world, energy from protein and veggies just goes away while energy from carbohydrates somehow multiples.
 
2012-06-12 05:14:31 PM

max_pooper: Yes, I refuse to budge from this very basic scientific fact.


Does your doctor know that you don't poop?
 
2012-06-12 05:21:57 PM

schrodinger: max_pooper: I see you're still pushing this BS about how your body can magically make energy disappear if it comes a different sources.

In order to lose weight you need to burn more energy than you put in your body. Don't ever let anyone tell you otherwise, they are either uniformed or lying to you to sell you the latest scam diet.

If you want to lose weight, write down everything you eat and exercise alot. The only thing that matters is calories in must be less than calories out.

Just out of curiosity, how do think that carnivorous animals avoid being overweight in the wild? Why do individual specimens maintain such similar weight levels, even when the food supply can vary greatly from region to region? Do you think that these animals are keeping careful track of their calories, and how much exercise they do? Or do you think that their bodies somehow automatically know know when they've had enough food, and they stop eating after a certain point? If humans can't do this, despite the social pressure to stay thin, it either means that they ignore the fact they feel full, or they lose the ability to stay full.

Also, when farmers want to fatten their livestock, why do they feed the livestock grain? For instance, even butchers that specialize in grassfed meat will have "grain finished" beef, where the cow is fed grain in the last few months in order to promote marbling? Why can't the cows simply get marbling from eating grass, if it's simply a matter of calorie count?

Don't tell me that they do it because grass is cheaper, because if farmers could find away to sell grass finished beef with lots of marbling, they would, and customers would be happy to pay extra for it. The only reason to finish off with grain is if grain somehow alters the metabolism to promote fat building.

You remind me of the creationists who insist that evolution somehow violates thermodynamics. You are taking a very simplified notion ("Energy can't be destroyed") and completely ignorin ...


Are you talking about wild animals? Ones that have to expend energy to hunt and capture food? Those kind? They live in the wild, it's tough out there. They have work real hard just to survive. We don't.

We live a society where we have damn near unlimited food supplies. We are prewired to crave food, particularly those foods with high energy density. That's why fat and sugar taste so damn good and carrots taste like well carrots. When a person is exposed to an unlimitted food supply they will generally over eat, it's a instinct that kept our biological ancestors alive for the hard times when food was scarce. We will never experience food scarcity. We need discipline to keep from overeating in a world of nearly unlimited food. Even animals when exposed to unlimited food get fat, I'm sure you know somebody with an obese dog or cat.

Some people have an easier time with this discipline than others. I believe the best way to learn is to keep track of everything you eat. Like I said, eventually you will learn how to eat the right amount of food that fits your taste and lifestyle (which is different that everyone else's). Sitting on your ass all day and only eating veggies may work for some people, eating a shiat load carbs and exercising a lot may work for other people.

In the end the only thing that matters is energy in must be less than energy out in you wish to burn body fat. While there may be a balance of protein, carbohydrates and fats that has an ideal efficiency, the body can not simply make energy go away.
 
2012-06-12 05:30:41 PM

max_pooper: Yes, I refuse to budge from this very basic scientific fact. I'm looking up a blue sky and you are claiming it is orange.


Creationists cite scientific facts when they bring up the concept of entropy. The problem is that they're citing science very, very poorly.

Science is about hypothesis and testing. Is there a way to test your hypothesis? Yes, there is. We can regulate "calories in/calories out" in controlled experiments. And controlled experiments suggest that the body is a self-regulating system. The body knows how much it wants to weigh, and it has mechanisms for keeping that in balance, just like it has mechanisms for maintaining body temperature and pH.

In a healthy metabolism (i.e., the metabolism we see with most animals in the wild), creating a calorie surplus means you stay full longer, which means you're not in any hurry for your next meal. A calorie deficit triggers hunger, which means that you're more eager for your next meal. Obesity isn't really an issue in the wild, especially among carnivores.

And studies have shown that the same thing generally happens to humans. Any attempt to create a calorie deficit, whether from exercise or starvation, will result in an increase of hunger, until the deficit is balanced out. Have you ever experienced long term sustained hunger? It's pretty bad. I have a hard time believing that the human body was evolved to be in a state of constant starvation and hunger in order to maintain good health. Which means that hunger itself must be a symptom of a problem.

If this is true, then the best way to alter diet is by altering metabolism itself, by avoiding foods that are more likely to create a hunger response (i.e., carbs and insulin). Of course, this is just theory, and science requires that we test things. So here's the test: Put people on low carb diets, and see if they can lose weight without being crippled with hunger. Which we've done. Millions of times. And apparently it works. Funny that.

Energy can not simply disappear as you claim. If you put energy in your body, it will either get used by the process of life or it will be converted into fat. In your fantasy world, energy from protein and veggies just goes away while energy from carbohydrates somehow multiples
 
2012-06-12 05:31:34 PM

sprawl15: max_pooper: Yes, I refuse to budge from this very basic scientific fact.

Does your doctor know that you don't poop?


Talk about being pedantic.

I take a dump everyday, sometimes twice or thrice. The human body can not process everything you put inside of it. Like I said, energy can not be create dor destroyed, some of that energy can unusable cellulose that is pooped out. If it's a digestible carbohydrate, protein or fat your body will absorb it. Once it has been absorbed, it will either be burned off in the process of life or it will be converted and stored as fat.

There isn't any magical food that you can eat, your body processes and then simply makes the energy go away. If it is not burned it will be converted to fat. To make your body burn that fat, you must absorb less energy than burn.
 
2012-06-12 05:38:19 PM
Food kills you.

Stop eating.
 
2012-06-12 05:41:46 PM

schrodinger: max_pooper: Yes, I refuse to budge from this very basic scientific fact. I'm looking up a blue sky and you are claiming it is orange.

Creationists cite scientific facts when they bring up the concept of entropy. The problem is that they're citing science very, very poorly.

Science is about hypothesis and testing. Is there a way to test your hypothesis? Yes, there is. We can regulate "calories in/calories out" in controlled experiments. And controlled experiments suggest that the body is a self-regulating system. The body knows how much it wants to weigh, and it has mechanisms for keeping that in balance, just like it has mechanisms for maintaining body temperature and pH.

In a healthy metabolism (i.e., the metabolism we see with most animals in the wild), creating a calorie surplus means you stay full longer, which means you're not in any hurry for your next meal. A calorie deficit triggers hunger, which means that you're more eager for your next meal. Obesity isn't really an issue in the wild, especially among carnivores.

And studies have shown that the same thing generally happens to humans. Any attempt to create a calorie deficit, whether from exercise or starvation, will result in an increase of hunger, until the deficit is balanced out. Have you ever experienced long term sustained hunger? It's pretty bad. I have a hard time believing that the human body was evolved to be in a state of constant starvation and hunger in order to maintain good health. Which means that hunger itself must be a symptom of a problem.

If this is true, then the best way to alter diet is by altering metabolism itself, by avoiding foods that are more likely to create a hunger response (i.e., carbs and insulin). Of course, this is just theory, and science requires that we test things. So here's the test: Put people on low carb diets, and see if they can lose weight without being crippled with hunger. Which we've done. Millions of times. And apparently it works. Fu ...


I'm glad you finally have admitted my point. You now seem to understand that the human body follows the very basic scientific fact that energy in must equal energy out but now you are claiming it's just easier for some people to do so by eating less carbs. That is completely and utterly different from every single argument that has made for low carb diets.

It actually jives with the argument I've been making all along: not everybody is the same. Some people may do well with a low carb low calorie sedentary lifestyle, others may do well with a high carb high calorie active lifestyle. The only way for you to know it do keep track of everything you eat and see what works best for you. In the end, in order to lose weight your body must burn more energy than it takes in.
 
2012-06-12 05:44:04 PM

max_pooper: The human body can not process everything you put inside of it.


So what you're saying is...the body does not burn everything that enters it. I think we can agree on that one. I know when I eat corn, there's quite a bit that doesn't get 'burnt'.
 
2012-06-12 05:50:47 PM

sprawl15: max_pooper: The human body can not process everything you put inside of it.

So what you're saying is...the body does not burn everything that enters it. I think we can agree on that one. I know when I eat corn, there's quite a bit that doesn't get 'burnt'.


I see your being pedantic again.

As I clearly explained in the portion of my post you decided not to quote, your body can not process the cellulose so it get tossed out. Of the energy from the carbohydrates your body does absorb, it either gets burnt or converted to fat.
 
2012-06-12 05:56:50 PM

max_pooper: It actually jives with the argument I've been making all along: not everybody is the same. Some people may do well with a low carb low calorie sedentary lifestyle, others may do well with a high carb high calorie active lifestyle. The only way for you to know it do keep track of everything you eat and see what works best for you. In the end, in order to lose weight your body must burn more energy than it takes in.


Problem is, low carb diets tend to have a strong effect even when you have a high calorie, low exercise lifestyle. I sat around on my ass (I think I did some situps once), UPPING my caloric intake (think: 5 egg omlettes with cheese and meats for breakfast, 2 plates at a Thai buffet for lunch, 3 burger patties for dinner, with 4-5 sugar free popsicles throughout) and lost 30 pounds in about a month and a half. I wouldn't be surprised if I averaged 8-10k calories a day during that month.

You do know that, right? That even though a good calorie delta is obviously better than a terrible one, caloric delta is not the primary method of weight loss under low-carb diets?
 
2012-06-12 05:58:31 PM

meat0918: lewismarktwo: meat0918:

HFCS isn't a simple sugar.

fixt

Goddamn.

I've read some stupid things on Fark, but this is one of the dumbest. Sugars are a generic term for things like sucrose(common table sugar), glucose/dextrose(dextrose is AKA D-glucose and AKA corn sugar, so a big fark you to the corn lobby trying to rebrand HFCS to corn sugar when we already have corn sugar for purchase at home brew stores), lactose(you could call it milk sugar), and fructose(fruit sugar).

You may not like what High Fructose Corn Syrup is, but it is sugar. It's 55%-42% fructose and 42%-55% glucose, (respectively) depending on the type. Link

Just eat less refined sugar, and if you must have refined sugar, pair it with a good source of fiber at least.


No, sugar means sugar cane. Nothing else. Nice try tho.
 
2012-06-12 06:00:06 PM

max_pooper: I see your being pedantic again.


It's not 'pedantic'. I'm asking if you actually believe what you're saying. If you don't intend to say things that are factually wrong, then don't say them in the first place. Don't cry that you got called out on them.
 
2012-06-12 06:02:32 PM

max_pooper: Are you talking about wild animals? Ones that have to expend energy to hunt and capture food? Those kind? They live in the wild, it's tough out there.


Wait, so first you claim that we need to keep exact count of calorie input/output in order to maintain weight. Now you're claiming that animals can get away without doing this because they live in the wild, where input/output is completely unpredictable. These are two completely contradictory arguments.

If your argument is "they live in the wild, it's tough out there," then keeping track of calories will be even harder, and you should see vast differences in BMI levels. To put it this way, an extra slice of bread per day adds up to roughly 10 pounds of body fat per year. If your hypothesis were true, then we would expect to see animals that accidentally eat the equivalent of an extra slice of bread per day all the time (especially when raised in completely different regions). But for some reason, this doesn't happen.

See, this is how science works. You don't just say what you believe, you have to test it. I tested your statement, and it fails.

We live a society where we have damn near unlimited food supplies. We are prewired to crave food, particularly those foods with high energy density. That's why fat and sugar taste so damn good and carrots taste like well carrots.

Here's the thing: Fat has always been readily available in human diets, for millions of years. Grains only began in the past 10,000 years with the invention of agriculture, and sugar only became readily available in the past few hundred years, and only became super cheap in the 1970s with HFCS. Furthermore, wheat itself has been completely re-engineered in the past 50 years, and wheat products you eat today are completely different from what your grandmother ate.

When a person is exposed to an unlimitted food supply they will generally over eat,

First, how do you explain people who overeat despite the social pressure to stay thin, or who spend thousands of dollars on diet plans and gym memberships?

Second, if this the only variable is the availability of food, then why don't we see ridiculously overweight carnivorous animals all the time?

In the wild, there will be some regions where food is more plentiful, and carnivores will be able to hunt with a lot less work. According to your model, this meanings more calories, fewer calories out. Even a 10% difference from living 10 miles apart could easily mean 50 extra pounds in 5 years. If your hypothesis is correct, then we should be seeing this all the time. And yet we don't. Why?

Answer: Because animal metabolism is a self-regulating system, just like body temperature and pH is a self-regulating system. Animals instinctively know when to stop eating, unless something interferes with their metabolism. We know for a fact that feeding grain to livestock can do this. Why do you refuse to believe that the same thing is true for humans?

it's a instinct that kept our biological ancestors alive for the hard times when food was scarce.

Your assumption here is that the human body simply isn't happy until it reaches obesity, and the only way to stay thin is to force the body into a constant state of crippling starvation. Which is stupid. Because constant, crippling starvation makes it hard for the brain to function, which decreases the rate of survival.

People aren't driven to overeat on low carb diets. They are only driven to overeat on high carb diets. Here's an easy way to test this hypothesis: Go to a grocery store, and pay attention to the fat people. How many fat people do you see on low carb diets? Pretty much any fat person you see will have a shopping cart loaded with grain products. Sometimes, you will see grain products with lots of fat, and sometimes grain products with very little fat. But the common denominator is always grain.

Your problem is that you're observing a particular phenomenon and assuming that it applies to all humans in general. But it doesn't. The only humans who it seems to apply to are humans with shopping carts full of grain products.

Even animals when exposed to unlimited food get fat, I'm sure you know somebody with an obese dog or cat.

You realize that commercial dog and cat food is loaded with grain products?
 
2012-06-12 06:06:52 PM

sprawl15: max_pooper: It actually jives with the argument I've been making all along: not everybody is the same. Some people may do well with a low carb low calorie sedentary lifestyle, others may do well with a high carb high calorie active lifestyle. The only way for you to know it do keep track of everything you eat and see what works best for you. In the end, in order to lose weight your body must burn more energy than it takes in.

Problem is, low carb diets tend to have a strong effect even when you have a high calorie, low exercise lifestyle. I sat around on my ass (I think I did some situps once), UPPING my caloric intake (think: 5 egg omlettes with cheese and meats for breakfast, 2 plates at a Thai buffet for lunch, 3 burger patties for dinner, with 4-5 sugar free popsicles throughout) and lost 30 pounds in about a month and a half. I wouldn't be surprised if I averaged 8-10k calories a day during that month.

You do know that, right? That even though a good calorie delta is obviously better than a terrible one, caloric delta is not the primary method of weight loss under low-carb diets?


Now you are just lying. You did not sit on their ass and consume 80000 calories per day and lose 30 pounds in 45 days. In order to loose 30 pounds your body must burn 105,000 calories worth of body fat, if you add that to the 360,000 you consumed. Your body was using over 10,000 calories per day. If you managed to do that without exercising you must have been running a 120 degree fever while locked in a freezer. Either that or were using laxatives to either poop it all out or you were forcing yourself to throw it up before your digestive system had a chance to break it down.

I'd love to see cited evidence that any human body has a base metabolic rate of over 10,000 calories. I'd even accept the world most muscular person.
 
2012-06-12 06:12:38 PM

max_pooper: I'm glad you finally have admitted my point. You now seem to understand that the human body follows the very basic scientific fact that energy in must equal energy out but now you are claiming it's just easier for some people to do so by eating less carbs. That is completely and utterly different from every single argument that has made for low carb diets.


Huh? No, it's really not. You're relying on the same strawman as creationists who insist that evolution disputes thermodynamics.

No one disputes the idea of needing a calorie deficit to lose weight, just like no one disputes the concept of entropy. What's being disputed is how you achieve calorie deficits in the first place.

Low-carb doesn't say, "It's okay to overeat, you will still lose weight on a low carb diet." It says, "If you are on a low carb diet, then it will be really hard to overeat even if you wanted to, and even harder to overeat on accident."
 
2012-06-12 06:38:42 PM

max_pooper: I'd love to see cited evidence that any human body has a base metabolic rate of over 10,000 calories.


^ implies that converting all types of foodstuffs to energy takes the same amount of energy. Also implies that excess energy within the body is automatically converted to fat and stored. Also implies that the body cannot use another energy cycle beyond the standard glycemic diet.

What happens, on an extremely basic level, is that when you intake glycemic foodstuffs, your body works much like you think it works. You take in food and your glucose and insulin levels rise, which your your body produces glycogen (which is basically a chain of glucose). These chains are broken down for glucose as a primary fuel for the body, and only are maintained for a few hours.

When you don't intake glycemic foodstuffs, your insulin levels do not increase. This prevents the production of glycogen, and your body starts using other metabolic pathways. The pathway used by low carb diets is ketosis, where your body instead gets its energy from fats (which are converted to ketones) rather than glucose. This includes adipose tissues from the body, resulting in rapid fat burn.

You seem to be under the impression that calories are some mystical number. They're not. They're calculated using energy densities of different components of the food based on a standardized metabolic process. When using different metabolic processes, the standard definition of calorie becomes meaningless. Glycosis vs the Citric Acid Cycle are very different energy burn profiles.

Hint: why do you think hydration becomes extremely important on a low carb diet?
 
2012-06-12 06:40:27 PM

max_pooper: Now you are just lying. You did not sit on their ass and consume 80000 calories per day and lose 30 pounds in 45 days. In order to loose 30 pounds your body must burn 105,000 calories worth of body fat, if you add that to the 360,000 you consumed. Your body was using over 10,000 calories per day. If you managed to do that without exercising you must have been running a 120 degree fever while locked in a freezer. Either that or were using laxatives to either poop it all out or you were forcing yourself to throw it up before your digestive system had a chance to break it down.

I'd love to see cited evidence that any human body has a base metabolic rate of over 10,000 calories. I'd even accept the world most muscular person.


While I do think the guy is overestimating the calorie count by a great deal, that's more because of how difficult it would be to get those calories consumed in the first place (100 calories is 10 pounds of 85% ground beef, or 12 sticks of butter).

However, the idea that the guy was upping his caloric intake and still losing weight without hitting the gym? Completely plausible.

Your assumption is that human metabolism works like this:

(Calories in) - (Calories out) = (Body fat).

The new model looks like this:

(Calories in) - (Body fat) = (Calories out).

In other words, you consume calories. In a high insulin diet, those calories are automatically converted to body fat. And if they are already converted to body fat, then your body can't use them for physical activity. But on a low insulin diet, less body fat is created, which means the body feels more active.

I know this might sound counter intuitive to your "Calories in / calories out" model. But there's an easy way to test this: Why do fat people get hungry and feel low on energy, despite having plenty of body fat to burn? The energy is there, but it's not readily accessible. But when people go low carb, the energy does become readily accessible, which is why they lose weight without having to feel hungry. And that's because they're changing their metabolism.

In other words, yes, he might be losing weight by becoming more active. But it's not forced activity. His body simply puts more energy into the same activities than it did before. He doesn't have to hit the gym. And it's not something you can keep track of.
 
2012-06-12 07:02:51 PM

max_pooper: sprawl15: max_pooper: Yes, I refuse to budge from this very basic scientific fact.

Does your doctor know that you don't poop?

Talk about being pedantic.

I take a dump everyday, sometimes twice or thrice. The human body can not process everything you put inside of it. Like I said, energy can not be create dor destroyed, some of that energy can unusable cellulose that is pooped out. If it's a digestible carbohydrate, protein or fat your body will absorb it. Once it has been absorbed, it will either be burned off in the process of life or it will be converted and stored as fat.

There isn't any magical food that you can eat, your body processes and then simply makes the energy go away. If it is not burned it will be converted to fat. To make your body burn that fat, you must absorb less energy than burn.


You could east anything you wanted, unlimited calories, from any source you want, fat, carbohydrate, protein, and be dead from malnutrition in under a month.

Contrary to popular belief, humans are not individuals, but symbiotes, and without the colonies of Bacteria that live in your guts, you'd be able to extract almost no useful nutrition from the food you eat. So yes, genetics, metabolism, thyroid activity, and the health and particular species of bacteria living in your gut all determine how well and how much of the energy available in the food you eat becomes usable to your body.

Furthermore, when your insulin production drops below a certain point, your body is unable to store excess energy as body fat that's why you need not count calries on a low carb diet, your insulin production is so low it is irrelevant.
 
2012-06-12 07:16:06 PM

Smackledorfer: Influence? Yes.
Select for perfection as the paleo diet assumes? Absolutely not.


Didn't say that did I?


Smackledorfer: And again, as I noted multiple times in this thread, I don't consider the foods on the paleo diet to be bad for you. I merely point out that the existence of new foods that cavemen didn't eat shouldn't be defaulted to "bad" and that all foods eaten by cave men shouldn't be defaulted to "perfect".


There you go again with that strawman.


Smackledorfer: Why you are fighting this so much, I don't know. Read my Boobies regarding paleo in this thread. If you like the foods, and it fits with you, and its convenient, then by all means hop on the paleo bandwagon. But don't expect others to accept poor logic and stop eating beans or milk just because of that.


I never said stop eating beans or milk. I enjoy them, I just don't think they should be a cornerstone of a good diet.

And if we are going off "logic" alone then yes Paleo is leaps and bounds better than any other diet given the facts exchanged in out conversations.

Fortunately as Magorn has pointed out there is also a lot of science behind it that you didn't even bother to respond to (I didn't bother with that route after you ignored my initial lectin comment, seems you weren't interested).

Smackledorfer: liam76: For the people in that group for whom it is only "suffecient" they will be less likely to breed than the people for who it is optimum.

Not necessarily. If two lifestyle factors are close, and one lets you live say, 5 years longer on average, then there may be no significant change in the breeding of one group vs. the other. This can be especially true depending on how our ancestors bred: if might-makes-right was the primary factor for the bulk of those millions of years, then being an old man for a little longer because your diet prevents heart disease really wouldn't have an impact: you probably wouldn't have been getting laid anyways.


There "may be" no significant change in the breeding if those five extra years come solely from dieing of natural causes at an older age when they can't breed. That is highly unlikely. A population with a life expectancy of 5 more years generally would have less infant mortality and less people die before and during breeding years.

Your sun and sickle cell examples aren't really relevant (aside from repeating the perfect strawman again) as there is no real "optimum" for those (nor did I argue there is one for food), and it misses the point.

Smackledorfer: An evolutionary pressure will not necessarily create change. If nothing changed in the world for millions of years, would human beings automatically live longer and longer when compared between millenia? Nope. You might think you'd see better and better telomere-related genetics passed on, but that could only occur if the actual mutations even existed. If the mutation doesn't pop up, then the change simply will not occur, regardless of whether or not such a change would make for a superior human being


You are correct, but if they were competing amongst each other you can bet that the humans who were better adapted to that constant diet would be doing better than those who weren't.
 
2012-06-12 07:17:59 PM
max_pooper:

I mean, the basic problem is that you're saying 2 + 2 = 4. Which is true under your assumptions: that 2 is a whole number. But 2 can, to one technically capable enough to know how, mean a larger range of values such that 2 + 2 = 3, or 2 + 2 = 5. That what you are saying is true under your assumptions does not mean that your assumptions paint the entire picture.

Under a glycemic diet, eating according to nutritional guidelines that mirror the assumptions used to create things like the food pyramid, caloric intake is the primary way to lose weight. But we're not talking a situation that uses those assumptions. We are recognizing that 2 can represent 2.4999, and working within a broader set of assumptions about how metabolic processes interact with the food that you ingest. You can sit there all day and show me that if you have two apples and add two more apples you always get four apples. Unless you understand the basis of your assumptions - and why you're making them - you won't actually be able to say WHY your 2 + 2 = 4 statement is true.
 
2012-06-12 07:51:37 PM

Hebalo: Nonsense. I've lost 15% of my total weight, fat % is way down, cholesterol levels are down.

I'm gonna die because I stopped eating bread?


You and I are talking about two different things. I'm talking about the sorts of loosely defined fad diets that lead yo-yo dieting retards to eat burgers without hamburger buns and call it healthy. You probably aren't.

Magorn: Okay I'll bite: explain the mechanism by which youthink eliminating carbohydrates from your diet causes heart attacks?


First of all, you can't eliminate carbs. Not only would that be amazingly stupid, it would be virtually impossible.

Regardless, that's not what I'm saying. If you refer back to prior posts I'm talking about fad diets that lead people to do stupid shiat like stop eating "carbs" and replace them with crap like fast food burgers without buns. There's a difference between not eating bread and pasta as part over an overall lifestyle changed aimed at healthy living and continuing to eat garbage and not exercising while cutting the bread and pasta. Both will result in weight loss. One will result in death.

Magorn: A)people have lived for years on nothing but protien and fat in both controlled scientific experiements and as a way of Life (Inuits living a traditional lifestyle had access to almost zero carbs)?


Specifically, the Inuit peoples as a generic group live about ten years less on average and have substantially higher cancer risks....

Magorn: B) That lack of carbs (and therefore insulin ) means your blood is much less prone to clotting (blood clots being the primary cause of heart attacks)

C) most evidence shows that sustained low-carb eating reverses arterial plaque build up regardless of how much fat is consumed?


And this, of course, is just garbage aimed at intentionally misusing factoids. I'm going to assume you're referring to studies which find that reducing carbohydrate intake as a one part of an overall lifestyle change aimed at healthier living resulted in better outcomes. Saying that "reducing carbs" did that is just a dishonest portrayal of the studies.

Want to be healthy? Eat fruits and vegetables, lean meats, and exercise.
 
2012-06-12 07:53:58 PM

Smackledorfer: An evolutionary pressure will not necessarily create change.


You grok evolution.

The post I snipped this from showed a better understanding of it than damn near any random musing I've seen on the internet.
 
2012-06-12 07:58:34 PM

max_pooper: I see your being pedantic again.


You really can't argue pedantry when you are the one playing the "calories in/out" card. Imo.
 
2012-06-12 08:13:44 PM

liam76: Your sun and sickle cell examples aren't really relevant (aside from repeating the perfect strawman again) as there is no real "optimum" for those (nor did I argue there is one for food), and it misses the point.


Why wouldn't their be an optimum for those, just like you claim there has evolved an optimum for food?

Your premise is that people ate X for 2.5 million years, give or take, and thus X is the best thing for them.

Why does that not hold true for people getting stuck in the hot sun for 2.5 million years, and thus getting all that sun should be good for us. After all, your argument is twofold here:

1. That a difference of a few years life expectancy WILL, over that period of time, change the genetic makeup of the population to select for whatever gave them the few years.

2. That you are positive that a genetic preference for whatever human beings just happened to be doing for those 2.5 million years definitely exists.

So why can't we apply those same assumption to the sun? We should all be pretty much immune to skin cancer after the millions of years of humans baking in it.

The reason you don't apply them to the sun, malaria resistance, and a hundred and one other things we could think up is that you believe that those are somehow clearcut situations where, jeez, its just simply so obvious that there isn't a solution. But with food, oh that's totally different, and the massive complexity of our genetic was guaranteed to spring up mutations perfecting human beings to the paleo diet, by default, with no room for argument nor possibility that humans could still be just as well off adding non-caveman foods to their diet.

liam76: You are correct, but if they were competing amongst each other you can bet that the humans who were better adapted to that constant diet would be doing better than those who weren't.


You contradict yourself. You disagreed that we would have genetically selected for superior telomeres (which affect aging and longevity - and, btw, are certainly affected by individual genetic code) and yet you assert that additional lifespan would indeed, absolutely and without even allowing for the mere POSSIBILITY that it would not, automatically favor the breeding patterns of those with slight preferences towards the available diets over that time period.


liam76: Smackledorfer: Influence? Yes.
Select for perfection as the paleo diet assumes? Absolutely not.

Didn't say that did I?


Pretty much:

liam76: it is based on us doing to day what we did thousands of years ago as that is what is most healthy for our body.


ie: the BEST, or the perfect, dietary option for a human being is that we should eat what we ate thousands of years ago. Now, you can accuse me of twisting your words here, but don't forget you are arguing me merely saying 'It is an illogical assumption that paleo diet is automatically the perfect diet, and that nothing outside of caveman food could be good for us because they didn't eat it, or that everything they did eat has to be good for us'. Since you've been disagreeing with that statement, you are certainly saying that the perfect earthly diet for us humans is indeed paleo, and that diverging from it, either by adding new things or dropping old things, is sub-optimal.


And now, if you'll excuse me, its time to consume some alcohol, and health consequences be damned.
:D
 
2012-06-12 08:13:47 PM

StrangeQ: limboslam: [i486.photobucket.com image 562x465]
It's not good for motorcycles, either.

Those sparks are going the wrong way if they are being caused by the rotation of the wheel...

And what the fark, how many times does it really need to be said? Sensible diet and exercise. That's it. There's no tricks or magic secrets to not being a fat piece of shiat.


Wow. Do you tell the little kids at Disneyland that you don't really "fly" on the Peter Pan ride?
 
2012-06-12 08:39:39 PM

Smackledorfer: Why wouldn't their be an optimum for those, just like you claim there has evolved an optimum for food?

Your premise is that people ate X for 2.5 million years, give or take, and thus X is the best thing for them.

Why does that not hold true for people getting stuck in the hot sun for 2.5 million years, and thus getting all that sun should be good for us. After all, your argument is twofold here:

1. That a difference of a few years life expectancy WILL, over that period of time, change the genetic makeup of the population to select for whatever gave them the few years.

2. That you are positive that a genetic preference for whatever human beings just happened to be doing for those 2.5 million years definitely exists.

So why can't we apply those same assumption to the sun? We should all be pretty much immune to skin cancer after the millions of years of humans baking in it.


Wrong.

The premise is that people ate X for 2.5 million years and ate Y for 10,000 years, so our bodies are genetically predisposed to work better on X.

Get it?

That is why the rest of your argument (your analogies, and your claim about "perfect" fail).


The reason you don't apply them to the sun, malaria resistance, and a hundred and one other things we could think up is that you believe that those are somehow clearcut situations where, jeez, its just simply so obvious that there isn't a solution. But with food, oh that's totally different, and the massive complexity of our genetic was guaranteed to spring up mutations perfecting human beings to the paleo diet, by default, with no room for argument nor possibility that humans could still be just as well off adding non-caveman foods to their diet.

No as I said above I don't apply them because your initial statement bout what I am saying is wrong.
For an accurate comparison you would need a"new" sun (that you could choose to or not to use), and a new form of malaria (and have to pretend that all humans had been contending with malaria for 2.5 million years).

Smackledorfer: You contradict yourself. You disagreed that we would have genetically selected for superior telomeres (which affect aging and longevity - and, btw, are certainly affected by individual genetic code) and yet you assert that additional lifespan would indeed, absolutely and without even allowing for the mere POSSIBILITY that it would not, automatically favor the breeding patterns of those with slight preferences towards the available diets over that time period.


No. I said all things being equal in a static environment (WRT food) the people who adapted to use that food better would be doing better.
 
2012-06-12 09:01:35 PM

liam76: Smackledorfer: You contradict yourself. You disagreed that we would have genetically selected for superior telomeres (which affect aging and longevity - and, btw, are certainly affected by individual genetic code) and yet you assert that additional lifespan would indeed, absolutely and without even allowing for the mere POSSIBILITY that it would not, automatically favor the breeding patterns of those with slight preferences towards the available diets over that time period.

No. I said all things being equal in a static environment (WRT food) the people who adapted to use that food better would be doing better.


Do you not understand how telomeres work or do you not understand what the phrase "adapt" means?

Why would one aspect of genetic variation that directly influences life expectancy be guaranteed to be selected for over 2.5 million years (food), and another one not (superior telomeres)?

liam76: For an accurate comparison you would need a"new" sun (that you could choose to or not to use),


Actually you wouldn't. Firstly you wouldn't need a second sun because we have different locations on the planet that are essentially alternate suns for all intents and purposes. The european sun exposure is absolutely different than that in the sahara. And yet, despite clear evidence that melanin levels were selected for over millions of years, nobody, african or european, is optimized to our sun.

You also don't need a second sun, because the basis of your argument is "old good new bad" anyways. You've argued that non-paleo foods (ie, the equivalent to a second sun option) should be automatically discounted as inferior to paleo foods. You have further disagreed with me saying not all paleo foods are automatically good. So, if deviation from paleo foods is, by default, a bad thing, then you've already told me that if there were a second sun you wouldn't listen to any science for or against it being better. You would default a second sun as guaranteed to be inferior without looking at it on its merits anyways.


liam76: The premise is that people ate X for 2.5 million years and ate Y for 10,000 years, so our bodies are genetically predisposed to work better on X.

Get it?


Afaict you don't understand the basic premise of survival of the fittest, genetic mutations, and evolution as a whole. As a result instead of actually responding to points I make, you simply restate overly simplistic assumptions as unassailable truths. We are not automatically predisposed to eat what was eaten for 2.5 million years than we predisposed to prefer the levels of sunlight we were exposed to over 2.5 million years. Which is precisely why you dismiss the age argument so readily.
 
2012-06-12 09:04:51 PM

Smackledorfer: Why does that not hold true for people getting stuck in the hot sun for 2.5 million years, and thus getting all that sun should be good for us. After all, your argument is twofold here:


Dude, have you ever heard of Vitamin D? Have you ever heard of Seasonal Affective Disorder? Sunlight is is not only good for you, but it's also necessary. In fact, the entire reason why people develop lighter skin as they leave the equator is because lighter skin is more sensitive to sunlight. The reason people start developing darker skin when they tan is to reduce the sensitivity when they return to sunnier regions, or during different times in the year.

The only time sunlight is harmful is when you tan. That's when you go from having pretty much no sun for months and months so your body, and then you decide to spend a full day out in the sun when your body has no resistance. Of course, that type of situation wasn't really an issue for our ancestors.

So yay evolution.

1. That a difference of a few years life expectancy WILL, over that period of time, change the genetic makeup of the population to select for whatever gave them the few years.

Based on what?

Seriously, even if evolutionary forces are at work in such a short period of time, it's not going to rewrite the entire human genome (which is incredibly complex.). Our metabolism is incredibly complex.

2. That you are positive that a genetic preference for whatever human beings just happened to be doing for those 2.5 million years definitely exists.

Pandas have been eating bamboo for 3-4 million years now (there was a meat shortage, and pandas with the genes for liking meat all died off), yet there digestive systems still haven't adapted to it. They spend every waking our eating, and they still don't have the energy to reproduce. Even now, their digestive systems are structured for eating meat, but they simply don't like the taste of it, and they're not going to go out of their way to hunt for it.

Evolution doesn't work the way you think it does. If Pandas couldn't find enough time to adapt after 4 million years, then why do you think that humans can adapt in 10,000 years? In fact, if you look into modern American diets with grain based oils and cheap genetically altered industrial wheat, you're only looking at the past 100 years. Not enough time for evolutionary forces. And keep in mind that eating bamboo is something that prevents pandas from having the energy to reproduce altogether. Where as the health problems from eating grains does doesn't do that.
 
2012-06-12 09:06:00 PM

schrodinger: The only time sunlight is harmful is when you tan burn.


Fixed that for me.
 
2012-06-12 09:16:59 PM

Smackledorfer: Afaict you don't understand the basic premise of survival of the fittest, genetic mutations, and evolution as a whole. As a result instead of actually responding to points I make, you simply restate overly simplistic assumptions as unassailable truths. We are not automatically predisposed to eat what was eaten for 2.5 million years than we predisposed to prefer the levels of sunlight we were exposed to over 2.5 million years. Which is precisely why you dismiss the age argument so readily.


The problem with your analogy is that you assume that the mutation for changing human metabolism is just as straightforward as the mutation for changing skin color.

And in the case of skin color, it's not even necessarily a mutation. It could just be the result of different combinations of genes appearing more often due to natural selection.
 
2012-06-12 09:29:32 PM
So we're talking about the "paleolithic diet" now? The one that says we should eat the same things the cavemen did? Which cavemen? The European ones? The Asian ones? The African ones? Also, a lot of things they ate are gone forever, and a lot of new things have appeared. Plus there's the fact that many things suggested by the paleo diet weren't available to humans at all or were very rare. I've also seen so many paleo recipes that call for minute preparation, things like olive oil and spices. Cavemen didn't waste time minutely preparing, and they certainly didn't make olive oil.

Know what else cavemen did? Walk everywhere, a lot. They were far more active than we are, which is the main problem with modern man. You can eat whatever you want and however much, just get off your duff and work your body.
 
2012-06-12 09:54:30 PM
Schrodinger, I think you might need to reread my post there and differentiate between what I'm saying and what he is saying.

Points labeled 1. and 2. with the numerical bullets are his argument, not mine (or at least what little Liam has bothered to state beyond overly simplistic "just because" style responses).

schrodinger: schrodinger: The only time sunlight is harmful is when you tan burn.

Fixed that for me.


Actually I believe tanning is harmful too. It seems to be the consensus among skin doctors at this point.



Your panda example is exactly my point: you cannot assume that merely because some species ate something for x million years that said something is optimal for their health.

All I'm saying is: 'It is an illogical assumption that paleo diet is automatically the perfect diet, and that nothing outside of caveman food could be good for us because they didn't eat it, or that everything they did eat has to be good for us'.

This seems to upset the paleo folks, who are both insisting that A. they aren't really saying that, and B. its totally perfectly logical to conclude that, because hey, 2.5 million years can't be wrong.
 
2012-06-12 10:53:36 PM

Smackledorfer: Actually I believe tanning is harmful too. It seems to be the consensus among skin doctors at this point.


Depends on the sort of tan. If this is a gradual tanning, the sort that would have happened for someone raised in ancient Rome who spent a lot of time working in the fields, then I don't see the harm. If it's an office worker who spends 15 minutes on a tanning bed, or even 1 day on the beach wearing sun screen, then that's a bit different.

Your panda example is exactly my point: you cannot assume that merely because some species ate something for x million years that said something is optimal for their health.

The thing is, the basis for our digestive system (as with Pandas) is a lot older than 2.5 million years. The only thing that separates humans from other species in terms of diet is the invention of fire, which makes calories more accessible which frees up energy for larger brains. It also allows humans to eat tubers and root vegetables, which is why Paleo generally allows for those things.

The main thing about Paleo is that it's less about what people should be eating, and more about what they shouldn't be eating. And the foods that people shouldn't be eating are foods that are only recently developed and shown to have harmful side effects. Like modern wheat.
 
2012-06-12 11:46:32 PM

schrodinger: If this is a gradual tanning, the sort that would have happened for someone raised in ancient Rome who spent a lot of time working in the fields, then I don't see the harm.


Look, I don't have a horse in this race. I could give two shiats about skin cancer down the road: its one of the least dangerous cancers, and there is a possibility that the vitamin D get, or something else from the sunlight, may help stave off worse cancers. Who really knows. But it is still a deadly cancer nonetheless.

But the actual skin doctors are still saying any tanning is bad, and we are better off seeking other sources for vitamin D, as far as I've read anyways. I haven't gone out of my way to really research it. I don't tan, but I don't run from the sun anyways. I burn quite a bit before my farmers tan firmly takes hold each year, and I revert right back to a vampire throughout the winter.

I only brought the sun up because, if something shaving a few years off of the end of one's life were strongly represented in genetic selection, I and others wouldn't be the pasty white bastards we are today: we'd have been edged out by the more fit people with more melanin. But we haven't, which suggests that even though I may be more likely to die of skin cancer, that drawback is either A. balanced by some other benefit of white-ass skin or genetically linked to white skin, or what I see as the more likely B. stuff that affects your longevity decades past your reproductive prime are unlikely to be affected by survival of the fittest and thus selected for/against. And, just like my malaria example and what I'm sure are hundreds of others, an appropriate mutation has to occur for any genetic selection to taking place anyways.

You can't just stick a species into a mediocre environment be sure that adaptation will occur. Extinction could occur, adaptation could occur, or slogging along and doing a poor job of it could occur, or anything in between those three. Humans obviously didn't become extinct on the paleo diet, but ya know, we've done pretty good on the zomg poisonous wheat diet too. We are a pretty hardy omnivore who can eat damn near anything. We've got gut bacteria that adjust to what we eat (within 24 hours of a dietary change we can see major changes in bacterial percentages), and we have a system strong enough that we can eat some pretty crappy diets and easily make it to and beyond reproductive age. And that's all I'm really trying to say here: that you can't point to evolution as some mysterious force that guarantees X is good or bad, because we as a species have been shown to be more than capable of using other genetic advantages to deal with/work around environmental pressures - as you mentioned: fire.

So why should a caveman's inability to figure beans out stop me from eating them? Answer: there is no reason, as we've figured out a way to eat them. And dismissing a potentially healthy dietary option on the grounds that cavemen didn't eat it is just silly. Its not science. Its not logical. Its just faith-based nonsense pushed by someone who wanted to make some cash by selling a catch popular diet.

Don't like beans? How about black tea or coffee - its good for you, and cavemen didn't drink it (well I assume, but I could be wrong).
 
2012-06-13 07:27:52 AM

Keizer_Ghidorah: So we're talking about the "paleolithic diet" now? The one that says we should eat the same things the cavemen did? Which cavemen? The European ones? The Asian ones? The African ones?


Yes. Hunter/gatherers pretty much all hunted and gathered, so you're talking lean meats, vegetables, fruits, nuts, and (when available) eggs.

Also, a lot of things they ate are gone forever, and a lot of new things have appeared.

Irrelevant. We're not talking about necessarily duplicating *EXACTLY* what they ate, but approximating it.

Plus there's the fact that many things suggested by the paleo diet weren't available to humans at all or were very rare. I've also seen so many paleo recipes that call for minute preparation, things like olive oil and spices. Cavemen didn't waste time minutely preparing, and they certainly didn't make olive oil.


You can't make a blanket statement like "Cavemen didn't waste time minutely preparing". Many modern or recent hunter/gatherer societies had to minutely prepare their food just to make it palatable. An example of this would be acorns: You can't just cook an acorn or eat it raw, you have to leach the tannins out of it first. I'm sure that hunter/gatherers prepared their foods with whatever local spices were on hand.

As for using olive oil and modern spices, like I said, the idea is that you are trying to approximate the diet, but adapting it to our modern tastes so that people will actually *EAT* that way. As an example, I generally either have a bit of chicken or tuna, along with a salad for lunch. I put a little low-fat, low-card dressing on the salad, but not much. I *COULD* eat it without it, but I've been eating salad with dressing for 40+ years, and that's not likely to change at this point. Now, if I were in a situation where I had to do so, I'd do it and be glad for the food I had, but it's not like I'm going to walk around in a hair shirt here.

Plus, you have to be somewhat adaptable in your choices simply because you aren't always going to be able to eat perfectly, simply because paleo-foods tend to take a bit more preparation. This is actually a bad time of year for me, because I'm busy coaching baseball. So I make sure my breakfast and lunch are paleorrific, and I grab what I can for dinner. It's not the *PERFECT* solution, by any means, but I don't seem to be doing to badly. I'm not losing weight currently, but not putting it back on either.

Know what else cavemen did? Walk everywhere, a lot. They were far more active than we are, which is the main problem with modern man. You can eat whatever you want and however much, just get off your duff and work your body.


This I can't argue with, because it's largely true. They did exercise much more than we do today, just in the normal course of living their lives.
 
2012-06-13 07:58:41 AM

Smackledorfer: Why would one aspect of genetic variation that directly influences life expectancy be guaranteed to be selected for over 2.5 million years (food), and another one not (superior telomeres)?


Because when it comes to food if you are more suited to your diet then somebody you are competeing against, (then all other things being equal) you are going to be stronger and more healthy.

Depending on the society just living a few extra years may not really help (and if we are talking abotu tribes that take care of you) and may actually hurt.

Smackledorfer: Actually you wouldn't. Firstly you wouldn't need a second sun because we have different locations on the planet that are essentially alternate suns for all intents and purposes. The european sun exposure is absolutely different than that in the sahara. And yet, despite clear evidence that melanin levels were selected for over millions of years, nobody, african or european, is optimized to our sun.


Because our sun (over the ranges where people live) isn't nearly as constant as the types of food people ate for millions of years.

And yes you would need a "new" sun. The effect of sun is different on different parts of the world, as is they types of food peopel eat, but it all (sun and food) falls in a certain range. Cow milk, grain, beans, etc are all outside that range.

Smackledorfer: Afaict you don't understand the basic premise of survival of the fittest, genetic mutations, and evolution as a whole. As a result instead of actually responding to points I make, you simply restate overly simplistic assumptions as unassailable truths. We are not automatically predisposed to eat what was eaten for 2.5 million years than we predisposed to prefer the levels of sunlight we were exposed to over 2.5 million years. Which is precisely why you dismiss the age argument so readily


Afaict you like to assign fake points of view to me, and not respond to any points that you don't like.

Smackledorfer: You also don't need a second sun, because the basis of your argument is "old good new bad" anyways. You've argued that non-paleo foods (ie, the equivalent to a second sun option) should be automatically discounted as inferior to paleo foods. You have further disagreed with me saying not all paleo foods are automatically good. So, if deviation from paleo foods is, by default, a bad thing, then you've already told me that if there were a second sun you wouldn't listen to any science for or against it being better. You would default a second sun as guaranteed to be inferior without looking at it on its merits anyways.


That is complete BS. l started down the science behind it in our first exchange when I talked about Lectins, and you ignored it. You have also ignored What Magorn has said on it.

And if we are going off "logic" alone then yes Paleo is leaps and bounds better than any other diet given the facts exchanged in out conversations.

Fortunately as Magorn has pointed out there is also a lot of science behind it that you didn't even bother to respond to (I didn't bother with that route after you ignored my initial lectin comment, seems you weren't interested)
:


Remember this exchange? I never said there is no way through modern farming or science that we can't come up with a better food.
 
2012-06-13 08:33:59 AM

liam76: Remember this exchange? I never said there is no way through modern farming or science that we can't come up with a better food.


We just don't. We come up with cheaper food, tailored to imitate and exaggerate the signals of desirability without the underlying nutrition that would naturally accompany those signals. All hail the almighty profit margin!
 
2012-06-13 11:44:47 AM

incendi: All hail the almighty profit margindesire to feed the growing population without a 1 for 1 increase in cost!

 
2012-06-13 12:41:45 PM

Benjimin_Dover: incendi: All hail the almighty profit margindesire to feed the growing population without a 1 for 1 increase in cost!


If they're fat and malnutritioned then you haven't fed anyone.
 
2012-06-13 12:45:02 PM

Benjimin_Dover: All hail the almighty profit margindesire to feed the growing population without a 1 for 1 increase in cost!


Monsanto may be trying to save the world through increased crop yield, etc, although I'd say they're a profit driven company like any other, but kraft, nabisco, et al are in the business of selling what pretty much barely qualifies as "food" engineered to encourage maximum consumption. They are not trying to keep the world from starvation, they're trying to get you and everybody else with a spare buck to stuff as much of their product down your gullet as possible. They could dedicate their scientists to making healthful foods, but that's not where the money's at. The money is in getting people to want to open up another box of corn starch, wood pulp, and artificial flavoring even though they're already full.
 
2012-06-13 12:50:26 PM

liam76: Smackledorfer: Why would one aspect of genetic variation that directly influences life expectancy be guaranteed to be selected for over 2.5 million years (food), and another one not (superior telomeres)?

Because when it comes to food if you are more suited to your diet then somebody you are competeing against, (then all other things being equal) you are going to be stronger and more healthy.

Depending on the society just living a few extra years may not really help (and if we are talking abotu tribes that take care of you) and may actually hurt.


There is no difference in strength and health through the prime mating years between an active person eating paleo and an active person eating a diet with plenty of refined carbs, dairy, beans, etc. Sure, in extreme circumstances there is a difference (and all sugar diet might not compete so well) but for any half-way decent diet our omnivore bodies can easily handle the diversity. So no, the only major difference between the non-paleo diets and the paleo is going to be the end of life difference.


liam76: I never said there is no way through modern farming or science that we can't come up with a better food


liam76: it [paleo diet] is based on us doing to day what we did thousands of years ago as that is what is most healthy for our body.



And you are now moving the goalposts to where you agree with the things I've been saying this whole time. Or you don't understand how superlatives work. If that's the case go take an english lesson while you are reading up on how evolution actually works.


liam76: You have also ignored What Magorn has said on it


I didn't ignore anything magorn said. I don't have a problem with a disagreement or a debate. Some mild goal-post moving as you've done can be chalked up to poor wording, but I have no time for dishonesty. At no point in this thread have I claimed the foods on the paleo diet are bad for you. There has been no need for me to disagree with magorn's comments regarding insulin. I assume this must be the post you are upset at me for not responding to?


Magorn: Precisely. The missing oiece in thsi equation is that most people fail to realize that most of human existance was a race to collect sufficent calories and use them eifficently rather than a struggle to avoid overeating. Therefore it is natural and logical to assume that we evolved a mechanism for storing excess calories as well as utilizing them . Obviously body fat is the way we store excess food. And when do we most need to store excess food? When food is about to become scarce, as it does in winter time. However body fat ,as we all know can slow you down and make you a less sucessful hunter. So evolutionarily it most beneficial for survival to pack on pounds just before winter and hopefully have them gone by early spring. (the extra insulation the fat gives you is another surivival bonus).

Now since carbs, before the advent of agriculture, were most available in late summer and throughout the fall, does it not make sense that the eating of carbohydrates became the body's "winter is coming, time to store food" signal?
Thus can it be any kind of suprise that the presence of Insulin, the chemical the body uses to process carbs, also became the hormonal trigger for things like the creation of body fat?


The only part of this that has anything to do with our discussion regarding evolutionary pressures and your lack of ability to understand them is that he through a "precisely" in there after you said the monumentally unsupported statement:


liam76: Unless you don't believe in evolution this isn't that complicated.


out there.

Because evidently, your lack of understanding of the subject implies anyone disagreeing with you lacks some sort of faith.
 
2012-06-13 02:02:34 PM

Smackledorfer: There is no difference in strength and health through the prime mating years between an active person eating paleo and an active person eating a diet with plenty of refined carbs, dairy, beans, etc. Sure, in extreme circumstances there is a difference (and all sugar diet might not compete so well) but for any half-way decent diet our omnivore bodies can easily handle the diversity. So no, the only major difference between the non-paleo diets and the paleo is going to be the end of life difference


So you think there is no difference between a "half-way decent diet" and a great diet on strength and health through the prime mating years?

Smackledorfer: liam76: I never said there is no way through modern farming or science that we can't come up with a better food

liam76: it [paleo diet] is based on us doing to day what we did thousands of years ago as that is what is most healthy for our body.


And you are now moving the goalposts to where you agree with the things I've been saying this whole time.


There is no moving of goal posts.

If I say car x is the "most" fast that isn't denying that someday modern science can't come up with a faster car.

Right now saying Paleo is the most healthy, doesn't mean modern farming or science can't come up with something more healthy.

Save your lectures on the English language for yourself.

Smackledorfer: liam76: You have also ignored What Magorn has said on it

I didn't ignore anything magorn said. I don't have a problem with a disagreement or a debate. Some mild goal-post moving as you've done can be chalked up to poor wording, but I have no time for dishonesty. At no point in this thread have I claimed the foods on the paleo diet are bad for you. There has been no need for me to disagree with magorn's comments regarding insulin. I assume this must be the post you are upset at me for not responding to?


No you ignored what I said. On my Boobies I talked about lectins, and you ingored that and clamped on the caveman part.

If you have no time for dishonesty then stop trying to portray my support for paleo strictly on "caveman did it".

I never said you claimed it was unhealthy either, so please save your lectures on honesty for yourself.

Until you can get a better grasp of the English language, and stop with the dishonest replies (pretended I said the diet was perfect, pretended I only talked about 2.5 million years, pretended scientific studies of food didn't come into play, accused me of saying you thought paleo was unhealthy, etc) there is no point to go on.
 
2012-06-13 02:09:35 PM
My diet am good!

1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-06-13 03:21:42 PM

liam76: Until you can get a better grasp of the English language, and stop with the dishonest replies (pretended I said the diet was perfect, pretended I only talked about 2.5 million years, pretended scientific studies of food didn't come into play, accused me of saying you thought paleo was unhealthy, etc) there is no point to go on.


projection at its finest.
 
2012-06-13 03:27:49 PM

Smackledorfer: liam76: Until you can get a better grasp of the English language, and stop with the dishonest replies (pretended I said the diet was perfect, pretended I only talked about 2.5 million years, pretended scientific studies of food didn't come into play, accused me of saying you thought paleo was unhealthy, etc) there is no point to go on.

projection at its finest.


Which of those didn't you do?
 
2012-06-13 04:06:44 PM

liam76: Smackledorfer: liam76: Until you can get a better grasp of the English language, and stop with the dishonest replies (pretended I said the diet was perfect, pretended I only talked about 2.5 million years, pretended scientific studies of food didn't come into play, accused me of saying you thought paleo was unhealthy, etc) there is no point to go on.

projection at its finest.

Which of those didn't you do?


You did say the diet was the best diet. I've repeatedly quoted exactly where you said it.
I never said you ONLY talked about 2.5 million years, I merely debated the fact that you continually repeated 'people ate X for 2.5 million years (5 or 6 posts in a row all you did was repeat that), therefore X is optimal'. My argument isn't whether diet X is good, bad, or optimal, it is whether you can assume it is good because of the 2.5 million years. We wouldn't even be having this discussion if you weren't moving goalposts around and denying what you say.

Finally, I didn't say that you said that I said paleo was unhealthy. I pointed out that I did not say it was unhealthy as my explanation of why I didn't respond to Magorn's multiple posts regarding insulin, which you accused me of ducking. I had no reason to duck them: they had nothing to do with my problem with the paleo dieters' ridiculous logical jumps and inability to grasp evolution.

As I said earlier, if someone told me "diet X is good because superman eats it and superman can shoot lasers" I would take issue with that. Someone could write a 45 page thesis on superman's ability to shoot lasers or diet X's health benefits, and neither would have shiat all to do with me pointing out that there is no reason to assume that the one has anything to do with the other.

If you hadn't said stupid shiat like "it [paleo diet] is based on us doing to day what we did thousands of years ago as that is what is most healthy for our body." then I wouldn't have had to reply with dozens of posts arguing that you cannot assume that what we did thousands of years ago is most healthy for our body. Over the last day you've moved your goalposts so far that they now agree with my initial argument, and you're "evolution" side of the argument has been all over the road.
 
2012-06-13 07:55:51 PM
Oh boy.
 
2012-06-13 09:26:11 PM

Smackledorfer: liam76: Smackledorfer: liam76: Until you can get a better grasp of the English language, and stop with the dishonest replies (pretended I said the diet was perfect, pretended I only talked about 2.5 million years, pretended scientific studies of food didn't come into play, accused me of saying you thought paleo was unhealthy, etc) there is no point to go on.

projection at its finest.

Which of those didn't you do?

You did say the diet was the best diet. I've repeatedly quoted exactly where you said it.


I said it was the "best", you claimed I said it was "perfect".

If I say car x is the "most" fast that isn't denying that someday modern science can't come up with a faster car.

Right now saying Paleo is the most healthy, doesn't mean modern farming or science can't come up with something more healthy.


There is the explanation again of how they aren't the same.


Smackledorfer: I never said you ONLY talked about 2.5 million years, I merely debated the fact that you continually repeated 'people ate X for 2.5 million years (5 or 6 posts in a row all you did was repeat that), therefore X is optimal'.


Dishonest, again. We have been over this. You summed up my argument as-

Your premise is that people ate X for 2.5 million years, give or take, and thus X is the best thing for them.:

When it was actually this.

The premise is that people ate X for 2.5 million years and ate Y for 10,000 years, so our bodies are genetically predisposed to work better on X.:

And you keep doing it.


Smackledorfer: Finally, I didn't say that you said that I said paleo was unhealthy.


Fair enough that was my mistake.



Smackledorfer: Over the last day you've moved your goalposts so far that they now agree with my initial argument, and you're "evolution" side of the argument has been all over the road


My goal posts never moved. I don't know if you are obtuse or stupid but I am not going to break out the car analogy again.

As far as my evolution theory if you can't grasp the difference between the sun and food, I can't help you.
 
2012-06-13 10:16:11 PM
sytereitz.com
 
Displayed 177 of 177 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report