Everything you know about nutrition is wrong.

[Praxis]

This is me after one month of a high-fat, low-carb diet, consisting of very large amounts of bacon.

Mostly ate eggs for breakfast every morning, then my lunches and dinners consisted of meat, cheese, and lots of veggies. And veggies fried in bacon fat. Sometimes I made bacon omlettes fried in bacon fat wrapped around cheese and veggies. Mmmm.

I did not calorie count.


Things I ate:

Pork/onions/cilantro/hot sauce/sour cream wrapped in fried cheese:

Bacon/green pepper/onion/cheese/hot sauce/sour cream frittata (fried omelette):

Bacon wrapped jalapeno poppers:

Oh yeah, and:
Everything you know about nutrition is wrong.

I highly recommend either watching the documentary "Fat Head" on Netflix or Hulu (highly entertaining after the slow initial half hour), or reading "Why We Get Fat" or "Good Calories, Bad Calories" from Gary Taubes.

Basic gist of it is this, there is a tl;dr underneath:

Saturated Fat intake has no correlation with heart disease. It is a myth perpetrated by a highly criticized study that became official U.S. policy in the 1950's and has only been further perpetrated by the lobbyists of grain companies who love being able to slap "healthy heart" logos on Cocoa Puffs. The Food Pyramid is similarly based on this myth.

Excluding olive/coconut, vegetable oils like canola oil are far worse for you than saturated fat like lard/butter. Margerine is worse for you than butter. Fatty foods do not cause heart disease or an increase in "bad" cholesterol; the majority of blood cholesterol is produced by the body, only a tiny fraction of it is dietary. Your fats and cholesterol are mostly controlled by hormones. What hormone controls fat? Insulin. What stimulates insulin production? Sugar. Bread. Carbs.

This has been thoroughly documented, but the most easy demonstration if it is "Fat Head", in which the producer replicates the fast food diet of SuperSize Me: Except he intakes no sugar (diet soda only), and minimal carbs (meaty meals, no fries ever), and has only 2000 calories a day (which is still quite a bit). Results? Weight loss and lower cholesterol, eating nothing but fast food and lots of burger meat and bacon.

(The above is not exactly a healthy long term diet- you'd definitely want to introduce a lot more vegetables, and grass-fed home-cooked meats would be much better for you)


So what causes heart disease? Heart disease is caused by the oxidization of bad fats. Eat antioxidants (certain veggies and fruits) and exercise to prevent that. Countries like Holland that have extremely high-fat diets (mostly cheese) and are heavy on public transit/bikes/walking have much lower heart disease than other countries.



If you don't believe me, google "Saturated Fat Heart Disease". First few links are studies or articles debunking the link the USDA always claims. Here's the Men's Health article:
http://www.menshealth.com/health/saturated-fat#axzz1lHMHi9DL

Another good article on saturated fat:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=carbs-against-cardio


The official government health websites like the USDA are full of crap and based on official policy, in turn based on lobbying and dogma of the past.




If you are interested in a near-zero carb, high-fat, rapid weight loss diet, join up with me on:
http://www.reddit.com/r/keto/

Huge thread explaining why an almost no carb (ketogenic) diet works and is not unhealthy, tons of FAQ and science:http://lowcarbplate.com/tlcm/





It should be noted that these kinds of diets are also optimal for low-body-fat, for those of you who are slim, work out, and want a six pack.



But going in to ketosis- almost no carb- isn't the only way to lose weight. Any diet that reduces insulin response will cause you to lose weight. Insulin is in response to blood sugar spikes, remember; eating foods with carbs that break down slower will result in smaller insulin responses. Eating beans and fruit instead of white bread will lower your insulin response because they don't break down into sugars as fast. Avoid the refined stuff! Sugar, corn syrup, white bread. These things make you excessively fat. Whole grains, white potatoes, and other carby/starchy foods are still pretty fattening. Want to lose weight without cutting carbs? Eliminate white bread and sugar altogether, try to limit bread intake but when you do use whole grain bread, and focus on getting carbs from beans and fruit and sweet potato instead. Feel free to replace carbs with fat and protein from meat and eggs anytime you wish! It will always be less fattening.

tl;dr: Eat less sugar, starch, and grains. Don't touch artificial vegetable oils such as canola/soybean oil. Eat all the eggs and meat you want. Feel free to cook with butter and lard. Eat lots of vegetables as opposed to fruit. Weight will fall, vitals will improve. Exercise is a multiplier.



Will follow with comments containing additional data.

Chug that heavy cream, folks!

 

[Praxis]

FAQ:

What about teh calories?!??!11

The calories in/out concept is terribly flawed. The body does not burn a set number of calories in the day and can ramp up its metabolism based on if it is trying to (via hormones) store and gain weight or burn it off. Insulin pushes the body to store more. If you store more, your body will tell you you are hungrier. Furthermore, if you have a small calorie deficit the body will lower metabolism by making you feel more sluggish, lowering body temperature, or a number of other ways to conserve calories.

Eventually, as you ignore your body's hunger signals, it will grudgingly go to the fat reserves. BUT:
(a) if you are eating poorly, you will usually lose weight slower than you would expect
(b) if you are eating poorly, your muscles will weaken along with fat loss, because it is your muscles demanding more food since everything is being stored thanks to insulin.


While you can calorie count to lose weight, deciding between carb restrictions and calorie counting comes down to:

Would you rather avoid certain foods and always feel satisfied?
or
Would you rather fight hunger constantly, and risk gaining the weight right back when you stop counting?


This guy on the Reddit keto board demonstrated it by eating >3000 calories a day- on purpose, for a week- and lost eight pounds. All meals logged.

This guy on a carnivore board force fed himself ~4000 calories a day (averaging 3800) for one month and did not gain a single pound.

This doesn't violate thermodynamics, but it demonstrates how poor the calories in/out model is. By eating a diet that minimizes hormonal storage responses from the body, the body ramps up its metabolism to burn any excesses and goes directly to fat reserves for any deficit without complaint. The diet is explicitly muscle sparing (it eliminates all storage response) and people tend to gain muscle easily with any workout while on the diet (I've gained significantly, first time with arm definition!).


IMO, this is actually the most feasible way to lose weight. I've done calorie counting, I've watched my roommate lose all his muscle mass along with 80 pounds calorie counting. Keto works better, for health, muscle strength, and lifestyle (I never deal with hunger, I eat whenever hungry because, as my body is not storing anything, my hunger is directly correlated with what my body needs).


As a side note- everyone has different sensitivity to insulin. People who are resistant to insulin have bodies that produce far more insulin to react to the same amount of blood sugars. For a person who has normal insulin sensitivity, calorie counting is pretty easy to do; the body does not go in to storage mode easily. For an overweight person, eating the same amount of sugar/grains produces a much stronger storage reaction.








My friend eats whatever he wants, and he stays skinny!


Okay, quickie explanation.

Insulin causes weight gain.

Insulin is a hormone produced in response to blood sugar spikes. The bigger the spike, the bigger the insulin response. If you become resistant to insulin, your body produces more and more to react to the same amount of blood sugar, and you gain more and more weight, feel hungrier, etc, and eventually develop metabolic syndrome or if your pancreas can't keep up type 2 diabetes.


The slower a carbohydrate breaks down in the blood, the less of a spike, so the less insulin.

Ketosis is a way to gear your body in to burning fat very fast, because your body gears itself to using fat to replace everything. It burns fat for energy, it breaks fat in to ketones to replace glucose, etc etc.

It's not the only way to lose weight or avoid gaining weight. Really, you will lose weight if you:
(A) Consume less than you take in (calorie count)
(B) Minimize insulin responses to blood sugar so your body doesn't hormonally try to store

Calorie counting is hard as heck because you basically have to ignore all of your body's cravings. Plus, calorie counting isn't all that healthy if you eat poorly- you just end up depriving muscle.

B is a matter of eating to avoid insulin spikes. That doesn't mean low carbohydrates necessarily- you can just eat carbohydrates that release slow.

If you look up diets like the Engine 2 diet, for example- it's a vegetarian diet. Yet people lose weight on it. Why? Because you're only allowed to eat things that have slow-releasing blood sugars, to simplify. Most good vegetarian weight-loss diets will still ban or restrict sugars, grains, and starches.

If your body never builds an insulin resistance, you can basically not worry about what you eat as long as you try to avoid sugar (which is what builds an insulin resistance in the first place) and refined white bread.

Fruit still has sugar. But it's not the same blood-sugar-spiking sugar you get in a Coca-Cola.

In other words-

If you're already fat, you *might* need to cut down on fruit, but only if you've eliminated all refined sugar, grains, and white starches first. Fruit is waaaaay down on the priority list. If you've eliminated sugar and grains and still aren't losing weight, then look at fruits...or if you want to lose weight fast and cut out all sugar.

If you're skinny, sure, eat all the fruit you want. You're not resistant to insulin, the nonrefined sugar is probably not going to make you resistant to it, and fruit has lots of good nutrients. Your body'll break it down and call it good.








I want to lose weight without changing my habits, help!

You're going to have a tough time here. But, eliminating sugar is a great start.

Remember the guy in SuperSize Me that ate nothing but Big Macs and was skinny? Remember how everyone just seemed shocked by it and no explanation was offered?

The documentary Fat Head basically tests this out- the guy goes on 30 days of low-carb McDonalds Binging! He orders double-patty-burgers with cheese, does not order fries, and only drinks diet sodas and tea. Spoiler: He loses weight.

Kill the sugar and white bread first.










But Praxis! I just read that there was a Harvard Study that said red meat makes you die!

This study is absolutely terrible and bad science. Have you actually read the study, as opposed to the terrible headlines it makes?


It's an observational study, not a controlled study.

They basically just tracked the diet of a few thousand people and found that people who said they avoided Red Meat were 20% likely to die over the 20 year period.

That's it.
Correlation is not causation.

Observational studies are supposed to be used to generate a hypothesis that should then be lab tested. These jokers decided to publish conclusions off of an observational study.

If I told you that smokers were slightly more likely to die of liver failure in an observational study, would you instantly conclude smoking causes liver failure? The reality is that the smokers were also more likely to be drinkers, and alcohol causes liver failure. The people who smoked less also drank less because they were less prone to addictive behaviors.


Same deal. The correlation is tiny- 20%. If four non-red-meat-eaters died during the study, then five red meat eaters died during the study. Furthermore, people who explicitly say they avoid red meat are likely people who actually stick with a diet, and thus more health-conscious in general. And further than that, there's no differentiation between "red meat" and "processed meat", and you have to remember that cheap processed meats are usually cooked in unhealthy vegetable oils at fast food restaurants, so there's probably a correlation between the "red meat eaters" and just poor diet choice in general.


To quote the actual study:
"Men and women with higher intake of red meat were less likely to be physically active and were more likely to be current smokers, to drink alcohol, and to have a higher body mass index".

That's right, folks, the people who identified themselves as meat eaters in the study included more fat, sedentary, smoking alcoholics than the other group. It's actually pretty amazing that they only had a slightly higher mortality rate!

But, of course, using the logic this study used, we can also conclude that red meat intake causes smoking.

A MORE FORMAL EXPLANATION OF WHY THIS STUDY IS BUNK AND OVERBLOWN:

http://garytaubes.com/2012/03/scien...eudoscience-nutritional-epidemiology-and-meat



If I wanted to try a keto diet, what do I do?


http://www.reddit.com/help/faqs/keto

Summary:
As long as you are eating less than 20g of carbs a day (not counting fiber as a carb), you are in ketosis.

Just check the label of what you're eating, see how many carbs it has, subtract the fiber from the total, and make sure your total for the day is under 20g.

If you feel crappy, do the following:

* Up fat intake; you want fat to make up the majority of your diet, not protein
* Up your potassium intake- you can get this from leafy green vegetables and avocado.
* Eat more salt, ketosis depletes salt
* Drink more water, fat metabolization uses more water so you will need to drink a lot more
* Avoid vegetable oils, they're bad for you. Except Olive/Coconut oil


As a general rule:
* Meat has no carbs, red meat/poultry/fish all included
* Eggs have no carbs
* Leafy vegetables are mostly fiber, and you need them for vitamins, so eat a lot of them
* Nuts are low carb, high fat, especially almonds. But they do have carbs so don't go crazy
* Fruit has carbs from sugar, occasional berries or tomatoes are okay but for the most part minimize fruit
* Milk is loaded with carbs from lactose However, the lactose breaks down when it is turned in to cream or cheese. Cream and cheese are both low carb. Low-fat or sweetened cheeses are usually bad, so only eat full fat cheeses.




I generally eat stuff like steak, chicken, fish, and occasional bacon, with broccoli/spinach/kale/avocado/bok choy/romaine lettuce/cabbage for vegetables (usually steamed in butter or drizzled in olive oil), and lots of cheese, olives, and almonds for snacks.

Bacon is more of a treat, it has more omega-6 fats than I'd prefer...they're not fattening, but they're inflammatory, which is not good for you. Less inflammatory than vegetable oils though, those things are loaded with omega-6. Omega-3's are good for you, and saturated fats and monounsaturated fats are fine for you.

Eat till you're satisfied. You'll find that since your body stops storing fat in ketosis you have much less appetite.




Remember:

When your body has carbohydrates, they turn in to blood sugars. If your blood sugar spikes, your body releases hormones designed to encourage your body to store it as fast as possible, because high blood sugars can be poisonous.

So you store more food instead of using it, and feel hungry again faster.

How strong the "storage effect" of insulin lasts depends on your individual insulin resistance, that's why some people get fat and some stay skinny eating the same foods.

Most people feel cruddy if they don't have enough blood sugar, but if you deprive yourself of glucose the body eventually manufactures a replacement (ketones) from breaking down fat.

So, that's the "hack"; switch your body to not using glucose (from blood sugar) and using fat instead, and eliminate the carbs that makes the body store. Body stops storing fat. Appetite drops significantly. You lose weight rapidly.

Almost all of the low carb diets (Atkins, South Beach, etc) have an "induction phase" that is basically the same thing as keto; you go in to ketosis. This is just getting rid of the extra rules those diets use and saying, "eat what you want, just stay in ketosis by not having carbs, and be aware that if you feel crappy it's because your body is lacking in x, so you should probably eat more vegetables/salt/drink more water."

 

[Praxis]

If you want more information, best basic book I've read is "Why We Get Fat", and "Fat Head" on Netflix/Hulu is the documentary you should watch.

 

[Wumbo105]

That friend cheese taco looks EXQUISITE.

It's a shame it's all about losing weight, I can't afford to lose another pound. Would u happen to know anything about gaining muscle weight? I've been trying increased amounts of protein in general along with working out, but I'm getting very minimal improvements at best (I think I've gained 5 lbs in like a year).

 

[Vermanubis]

Though you know how much I disagree with you on this one, Praxis, I'm just gonna pose a few counterclaims, mostly from anecdotes, since I feel that trying to be pedantic about the physiology of nutrition ultimately creates a "no u" argument.

First anecdote is the universal one: most people who have a balanced diet without a preponderance of one particular thing are typically the ones who are athletic and achieve high levels of athleticism.

Second one: while there're obviously statistics saying that some individuals had improved vitals on said diet, there're also statistics (in much greater volume) that suggest not just weight loss, but optimal health on low saturated fat diets and balanced diets in general. A personal example is, as I told you on AIM weeks ago, that my dad had a heart blockage, and a reduction in saturated fat intake lowered his triglycerides considerably without medication. I've heard similar stories from around the dance floor.

Obviously there's conflicting rhetoric. So, in my mind, the wisest course of action is to side with the school of thought that states that things like the current AHAA paradigm is the smartest route. Though I personally don't believe this in entirety, for the sake of argument, I'll say that it appears both sides have equally rigorous evidence. However, the former side (AHAA and the like) has been observed to be just as effective for a longer period of time. So naturally, it's inherently unwise to experiment with something that hasn't had the time-testing and post hoc documentation that its rival has had.

In brevity, the diet in question doesn't cancel out the validity of a conventionally healthy diet, and even if it turns out to yield weight loss, it hasn't had the time to be adequately observed over long periods of time. With that being said, there is inherent risk and whatever marginal benefits that are argued to be present over a conventional health diet don't outweight the potential negative effects.

There've been documented increases in cancer, heart disease and other blights in populations who consumed higher amounts of red meat, saturated fat and other foods in question and unfortunately, even as wonderful as science is, statistics are valid over pedantic conjecture for a reason. One could say that eating a lot of red meat doesn't link to cancer, because X chemical in Y endocrine function negates a cell receptor in Z cell type to reduce the risk of (****, I ran out of algebraic letters, so I'll just use a Ganon head) types of cancer. But when people with a proclivity for red meat are observed to have a higher instance of cancer, theorizing is less poignant.

And for thought, here's a study that I feel holds more weight than a Men's health article or a documentary with unverifiable credibility: http://www.okicent.org/study.html

The people of Okinawa have one the highest longevities of any people in the world, and it's largely attributed to their diet.

 

[Praxis]

Though you know how much I disagree with you on this one, Praxis, I'm just gonna pose a few counterclaims, mostly from anecdotes, since I feel that trying to be pedantic about the physiology of nutrition ultimately creates a "no u" argument.

My first question is: what specifically are you disagreeing with in my post? I get the impression that you disagree with the "saturated fat is not bad for you" part, but want to clarify.

First anecdote is the universal one: most people who have a balanced diet without a preponderance of one particular thing are typically the ones who are athletic and achieve high levels of athleticism.

Ah, but this "balanced diet" is a completely relative term, isn't it? How do we define balance? Do we consider sugar part a balanced diet? For a more extreme example, how about cyanide?

You're going to have to define "balanced diet"; you can't reasonably debate and throw the term around as a catch-all.

I fully agree that a balanced diet is healthy. I feel a healthy balanced diet, however, should include as little sugar as possible. I think that for maintenance, Paleo is the healthiest way I've heard to eat; as little grains as possible, carbohydrates from vegetables and legumes and fruit, grass-fed meat, no vegetable oils except olive, and with vegetables as the bulk.

I suspect you have a different opinion of balanced diet, something closer to the flawed Food Pyramid, which was was entirely a product of grain industry lobbying; the Pyramid I like best was the one put out by Harvard.

Notice the 1/3rd size grain portion, and how white bread counts as sugar.

Second one: while there're obviously statistics saying that some individuals had improved vitals on said diet, there're also statistics (in much greater volume) that suggest not just weight loss, but optimal health on low saturated fat diets and balanced diets in general. A personal example is, as I told you on AIM weeks ago, that my dad had a heart blockage, and a reduction in saturated fat intake lowered his triglycerides considerably without medication. I've heard similar stories from around the dance floor.

My question would be what your dad replaced the saturated fat with. I'm betting his diet inadvertently resulted in increased vegetable intake and decreased sugar, though I could be wrong. I would disagree that there are statistics in "much greater volume" that suggest otherwise. Anecdotally, I know multiple vegetarians with high cholesterol!

Obviously there's conflicting rhetoric. So, in my mind, the wisest course of action is to side with the school of thought that states that things like the current AHAA paradigm is the smartest route. Though I personally don't believe this in entirety, for the sake of argument, I'll say that it appears both sides have equally rigorous evidence. However, the former side (AHAA and the like) has been observed to be just as effective for a longer period of time. So naturally, it's inherently unwise to experiment with something that hasn't had the time-testing and post hoc documentation that its rival has had.

How can you say that the AHA side proven to be more effective? Over the last few decades we've seen heart disease and diabetes rapidly on the rise, despite increasing low-fat products on the market. If anything, we're proving that it is not working.

There've been documented increases in cancer, heart disease and other blights in populations who consumed higher amounts of red meat, saturated fat and other foods in question and unfortunately, even as wonderful as science is, statistics are valid over pedantic conjecture for a reason.

Have there been, really? Or are you just saying that?
The Dutch consume a lot of saturated fat, and have very low rates of heart disease.
The Eskimos have a nearly all-fat diet, and heart disease is virtually unknown.

In fact, I think it's fairly accurate to say that you just made this up on the spot. Let's google it, shall we?

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=saturated+fat+heart+disease&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

I google'd "saturated fat heart disease".

Result 1:
Study fails to link saturated fat, heart disease | Reuters
Self-explanatory.

Result 2:
Saturated fat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
12 studies are listed here:
Study #1: Replacing saturated fats with omega-3 fats resulted in reduction in heart disease (logical, as explained below), but there was a much stronger link with vegetable oils/omega-6 fats and heart disease.

#2: Study of 350k people determined there was no link between saturated fats and heart disease.

#3: Increased omega-3 fats reduced risk of heart attack, saturated fats were inconclusive, vegetable oils negligibly increased risk

#4: "Single-nutrient RCTs have yet to evaluate whether reducing saturated fatty acid intake lowers the risk of CHD events. "

#5: "50% of the estimated risk reduction for replacing PHVO with animal fats and vegetable oils. Reduced risk associated with monounsaturated fatty acids (MUFA), PUFA, and SFA compared with trans-fatty acids (TFA)."

Animal fats proved to reduce risk.

#6: "Intake of SFA was not significantly associated with CHD mortality"

#7: "No overall association between saturated fat and coronary heart disease was found."

#8: Lowering saturated + trans fats lowered risks. This is a poor study as saturated fats are lumped in with trans fats, and trans fats are bad.

#9: First study on this list to claim a long term association, but vague.

#10: "Despite decades of effort and many thousands of people randomised, there is still only limited and inconclusive evidence of the effects of modification of total, saturated, monounsaturated, or polyunsaturated fats on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality."

#11: "Based on the data from the Nurses’ Health Study, we estimated that substitution of the fat from 1 ounce of nuts for equivalent energy from carbohydrate in an average diet was associated with a 30% reduction in CHD risk and the substitution of nut fat for saturated fat was associated with 45% reduction in risk."

This is the second study on this list to claim to find an association. Unfortunately, the observational Nurses' Health Study's conclusions all later failed in clinical trials and thus are not exactly a solid source to run these numbers on.

#12: Replacing saturated fats with omega-3's resulted in a negligible decrease in heart disease. This is also logical.




Now, remember what I said causes heart disease? Inflammation. Eating too much omega-6 polyunsaturated fat is inflammatory (found in most meats, most heavily in pork, least in fish). Omega-3 (found heavily in fish, but also in most meats- grass-fed beef has much higher quantities- pork has the least) is anti-inflammatory.

So, pork is a poor meat choice. Fish is a fantastic meat choice.

I'm claiming:

Omega-3 = good
Saturated fat = neutral
Omega-6 = bad

Vegetable oils are loaded with omega-6, far more than any meat.

So, the studies that claimed replacing saturated fat with Omega-3 Polyunsatured Fatty Acids reduced mortality? Logical.


Link 3: Saturated fat prevents coronary artery disease? An American paradox

Scientific American study that, as the title says, found that saturated fat intake actually slightly reduced risk of heart disease.

Link 4: Saturated Fat | Men's Health

Men's Health article examining evidence and studies that saturated fat does not increase heart disease.

Link 5: Carbs against Cardio: More Evidence that Refined Carbohydrates, not Fats, Threaten the Heart

Studies finding that sugar had a stronger correlation with heart disease.

One could say that eating a lot of red meat doesn't link to cancer, because X chemical in Y endocrine function negates a cell receptor in Z cell type to reduce the risk of (****, I ran out of algebraic letters, so I'll just use a Ganon head) types of cancer. But when people with a proclivity for red meat are observed to have a higher instance of cancer, theorizing is less poignant.

And yet, they're not. India has the highest cancer and heart disease rates in the world. India also has the highest number of vegetarians in the world (Hinduism is the predominant religion, which bans all forms of meat intake).

And for thought, here's a study that I feel holds more weight than a Men's health article or a documentary with unverifiable credibility: http://www.okicent.org/study.html

The people of Okinawa have one the highest longevities of any people in the world, and it's largely attributed to their diet.

I'm rather familiar with the Okinawa, but I don't see anything about them that contradicts what I've said about how health works. The Okinawa consume almost no sugar and vegetable oil, much more fruits and vegetables than grains, and eat a highly anti-inflammatory diet consisting of fish (omega-3 fats) and fruits (berries tend to be anti-inflammatory).


And the Okinawa are much healthier than the vegetarians in India.

So, again, what specifically are you trying to disprove here?

 

[SuperBowser]

Indian diets are extremely fatty and Indian people are genetically predisposed to ischaemic heart disease. Not the best comparison.

Hinduism also does not ban all forms of meat intake. Meat consumption varies depending on the area of India you are in, but there are plenty of places where a significant portion of the population eat meat.

 

[Praxis]

Indian diets are extremely fatty and Indian people are genetically predisposed to ischaemic heart disease. Not the best comparison.

Hinduism also does not ban all forms of meat intake. Meat consumption varies depending on the area of India you are in, but there are plenty of places where a significant portion of the population eat meat.

Per Google, India has surveyed at 31% of population vegetarian. I stand corrected on the meat matter; guess it varies.

 

[Teran]

My diet is primarily white rice based that pyramid can suck my ****. I'm only a shade over 130lb and I'm practically immobile. :3

 

[SuperBowser]

I'd bet money Indian vegetarians have better health outcomes than Indian meat-eaters. However, I'm not sure you can call typical Indian diets (veg or non-veg) "healthy" by any metric.

You sound like me, Teran. :D My diet is almost pure carbohydrates.

 

[Teran]

Tilda Basmati brother (because (American rice is terrible).

Also people talk **** about how bad carbohydrates are, but really you just need to take in carbs proportional to your level of activity. Since most of us in the developed world are lazy as hell all things considered, it stands to reason that your carb intake doesn't need to be so high.

The most healthy thing of all is not sitting on your arse all day. :3

And no, an hour a week at the gym is not called being active!

This isn't a direct reply to any posts in this thread so don't start *****ing at me k.

EDIT: TERAN WAS LEGDROPPED FOR MAKING THIS POST WITHOUT THE HULKSTER'S PERMISSION BROTHER

 

[rvkevin]

This is basically correct. The idea is to do what makes you happy on a calorie restricted diet. Eating vegetables allows you to do this easily since they are very low calorie and have high fiber. Protein and fat also satiate hunger well. On the other hand, sugar spikes blood sugar which will make you hungry shortly thereafter (and refined sugar doesn't have fiber). It's not that sugar directly contributes to weight gain, it just makes you hungrier which makes you prone to over consume. To lose weight, all you have to do is consume less calories than you burn (which is why the 'Twinkie diet experiment' worked). You have the choice of making good food choices and being satiated or make poor decisions that leave you hungry. The percentage of carb : protein : fat doesn't matter in terms of weight loss, only when it comes to adhering to the diet. This was confirmed by experiment, the participants who had varied percentages of the macro-nutrients (but same calorie deficit) lost the same amount of weight. The only caveat is that they had to stick to the diet to see the results, which is harder when the diet has a high(er) amount of refined sugar.

Personal Background: lost 90+ lbs at about 1 lb/wk (somewhat concerned that the OP lost about 25lbs over the course of 30 days, that is quite a calorie deficit). Current carb : fat : protein ratio is about 50:30:20 (was closer to 60:20:20 for most of weight loss period). Carbs mostly come from fruits and whole grains. Will probably up my carbs in the near future.

 

[Praxis]

This is basically correct. The idea is to do what makes you happy on a calorie restricted diet. Eating vegetables allows you to do this easily since they are very low calorie and have high fiber. Protein and fat also satiate hunger well. On the other hand, sugar spikes blood sugar which will make you hungry shortly thereafter (and refined sugar doesn't have fiber). It's not that sugar directly contributes to weight gain, it just makes you hungrier which makes you prone to over consume. To lose weight, all you have to do is consume less calories than you burn (which is why the 'Twinkie diet experiment' worked). You have the choice of making good food choices and being satiated or make poor decisions that leave you hungry. The percentage of carb : protein : fat doesn't matter in terms of weight loss, only when it comes to adhering to the diet. This was confirmed by experiment, the participants who had varied percentages of the macro-nutrients (but same calorie deficit) lost the same amount of weight. The only caveat is that they had to stick to the diet to see the results, which is harder when the diet has a high(er) amount of refined sugar.

Personal Background: lost 90+ lbs at about 1 lb/wk (somewhat concerned that the OP lost about 25lbs over the course of 30 days, that is quite a calorie deficit). Current carb : fat : protein ratio is about 50:30:20 (was closer to 60:20:20 for most of weight loss period). Carbs mostly come from fruits and whole grains. Will probably up my carbs in the near future.

I agree with most of what you say in here, but I dislike simplifying everything to calories in/out. Yes, eating less than you use invariably results in weight loss. But what you eat can effect where the weight comes off and even how much you burn.


Weight gain/loss, or at least the body's attempts to do it, are controlled by hormones. Some people get fat because they are resistant to insulin and thus produce 5x more in reaction to the same sugar, and their bodies thus attempt to store and tell them to eat more. Other people get fat because they age, and their testosterone or estrogen stops regulating fat accumulation in the belly/hips respectively. Other people get fat because of a thyroid problem causing accumulation.

Depending on the cause of weight, if the underlying cause isn't treated, trying to calorie restrict might be less effective. The body may reduce calories-burned-at-rest if it is trying to store. If the calorie restrictions are significant, you'll still lose weight, but there's other health costs and perhaps loss of muscle as well as the muscles are starved for energy as the body is trying to conserve.

If one is fat due to poor diet choices, choosing to eat better- like eliminating sugar and refined grains- will make them feel a lot better and also have lower appetite, and might just possibly even increase the calories they burn in the day.

(I'm not saying that carbohydrates are the source of all weight gain- but the refined carbohydrates are the worst offender. Switching to lower-glycemic index carbs is enough for most people to lose that hunger feeling significantly. I would argue that the twinkie diet worked because the professor who tried it was not insulin resistant and maintained a steady supply of vegetables; his body burned off the carbs and got the nutrients he needed from the vegetables, so no significant metabolism decrease and he had a calorie deficit and got all his nutrients)


Ketosis proves the inverse of this is true pretty effectively; the body has very little hormonal storage response while in ketosis, so people in ketosis find it incredibly hard to gain any weight from fat.

As I linked to above:


This guy on the Reddit keto board demonstrated it by eating >3000 calories a day- on purpose, for a week- and lost eight pounds. All meals logged.

This guy on a carnivore board force fed himself ~4000 calories a day (averaging 3800) for one month and did not gain a single pound.

You said:

(somewhat concerned that the OP lost about 25lbs over the course of 30 days, that is quite a calorie deficit)

Thing is, it wasn't! I tracked a few days on MyFitnessPal sporadically, I was eating 2000-3000 calories a day while losing weight. I lost weight for 5-6 weeks before plateau'ing, and it was only at this point that I actually had to reduce my intake slightly (and not by counting, just by realizing I can stop eating a little sooner and still be full now that I'm smaller).

For that first month I was doing stuff like making omelettes out of four eggs, three pieces of bacon, some onion, a bell pepper, cheese, and sour cream, fried in bacon grease, for breakfast, snacking on some cheese and drinking heavy cream mixed with almond milk with some veggies on the side and a spoonful of coconut oil for lunch, eating steak and buttered broccoli for dinner.

Metabolism spikes up pretty hard in ketosis.

 

[Teran]

You should just hit the gym brother.

 

[rvkevin]

Metabolism spikes up pretty hard in ketosis.

How healthy is this?

To quote WebMD: “High protein, low-carb diets can cause a number of health problems, including: Unhealthy metabolic state (ketosis). Low-carb diets can cause your body to go into a dangerous metabolic state called ketosis since your body burns fat instead of glucose for energy. During ketosis, the body forms substances known as ketones, which can cause organs to fail and result in gout, kidney stones, or kidney failure. Ketones can also dull a person's appetite, cause nausea and bad breath. Ketosis can be prevented by eating at least 100 grams of carbohydrates a day.”

 

[deepseadiva]

Avoiding the entire nutritional debate, lolololol. But good **** on the weight loss, Praxy.

Sweet Batman chest hair.

 

[TheSaudiMizer]

For the people trying to lose weight, I think the biggest problem people make is looking for an "easy" way to do it, or some sort of secret that is going to do the trick. When I went to college at 18 and was 300 pounds, I left at the end of school year around May at 170-180 pounds. What I got the most often from people who asked me about it was "What was your secret?" or "What did you do?" when really, you should know what you have to do. There is no easy way to do it, you need to suck it up and change your lifestyle.

While eliminating carbs or eating certain things can help, the fastest way is to do a serious commitment and get it out of the way as soon as possible rather than slowly chipping away at it, leaving more time to revert back to bad habits. The fastest way can be the hardest initially, but is the best in the long run. Sort of like quitting smoking cold turkey. I've failed many weight loss attempts trying to cut certain things rather than truly commit and do all that you can to help yourself out. My problem was little physical activity, and many eatings a day of unhealthy foods that would just add up. You are either going to spend a long time making little sacrifices or spend less time with bigger sacrifices, and the latter is definitely the easier way to accomplish it.

Of course, this will not succeed if you cannot motivate yourself to commit, but if you cannot motivate yourself to commit then you won't succeed in the first place. You just need to realize that the longer you continue the harder it will be to change in the future, and the only way it will change is if you do something about it, so when are you actually going to commit to that? You have to if you want to succeed with what you are trying to do. I found the easiest way for me was small, but healthy foods I would eat 6-7 times a day. Average day for me would consist of breakfast, OJ and cereal (skim milk, cheerios, again the more you can change the better). Lunch would be just PB&J on wheat with skim milk, dinner was like turkey sandwich, vegetable, water/skim milk. Of course starting this I was starving, so between the 3 main meals, I would eat an apple/peanut butter crackers/something small and healthy. Eating more certainly isn't bad, but you just need to make sure you're eating things that are actually good for you. I would view any sort of desert as a step back in my walk to lose weight, and while you can still succeed with "rewarding" yourself every once in a while, the more you can commit the less time you have to commit for. Physical activity is a must, if you try to lose weight with just dieting then good luck, you're in for a long and hard ride. I personally prefer running (not that I'm good at it or like it, but it seemed to work the best). I started with running 1/10th or 1/5th a mile, followed by walking that much, then repeating until I managed a mile. Eventually I got to the point where I could do 1/4 or 1/2 a mile and eventually could crank out a whole mile in a non-stop jog. Anyway yes this sucks, but if you take a couple of weeks and get used to it it really just feels normal. But the key is to not expect immediate results and to stick with it because if you don't then things will not change.

Anyway I know this has been a bunch of rambling and I'm not bashing on any sort of diet plan or whatever may work for you, I just wanted to say if you're looking at this thread or any other place for an easy way to lose weight or the secret to doing it, then you need to stop. Because if you really want to make the change, you have to be the one to commit to the change.

Sorry to OP for making random intoxicated St. Patty's day posts.

 

[Sarix]

Interesting thread on nutrition Praxis. One thing you could also add is how the three major body types (ectomorph: skinny and tall, mesomorph: broad and average, & endomorph: broad and more prone to fat gain) affect metabolism, fat storage, and muscle gain. I referenced them for helping to adjust my eating habits along with basic nutrition and exercise and it really does help in correlation to improving nutrition.

 

[Crimson King]

This thread kinda continues one major myth that diets work the same for everyone.

A lot of factors go into gaining and losing weight, so before anyone jumps on this and follows this guy's first post talk to your doctor. Ask Jim Fix what happens if you don't.

 

[eighteenspikes]

Good job losing weight but don't run around telling people their entire lifestyle is wrong because you lost weight in a month of fad dieting. I eat an extremely carb-heavy diet and look better than you do at the same weight because I exercise every day. You should hop on over to the gym thread sometime so you can work towards an "After" picture where you can see a difference without turning sideways in overhead lighting.

 

[Peeze]

This thread kinda continues one major myth that diets work the same for everyone.

A lot of factors go into gaining and losing weight, so before anyone jumps on this and follows this guy's first post talk to your doctor. Ask Jim Fix what happens if you don't.

^Yes.
The only thing that works the same for everybody all the time is exercise.

 

[CableCho57]

eat less calories then you burn, you lose weight

gain muscle so your body burns calories on a continual basis to keep the weight off

saudimizer knows whats up. just eat better, suck it up and exercise,

and moderation is key. eating a little dessert everyone once in a while is okay so you dont binge after abstaining from it for a year

 

[Praxis]

This thread kinda continues one major myth that diets work the same for everyone.

A lot of factors go into gaining and losing weight, so before anyone jumps on this and follows this guy's first post talk to your doctor. Ask Jim Fix what happens if you don't.

Oh, I actually very strongly agree. Some people are overweight because of insulin resistance, some people are overweight because of hormone problems (sex hormones, thyroid, or any number of others), etc.

Actually, my real point in this thread is that saturated fat is not bad for you. IMO:

Good for you:
omega-3 polyunsaturated fats
monounsaturated fats


Neutral for you:
Saturated fat
Cholesterol
Low glycemic index carbohydrates (beans, sweet potatoes, fruit)

Bad for you:
Omega-6 polyunsaturated fats (in large quantity)
Trans fats (in any quantity)
High glycemic index carbs (sugar in all forms including fructose, white bread)


However, the omega-6's and trans fats are not fattening/appetite-inducing (beyond being calorie-dense), they're just inflammatory. The high glycemic index carbs are both inflammatory and potentially fattening depending on the body's insulin tolerance.


THIS is what I want taken out of the thread.

I don't expect everyone to do keto. I want to bust the saturated fat and cholesterol intake = heart disease myth. Eat eggs and drink full fat milk without stressing.

^Yes.
The only thing that works the same for everybody all the time is exercise.

This is actually not true. Depends on the body. Ever seen a fat lumberjack or construction worker?

IF the body is overweight due to a hormone deficiency (insulin resistance, thyroid, testosterone, etc), it's very common for the body to respond to exercise with significantly increased appetite. Hence why some people build muscle but don't burn fat with exercise.

If the person is fat just due to calories in/out, they have to exercise without increasing intake to lose weight.

How healthy is this?

To quote WebMD: “High protein, low-carb diets can cause a number of health problems, including: Unhealthy metabolic state (ketosis). Low-carb diets can cause your body to go into a dangerous metabolic state called ketosis since your body burns fat instead of glucose for energy. During ketosis, the body forms substances known as ketones, which can cause organs to fail and result in gout, kidney stones, or kidney failure. Ketones can also dull a person's appetite, cause nausea and bad breath. Ketosis can be prevented by eating at least 100 grams of carbohydrates a day.”

This whole article is crap and a running joke at /r/keto. Notice how nothing has sources cited?

To break it down:
* This is a high fat, low carb diet, not high protein (which puts more stress on the kidneys).
* Ketones don't cause organ failure, they have cause and effect reversed; when diabetics suffer organ failure their body can produce ketones (this is called ketoacidosis), hence why some people associate organ failure with ketones. Ketoacidosis and ketosis are entirely unrelated.
* Ketosis is not some kind of undesirable state. Dulling a person's appetite? Sounds good. Bad breath comes with the territory unfortunately. The nausea thing, I'm not sure where they're getting that from. I've heard of people feeling some nausea in the first three days while the body is adjusting, but not beyond that, ever.

 

[eighteenspikes]

Hey dude I hope you realize Reddit is a running joke at many a community. I don't think you're in a position to criticize WebMD for its sources either. To put this in a language you might understand:

Here's the Men's Health article:
http://www.menshealth.com/health/saturated-fat#axzz1lHMHi9DL

"The message isn't that you should gorge on butter, bacon, and cheese," says Volek. "It's that there's no scientific reason that natural foods containing saturated fat can't, or shouldn't, be part of a healthy diet."

Another good article on saturated fat:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=carbs-against-cardio

Nobody is advocating that people start gorging themselves on saturated fats, tempting as that may sound. Some monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats, such as those found in fish and olive oil, can protect against heart disease. What is more, some high-fiber carbohydrates are unquestionably good for the body. But saturated fats may ultimately be neutral compared with processed carbs and sugars such as those found in cereals, breads, pasta and cookies.

Your other sources are a comedy mockumentary and two anecdotes from the internet. This thread is sensationalist crap and people would be better off just getting off their ***** for an hour a day. Why are fad dieters always the most shamelessly proselytic?

 

[Praxis]

Hey dude I hope you realize Reddit is a running joke at many a community. I don't think you're in a position to criticize WebMD for its sources either. To put this in a language you might understand:

I haven't responded to you because your last post was mostly a troll. I'm absolutely willing to discuss this in a more formal debate style if you are, and if you will drop the hostility.

Stuff like repeatedly using the term "fad diet" and posting the scumbag meme is just trying to be hostile. Low-carbohydrate diets have been used to treat obesity since William Banting in the 1800's, and I'm literally doing nothing but that- low carb, no special regimen or brand-name diet plan. If anything, modern low-fat diets are a bigger fad.

Your other sources are a comedy mockumentary and two anecdotes from the internet.

First, I suggest the book "Why We Get Fat".

Next:

University of Florida professor on fats

Saturated fat prevents coronary artery disease? An American paradox

Modest favorable trends in triacylglycerol and HDL-cholesterol concentrations were observed with higher fat intakes.

Is Saturated Fat Bad For Us?

Low carbohydrate diets improve atherogenic dyslipidemia even in the absence of weight loss.

Cholesterol does not cause coronary heart disease in contrast to stress.



There's a ton of evidence that (A) cholesterol dietary intake is of only minor relevant to blood cholesterol, (B) Heart disease is actually caused by inflammation, and (C) Saturated fat isn't particularly bad for you.

Which of these statements do you disagree with so I can address it properly?

In relation to C, most of the stuff I've read shows pretty consistently that replacing saturated fat with monounsaturated fats or omega-3 polyunsaturated fats shows an improvement in most respects- HDL/LDL levels and weight- but replacing saturated fat with carbohydrates shows decrease.

IMO, a healthy long-term diet should be something like 40-40-20 fat-carbs-protein, with high glycemic index carbs avoided (sugar), and more protein in a bodybuilder. Meanwhile, the average american eats something like 70% carbs. They're bombarded with "low fat" options and everything is sugary.

 

[Teran]

people would be better off just getting off their ***** for an hour a day

 

[Jim Morrison]

Food in general is nice and some people should just eat a little bit less.
Once you notice you get fat, just eat less or move more.

I really can't see how this not works for everyone

 

[Teran]

Food in general is nice and some people should just eat a little bit less.
Once you notice you get fat, just eat less or move more.

I really can't see how this not works for everyone

Mechanized society brother.

Also literally every TV commercial in America is FOOD FOOD FOOD _____ for just 99c GET THIS MASSIVE ****ING MEAL FOR $2.99 you fat mother****er!

Basically in MY GREAT COUNTRY we work those stupid fatasses by making them have to put minimal effort into everything they do then advertising as much fast food as possible to turn them into big balls of goo that could never start a revolution jack.

That's what it's all about brother, the American people just aren't ready to be main eventing in the battlefield dude so we gotta turn them into tubs of jello or pathetic cruiserweights.

 

[Peeze]

^lol eat less move more.

 

[Sarix]

Once you notice you get fat, just eat less or move more.

I really can't see how this not works for everyone

The only problem with that is just eating less and getting more exercise is a flawed way to lose weight considering how the body will adjust to receiving less food. And once the three major body types are taken into consideration it is very different especially for endomorphs whose bodies are prone to storing fat compared to ectomorphs who struggle to build muscle.

 

[SuperBowser]

^lol eat less move more.

That's basically gonna my advice if somebody ever asks me. I'd probably throw in a line about less sugar + less fat + replacing "bad" foods with healthier alternatives. If people just stop drinking fizzy drinks, going to McDonalds and eat more vegetables, they'd lose weight without trying.

 

[Praxis]

less sugar + less fat

This is what I'm saying is wrong.

When you order a burger, fries, and a soda, the sugar and potato starch are going to be worse for you than the meat.

I got a friend of mine to start losing weight just by telling him to order McDoubles or Big Macs with no fries and a diet soda, instead of a cheeseburger with fries and a soda.

Remember the skinny guy in SuperSize Me who ate Big Macs every day? It's the sugar and fries, not the beef and cheese.

 

[GwJ]

I'm in a lazy habitual diet. I get chinese food at least once a week on average, I get fast food relatively often as well and my drink of choice in my fridge is chocolate milk (although I've been drinking more water lately). How tough will it be to change my eating habits to something healthier?

 

[Deleted member]

is anyone here familiar with The China Study, or the documentary made based on it "Forks Over Knives?" watch the documentary on Netflix. pretty interesting stuff. no one will actually want to follow the plant based whole foods (vegan) diet they recommend, but its a good watch.

i have my doubts as to whether unnaturally putting your body in any "state" (ketosis) is the best way to go about things

 

[rvkevin]

I'm in a lazy habitual diet. I get chinese food at least once a week on average, I get fast food relatively often as well and my drink of choice in my fridge is chocolate milk (although I've been drinking more water lately). How tough will it be to change my eating habits to something healthier?

Its best to make small changes and find the reasons why your eating habits are the way that they are. Do you get fast food for the convenience or because you don't know how to cook? If you don't know how to cook, try 1 new recipe every week or whatever until you have built up a repertoire. This will help curb take-out by helping you cook more meals at home. You need to find healthy foods that you enjoy. Experiment with different foods, experiment with different preparations for those foods.

If its because of convenience, you might have to plan your meals in advance (as in, before you are hungry). This doesn't mean prepare them the night before, but you should have an idea of what you will have for dinner before you are hungry for dinner. That way, you aren't left in a situation where the only thing available to eat is what is near you.

Your drink of choice should be water. You don't have to jump to this in one step. I myself went from soda to unsweetened tea to lemon water to water. It's simply a matter of retraining your taste buds. I initially didn't like the taste of water, but then I got used to it (probably as a result of dropping sugar consumption).

 

[GwJ]

I get fast food out of convenience. I'll be coming home from class, realize I'm starving, realize I don't have anything noteworthy in my pantry, and settle for chinese food or Wendy's or something like that.

I am watching Fat Head tonight though.

 

[Praxis]

is anyone here familiar with The China Study, or the documentary made based on it "Forks Over Knives?" watch the documentary on Netflix. pretty interesting stuff. no one will actually want to follow the plant based whole foods (vegan) diet they recommend, but its a good watch.

I'm very familiar with it, however, I've actually gone over the data and for the most part disagree with the conclusions.

There's two big problems with the China Study:

#1: Correlation is not causation. The China Study is an observational study. Observational studies are notorious for being poor for creating conclusions. You're supposed to look at an observational study, come up with a hypothesis, and then lab test it or test it in a controlled study. The China Study is an observational study that jumps straight to the conclusion.

I bet that if you did a study of smokers, you'd find they are more likely to die of liver failure. Why? Because a person who smokes has a higher likelihood of being an alcoholic. In a observational study, you might hypothesize that smoking causes liver failure. In a controlled study, you'd find this hypothesis was wrong. The first problem is that the China Study is a hypothesis-building observational study, not a conclusive study.

An article about why conclusions from observational studies are wrong more often than right]; interesting statistic that Harvard's health observation studies hypothesis/conclusions have always been later been found incorrect in controlled studies.

Problem #2: The data doesn't even support the conclusions of the China Study. If you actually review the data, red meat rarely has the strongest correlation with any of the problems; sugar is usually worse.

[url=http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/07/07/the-china-study-fact-or-fallac/]A debunking of the conclusions of the China Study based on its data.]

[url=http://rawfoodsos.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/minger_formal_response2.pdf]A more formal debunking in PDF.


I think there's a much better correlation with sugar and chronic diseases.

i have my doubts as to whether unnaturally putting your body in any "state" (ketosis) is the best way to go about things

I don't think there's anything unnatural about ketosis; hunter-gatherer societies, people doing wilderness survival, and eskimos are in ketosis all the time. It's just using fats instead of sugars. Ketogenic diets are often used to treat epilepsy too.

 

[etecoon]

Remember the skinny guy in SuperSize Me who ate Big Macs every day? It's the sugar and fries, not the beef and cheese.

Weight loss =/= Nutrition, you might look a bit better but

this still isn't particularly good for you

 

[Praxis]

Weight loss =/= Nutrition, you might look a bit better but


this still isn't particularly good for you

Oh, I agree on that. They add filter to the ground beef and fry it in vegetable oils loaded with inflammatory omega-6 fats.

I'm absolutely in agreement that a McDonalds burger is unhealthy. My point is that, contrary to the common belief, it's not all that fattening. It's the fries and soda. A meatier burger with no fries and coke is the best thing you can order from McD's if you have to order something there and don't want to gain weight.

Either that or a salad, but they fill the dressing with sugar so you might have to eat it plain.

 

[rvkevin]

I get fast food out of convenience. I'll be coming home from class, realize I'm starving, realize I don't have anything noteworthy in my pantry, and settle for chinese food or Wendy's or something like that.

Plan ahead. Stock up your pantry at the beginning of the weak so you have the option of cooking at home. If you usually get hungry after class, bring a bag of almonds, a banana, etc. to keep you satisfied until you make dinner. You don't want to be starving when you're making food choices, which is why it is crucial to plan ahead.

You might need to eat more during the day or for lunch. Its been observed that people who skip meals usually make up for it and then some in their next meal which is why skipping meals is a diet no-no. If you overeat during dinner, its usually an indication that you are not eating enough during the day. I'm not sure if this applies to you, but its something to consider.