Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 68 (9078 total)
744 online now:
Dredge, Parasomnium, PaulK, Tangle, Theodoric (5 members, 739 visitors)
Newest Member: harveyspecter
Post Volume: Total: 894,949 Year: 6,061/6,534 Month: 254/650 Week: 24/278 Day: 24/27 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Good Calories, Bad Calories, by Gary Taubes
Percy
Member
Posts: 20948
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 271 of 451 (505190)
04-08-2009 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 270 by Dr Jack
04-08-2009 4:52 PM


Re: A though: cyclical dieting
Very, very interesting possibility. Let me know if you happen to come across any research on people. I think I might be able to give this a try just to see what happens.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by Dr Jack, posted 04-08-2009 4:52 PM Dr Jack has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 20948
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 272 of 451 (505745)
04-16-2009 5:44 AM


Taubes versus Ornish
I apparently missed part of the Taubes/Ornish debate last summer. What happened first was that Taubes commented on a recently concluded Israeli study that compared a low-fat diet with a low-carbohydrate diet or Mediterranean diet. Taubes' comments are part of a New York Times article by John Tierney:

Good News on Saturated Fat

Taubes argues that the study's results support the hypothesis that fat, and in particular saturated fat, is not the key factor in heart disease, and again chastises the American Heart Association for continuing to back a hypothesis that lacks evidential support.

Dean Ornish, a professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco and author of diet books, believes that Taubes position on fat is mistaken, and he's tangled with Taubes on several occasions, in both broadcast and print media. His response is included in another Tierney NYT article:

End of the Diet Wars?

Ornish points out that his "dietary recommendations have evolved over the past 30 years," and that he now places greater emphasis on restricting the intake of refined carbohydrates, and so in this he a Taubes are in agreement. But he strongly disagrees with Taubes' position on saturated fat, and so he expresses concern about the "scientific validity" of the Israeli study, states that he'll post the details of those concerns in his next post. I think this must be his column in Newsweek that I tore apart earlier in this thread in my Message 259.

My own experience is consistent with the Israeli study. As I reported last year, at my annual physical all my indicators were the best they've ever been. If saturated fat is really bad for us, and if the reason they're bad for us is because they produce unhealthy levels of LDL and so forth, then why does the research keep showing that diets high in saturated fat actually cause improvements in these measures?

For reasons best known only to themselves, organizations like the American Heart Association and American Diabetes Association feel comfortable with this inherent contradiction in their position. Fortunately our grocery store shelves continue to provide increasing quantities of low-carbohydrate alternatives, so obviously the American public is increasingly turning a deaf ear to these organizations, at least while they're claiming the primary culprit is fat and not carbohydrates. That's good news.

--Percy


Percy
Member
Posts: 20948
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 273 of 451 (510298)
05-29-2009 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by molbiogirl
06-02-2008 3:20 PM


Re: Correcting Misinformation
I was looking for an old message and accidentally came across this that for some reason I never replied to:

molbiogirl writes:

I suggest you listen to his Sugar Shock broadcast.
He says, in no uncertain terms, that carbs are the cause of cancer and Alzheimers.

I don't know why I chose not to respond to this at the time, but it is clearly false that Taubes claims that carbs are the cause of cancer and Alzheimers. Here's what Taubes actually says in the broadcast (The Low-Fat, High-Carb Diet Hoax: Why Conventional Wisdom Wrong -- With Gary Taubes).

The interviewer, Connie Bennet, asks, "You were saying that refined carbs and sugars give you cancer and heart disease and heart diseases and Type II diabetes". Taubes replies:

Taubes writes:

There's this concept of the diseases of civilization. And diseases of civilization, western diseases, are diseases that people get when they start eating the diet that we've all grown up eating. And these observations made by, used to be physicians, working in missionary hospitals or colonial hospitals around the world. Populations would eat their traditional diets, whether they were Africans or southeast Asians or Polynesian islanders or the American Indian, don't get the diseases we get. They don't get heart disease, they don't get cancer, they don't get demented, they don't get diabetes, they don't get obese, they don't get hypertension.

And so all these diseases only appear after you start eating western diets. And what this diet is that people start eating is you add sugar and flour, predominantly, to these diets, and you start seeing these diseases.

The dietary fat hypothesis holds that the diseases of western civilization are caused by dietary fat. Taubes is saying that the dietary fat hypothesis is wrong, that these diseases are actually caused by increased intake of refined carbohydrates in the form of sugar and flour.

Clearly Taubes is no more saying that carbohydrates are the cause of these diseases than the dietary fat people are saying that dietary fat is the cause. They're both claiming that a change in diet is the cause of elevated levels of these diseases in western civilization, they're just both focused on different dietary changes.

Instead of doing honest criticism, people like Molbiogirl have been attempting to discredit Taubes views by purposefully misrepresenting what he says. You kind of expect this sort of thing from people unfamiliar with science who might be given to rhetorical approaches to discussion, but even after a year I find I'm still shocked that Molbiogirl in her PhD program and Dean Ornish in his professorship and Dr. Barbara Howard in her position at the American Heart Association and on and on, engage freely in this fallacious practice when it comes to Taubes.

So people like Molbiogirl might say, "Taubes claims Polynesians don't get obese," but only those most uninformed or purposefully misleading would say such a thing, completely ignoring the context. Taubes of course is aware that some Polynesians unexposed to western diets still get fat. The point is that they don't get fat in the huge numbers that they do in western countries.

The big question is why western civilization is plagued with obesity, diabetes and heart disease. When people are removed from their South Pacific island or from the jungle or from whatever was their native habitat and are placed into western civilization, they find themselves getting diabetic and fat at about the same rate as everyone else on western diets. What's the cause? For 50 years the answer has been dietary fat. And in that 50 years we've gotten fatter and more diabetic. Taubes believes it's because the cause is not dietary fat, it's carbohydrates.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by molbiogirl, posted 06-02-2008 3:20 PM molbiogirl has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by purpledawn, posted 05-30-2009 1:57 PM Percy has replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 2768 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 274 of 451 (510372)
05-30-2009 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 273 by Percy
05-29-2009 5:20 PM


Food Battle
Hey Percy,
I haven't read Taubes' book, but I have read many along the same lines. I have battled weight for years. Like you, I can gain weight on a 1200 calorie diet. My hubby and I followed the low fat diet for over 20 years. I don't do organize exercise and he is a chronic exerciser. The exercise didn't cause him to lose weight and he was hungry a lot. We even visited a dietitian who said our diet was fine, if that's what we were really eating. She suggested we increase our calories. Didn't help.

About 5 years ago I finally called it quits on the low fat diet the doctors prescribed. My weight was going up and I refused to gain any more, but I wasn't going to starve. I wanted a diet that was realistic to a daily routine that I can live with, not suffer through.

So it has been a process to get where we are today. I gave up foods with preservatives and high fructose corn syrup to start with. I also gave up low fat foods. My weight dropped. I still ate plenty of protein (my beef is home grown grassfed) and fruits and veggies. I was a high protein and low carb diet. My husband discovered Atkins and strickly followed his advice. I wasn't in a rush to lose and didn't want to get that extreme. But my husband's weight started to drop. I finally got to see some of those muscles from all his exercising. He now does triathelons. He doesn't have six pack abs. There is still some fat belly fat he wants to get rid of, but he didn't have to suffer through hunger pains. The sugar cravings went away. We also didn't have a problem with having a piece of cake at a Birthday party and the next day find that we gained 5 pounds. So we can have a "bad" day but it didn't impact our weight the same as on the low fat diet. We went back to our diet, which is now our norm. Flour and sugar (variations of the two) are the carbs we don't eat. We've even experimented with whole grains and such, but too much and the weight climbs.

I read up on metabolic typing because there are people who can eat a higher amount of carbs and not have a weight problem. I'm not a purebred anything. My ancestry covers the Netherlands, Germany, Ireland, England, and Native American. When I think of evolution and people evolving in specific areas and the foods available in those area, I wonder how that affects their metabolism or how their bodies react to food. As a hybrid, what does that do to me?

When I don't eat any sugar or breads, my cholesterol goes down. The doctors wouldn't believe it. I even experimented with natural sugars. The cholesterol still went up.

So we have been able to maintain our way of eating for over 3 years. By insurance charts we are still considered obese, but I'll take a size 14 over a 20 any day.

There is a research study here at the University looking for people who are overweight, 50-75, and don't exercise. I'm starting the process to be a part of the study. The advertisement said the study will attempt to determine if weight loss with exercise is more beneficial than exercise alone.

Then the email responding to my inquiry said:

We are examining differences/similarities in exercise with and without fat loss. Participants in the study are randomized into one of two groups: 1) 3 days per week, for 12 weeks, of exercise training; or 2) a combination group that receives menus for
weight loss and participates in the exercise training.

I went to fill out the consent forms, medical info, and questions about activity.

The consent form said under purpose:

You (the potential research subject) have been invited to participate in a research study that will allow us to examine the effect of fat loss and/or weight training on cells involved in immune function. Specifically, we (the researchers) want to determine whether exercise training with/without fat loss influences cells of the immune system that contribute to inflammation.

Now in the letter I have to give to my doctor for permission it says:

Your patient has volunteered to participate in a study that will examine the influence of physical activity level and weight loss on monocyte subtype and the capacity of these cells to produce inflammatory cytokines. As you know, inflammation has been linked to the pathogenesis of several diseses, among which are heart disease, diabetes, and arthritis.

Does this all sound like the same purpose?

When they showed me the diet for the exercise/diet group, it is a high carb, low protein diet. I showed the lady my current diet, which she ignored. If I'm in the diet and exercise group and don't lose more than 8 pounds; I'm removed from the study. If I'm in the exercise only group (resistance training) and lose more than 3 pounds, I'm removed from the study.

The diet had breads and grains every day in some way. I told her I'd probably gain on their diet. She said anyone who stays true to the diet would lose at least 2 pounds a week. (I've never lost 2 pounds a week on any diet.) If I end up in the diet and exercise category, this could be an interesting experiment just for my own knowledge of my diet.

They are also going to test my current fitness level and if I'm too fit, I'm out even though I don't do organized exercise. It'll make my day if I'm not pathetic enough for the study. :laugh:

Needless to say, I agree that the low fat doesn't work for me. Sorry if this post is disjointed. Grandson is here, enough said.


"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by Percy, posted 05-29-2009 5:20 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by Percy, posted 05-30-2009 2:19 PM purpledawn has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 20948
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 275 of 451 (510375)
05-30-2009 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by purpledawn
05-30-2009 1:57 PM


Re: Food Battle
purpledawn writes:

Sorry if this post is disjointed. Grandson is here, enough said.

Gee, what a coincidence, my own grandson will be here in about an hour!

It was good to hear your story - it pretty much echoes my own.

While I'm not really qualified to assess the consistency of the various statements of the study's purpose, they did seem to be relatively consistent and focused on the same goal. Combined with what you said about the weight loss criteria for remaining included in the study I gather that they're only interested in studying the impact of weight loss that exceeds a proscribed amount, and they want to see if the weight loss method makes a difference in the inflammatory effects of one aspect of the immune system. I'm always amazed at how much research there is in areas we never even heard of.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by purpledawn, posted 05-30-2009 1:57 PM purpledawn has not replied

JustinC
Member (Idle past 4154 days)
Posts: 624
From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Joined: 07-21-2003


Message 276 of 451 (516440)
07-25-2009 12:40 AM


Video Lecture
I read Good Calories, Bad Calories and I greatly enjoyed. Although I am in no position to judge the validity of everything he says, I found it very compelling in several areas.

My favorite section was on obesity since it totally changed the way I look at overweight and obese individuals. I've just never really considered the idea that the energy balance equation was a tautology and sheds no light on the obesity epidemic. I always considered it to be obvious that a positive caloric balance was the problem and that this was caused by a self indulgent indolent society.

Why am I not fat (6'4, 205)? I exercise and eat in moderation, I would say. But the more I thought about the more I realized that my weight has stayed the same for about 7 years now and there is no way that fact is the result of me consciously regulating my input/output. I never even tried, so if it is something that is regulated consciously I have gotten extremely lucky. My guess is its not just about input/output.

Anyway, Taubes caused a great paradigm shift in my thinking and I'd like to know what others think about his arguments about obesity. Here is a link to a lecture he gave about the subject:

http://www.dhslides.org/mgr/mgr060509f/f.htm

Highly recommended.


Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by Percy, posted 07-27-2009 8:59 AM JustinC has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 20948
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 277 of 451 (516741)
07-27-2009 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 276 by JustinC
07-25-2009 12:40 AM


Re: Video Lecture
Hi Justin,

Thanks for posting this. I was going to wait until I finished watching the video before responding, but I ran out of time. I've seen maybe the first 10 minutes. Taubes appears to have improved and refined his presentation, and the slides are certainly new. I can't comment yet on whether he's added any new material about developments since his book came out.

For the benefit of anyone unfamiliar with Taubes' position on the exercise/diet equation, he believes that if you diet less you'll exercise less and weigh the same. And that if you exercise more you'll eat more and weigh the same.

What I've never seen him mention is the willpower component of losing weight. If you diet and maintain your exercise level, you will lose weight. Or if you increase your exercise level and maintain your diet, you will lose weight. You will continue to lose weight (or maintain after achieving your goal) for as long as your willpower holds out. For most people the limits of willpower run out after at most a year, then they begin putting the weight back on.

Taubes provides no diet advice, but he believes elevated intake levels of refined carbohydrates in western societies are responsible for the obesity epidemic. Although Taubes argues his position from a scientific basis, from a purely practical diet standpoint the advantage of a low carbohydrate diet is that it results in much less hunger than other diets and is therefore easier to maintain. His other claim, that you can consume more calories on a low carbohydrate diet and still lose weight, has not been scientifically proven or disproven at this point in time.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by JustinC, posted 07-25-2009 12:40 AM JustinC has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by Phat, posted 07-27-2009 5:13 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 280 by purpledawn, posted 08-09-2009 12:45 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Phat
Member
Posts: 16054
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003


Message 278 of 451 (516852)
07-27-2009 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by Percy
07-27-2009 8:59 AM


Leptin and Insulin Resistance
Percy writes:

The big question is why western civilization is plagued with obesity, diabetes and heart disease. When people are removed from their South Pacific island or from the jungle or from whatever was their native habitat and are placed into western civilization, they find themselves getting diabetic and fat at about the same rate as everyone else on western diets. What's the cause? For 50 years the answer has been dietary fat. And in that 50 years we've gotten fatter and more diabetic. Taubes believes it's because the cause is not dietary fat, it's carbohydrates.

And now let me introduce another author of another book into the discussion: Dr.Ron Rosedale.Dr. Rosedale was founder of the Rosedale Center, co-founder of the Colorado Center for Metabolic Medicine (Boulder, CO) and founder of the Carolina Center of Metabolic Medicine (Asheville, NC). Through these centers, he has helped hundreds suffering from so-called incurable diseases to regain their health. One of Dr. Rosedale’s life goals is to wipe out type II diabetes in this country as a model for the world.

Rosedale has a theory that the body becomes resistant to Leptin, which coincides with insulin resistance and is a result of the societal shift towards refined carbohydrates and sugar over the last 100 years or so coupled with a decrease in physical activity.

You can read a summation of his philosophy here.

Basically, Rosedale argues that our primary fuel should be fat (good fat) rather than sugar and carbohydrates except for hi fiber lo glycemic carbohydrates such as broccoli, kale, and spinich.

He is against Atkins primarily because the protein levels are too high and because Atkins does not differentiate between good and bad fats.

quote:
To summarize, normally leptin, secreted acutely in response to a meal or chronically in response to increasing fat stores, in a leptin-sensitive individual, will reduce hunger, increase fat burning and reduce fat storage.

However, when one is leptin-resistant -- as indicated by an elevation in fasting serum leptin -- the part of leptin's message that would normally reduce hunger and fat stores and increase fat burning does not get through to the brain (here mimicking low leptin), so one stays hungry and stores more fat, rather than burning it. However, the message to increase sympathetic nervous system activity gets through all too loudly and clearly, so one stays hungry, continues to get fat, and gets elevated sugar, insulin resistance, high blood pressure, heart disease and accelerated aging.


Personally, the jury is still out on whether or not Rosedale is on to something. I am reading up more on Leptin.

Edited by Phat, : added features


This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by Percy, posted 07-27-2009 8:59 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by purpledawn, posted 08-09-2009 12:59 PM Phat has not replied

Phat
Member
Posts: 16054
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003


Message 279 of 451 (516854)
07-27-2009 5:22 PM


Fat versus Carbohydrates
Percy writes:

Taubes provides no diet advice, but he believes elevated intake levels of refined carbohydrates in western societies are responsible for the obesity epidemic. Although Taubes argues his position from a scientific basis, from a purely practical diet standpoint the advantage of a low carbohydrate diet is that it results in much less hunger than other diets and is therefore easier to maintain. His other claim, that you can consume more calories on a low carbohydrate diet and still lose weight, has not been scientifically proven or disproven at this point in time.

The Rosedale diet is simply this:

* Avoid most starchy carbs and sugars.
* Eat good fats rather than saturated or trans-fats.
* Eat the 'right' amount of protein.
* Eat slowly and don't eat 3 hours before bedtime.
* Eat when you are hungry (rather than counting carbs/calories).
* It is effectively a high fat, low nonfibrous carb, moderate/low protein diet.

On a low carbohydrate diet, you are not as hungry as on a high carbohydrate diet if half of your caloric intake is composed of good fats, such as almonds, walnuts, pecans, olive oil, etc..

Rosedale also warns about overdoing protein.

Edited by Phat, : fixed


purpledawn
Member (Idle past 2768 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 280 of 451 (518903)
08-09-2009 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by Percy
07-27-2009 8:59 AM


Book and Video
Hey Percy,
I did watch the video and although he could get into specifics, genetics one area I've thought about concerning my own weight. The United States is such a melting pot, I don't see how any scientist can make a one size fits all decision.

I just bought the book and am at page 138. The connection between sugar and cholesterol is one of my issues. I discovered that on my path to losing weight and dealing with cholesterol numbers.

I had lost 15 pounds by cutting anything with preservatives in it and white flour, which cut out a lot of refined carbs. My weight went down, but my cholesterol went up. I had not stopped eating candy. I had also not decreased my intake of eggs. I eat about 2 eggs a day. I was actually eating more calories than before I lost the weight. No, I don't do organized exercise. My activity stayed the same.

When I stopped all sugar of any kind (even HFCS) my cholesterol went down to just under 200 from 290. My egg, protein, and fat intake stayed the same.

When I eat sugar or refined carbs, my cholesterol goes up.

My Mom is diabetic (2). When I can get her to stop the sugar and refined carbs, her sugar level is fine.

Once I get off the sugar and refined carbs, I don't have cravings.

The biggest problem with the way I eat is when interacting with others for holidays, cookouts, etc. We just took a trip to Holiday World in southern Indiana with my husband's family. Although my husband does, his family doesn't tend to have weight problems; but they are finding they have some of those health issues even though they don't have weight issues. High Cholesterol, high blood pressure, etc.

Since we rented an RV we were able to take our own food. We have sprouted grain buns with no sugar, hotdogs with no nitrites, grassfed beef, etc. So the rest of the family ate their standard fare and we stuck to our usual food. We did indulge in a somemore or two. There's just no way to substitute for a marshmallow.

We don't have a will power issue and we've been eating this way for over 5 years. We aren't hungry. I average about 1400 calories a day.

Since I started that research program, my weight went up a bit. I'm in the exercise only bunch. It is 30 minutes of resistance training. They don't expect us to lose weight with exercise only. The diet bunch has their caloric intake decreased by 750 calories.

I'm sure they'll lose weight, but I don't feel they can stay there. That type of diet would take will power. They give them a low fat, high carb, low protein diet.

I'm anxious to get through the book and see what other research has been done and goes along with what I've discovered through my own situation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by Percy, posted 07-27-2009 8:59 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 2768 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 281 of 451 (518905)
08-09-2009 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 278 by Phat
07-27-2009 5:13 PM


Re: Leptin and Insulin Resistance
quote:
He is against Atkins primarily because the protein levels are too high and because Atkins does not differentiate between good and bad fats.
I think many aren't separating good carbs from bad carbs and good fats from bad fats.

I eat a lot of beef, but it isn't grain fed beef. I eat grass fed beef. The fat is different since cattle aren't set up to eat the grain they are given. They fatten up faster on corn than grass. I grew up on grassfed beef and had no weight problems until I hit High School and fast foods. I don't eat vegetable oils either. I stick to olive oil.

I still think it goes back to where our ancestors evolved. Humans would have evolved around the food available. Given time, humans may adjust to the chemicals they call food and be able to survive. How long does evolution take?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by Phat, posted 07-27-2009 5:13 PM Phat has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 20948
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 282 of 451 (534009)
11-04-2009 10:16 AM


NYT Article about Exercise and Weight Reduction
See http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/...xercise-lead-to-weight-loss. Significant excerpt:

NYT writes:

“The message of our work is really simple,” although not agreeable to hear, Melanson said. “It all comes down to energy balance,” or, as you might have guessed, calories in and calories out. People “are only burning 200 or 300 calories” in a typical 30-minute exercise session, Melanson points out. “You replace that with one bottle of Gatorade.”

This is part of Taubes argument in Good Calories, Bad Calories. Exercise brings with it increased caloric consumption and so does not lead to long term weight loss.

As the article goes on to explain, exercise can help you reduce weight, but only "if you don't replace all of the calories afterward." What the article doesn't mention is that if you don't replace the calories you'll be hungry, which turns exercise into just another battle between hunger and willpower, and as I've argued throughout this thread, for most people willpower diets can only be carried on for so long.

So how's my diet doing roughly a year and a half after I began? I once hit a low of 163 for one day, but more practically my low weight was probably 165. I now weigh around 172, a gain of 7 pounds. A low carbohydrate diet is a willpower diet, too, but the battle is against diminished variety rather than hunger. Most of the gain occurred during a three or four week period where I just couldn't resist having rice and pasta. I'm back on the wagon.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Typo.


RAZD
Member (Idle past 716 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 283 of 451 (534022)
11-04-2009 12:49 PM


weight or girth, body density factors
Percy & Purpledawn,

I am much interested in this issue since my cancer came back, plus I started to get back pain problems. I've tried to increase exercise and have eliminated sugars and breads for now. My ability to exercise is limited due to muscle loss during the recovery period for the stem cell transplant, and my arms in particular are weak. This is double bad as poor exercise in elderly people can lead to permanent bone density loss. I do yoga and cycling, thinking about swimming. Not intense stuff, but more motion and flexibility and endurance.

One of the problems I've always had is the focus on weight loss, because exercise not only burns fats, it builds muscles, which are denser than fats. You should measure girth (ie belt size).

I've been on this diet for ~4 months now - inspired by your posts - the first couple months I could see some improvements, then some friends visited and 3 nights eating out and I blew up like a balloon.

Recently I am at a low point for the year, however part of it is the chemotherapy and loss of appetite (not a diet regimen I recommend), but I'll take it and see if I can base-line it or improve on it.

My immediate goal is to get back to a 38 waist.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by purpledawn, posted 11-04-2009 2:19 PM RAZD has replied

Dman
Member (Idle past 4328 days)
Posts: 38
Joined: 02-26-2009


Message 284 of 451 (534030)
11-04-2009 1:23 PM


My 2 carbs.
I would like to pop in here with a few comments and experiences I have had with dieting and exercising.

I have Type 1 diabetes and so have looked into a lot of diets and exercise routines. I have also done some personal research on what a body goes through during and after exercising, since it is something I enjoy and want to do regularly without any complications with my diabetes.

I am in agreement that a high refined carbohydrate diet will lead to weight gain and or problems losing weight while on a diet that doesn’t restrict them, or eliminate them all together. I do not however believe that you should cut carbohydrates out completely. The only carbs you should be consuming are complex carbohydrates. The idea being that eating starchy or refined carbs will spike insulin levels. Insulin, as I’m sure most of you here know, acts on many cells in your body, in particular for this topic, the storing of fat. So with a low consumption of complex carbohydrates in a meal your insulin levels will be much lower than if you consumed any refined carbohydrates. So, I believe that it logically follows that if your meal contained any fat while containing a low amount of complex carbohydrates, the fat from the meal will be used for energy, rather than stored (due to there being a low level of insulin). If you consumed a low fat high carb meal, the carbs can also be stored as fat. Fat cells prefer fatty acids but if they are lacking, the next choice is all of those refined carbs in the form of glucose. Complex carbs being released slowly into the blood will be used for energy well after the meal at a slower rate (which is why I believe you should not cut carbs completely).

On to exercise.

I am personally a firm believer in exercise combined with diet to reach any weight related goals.

I have seen it written here that exercising increases your appetite. Absolutely true. Then it was written that this leads to a will power struggle not to eat more. I believe that you can eat more while exercising and still lose weight (or inches). What I have learned is that after exercising, in particular if you have trained with weights, you can consume roughly 15-20 grams of refined carbs after a workout. During a workout your liver and muscles release glycogen for energy, glycogen is replaced by glucose, so the 15-20 grams are going to be used to replace glycogen levels. This is also one of the reasons you are hungry after a workout, because your liver and muscles are looking to replace the lost glycogen, and if your blood glucose levels are low (a result of your body replacing glycogen) you feel hungry. So enjoy something a little sweet after a workout. I do =)

It is also good to do cardio first thing in the morning, before you eat. The theory being that your body is in a fasted state and has no source of energy other than stored fat. I also read that it helps to burn calories more efficiently throughout the day (not sure how true that one is).

I wish I could have written this out a bit better but I wanted to reply and had little time, so hopefully I added something, I only read the first and last page of the thread.

Oh and the book seems very interesting, I think I might pick it up.


purpledawn
Member (Idle past 2768 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 285 of 451 (534036)
11-04-2009 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 283 by RAZD
11-04-2009 12:49 PM


Re: weight or girth, body density factors
Hey RAZD,

Sorry to hear your cancer came back. Lost my father to cancer, I understand the problems.

I finished the research study at Purdue. I was in the exercise only group. Now this was only resistance training, no aerobics. I lost inches and a few pounds, but no significant weight loss.

That said, once I was done with the study, I stopped eating all sugars, grains, and fruit juices (except for my birthday of course ) Then my weight started to go down. My weight had been stuck for several years and was starting to creep back up, so now it is creeping back down and I've finally gone below my stuck point.

Fruit juices were my weakness. I haven't had sodas for over 20 years. I don't eat low fat foods, but I do eat grassfed beef, free range chickens and eggs, fish and some pork. I don't drink milk either. I always figured it really isn't necessary for people to drink mil once they are weaned, just like it isn't necessary for cats or other animals once they are weaned.

I'm just getting to the point in the book where he is looking at the research done on high protein and high fat diets. It looks like people could still get all the nutrition they need. In the studies he mentioned people couldn't get fat on meat and fats alone. They needed to add carbs. I think the carbs in these studies were fruits and veggies.

I wonder how much of how we process carbs deals with where our ancestors evolved. The all meat and fat diet of the Eskimos vs a group from the climates that are warm year round. I don't recall any of the test subjects being from the warmer areas. That may be approached later in the book. Makes me wonder if they call a malfunction was designed winter survival.

Chemo definitely doesn't help. One of the issues I had with my father's treatment is that they didn't address his nutrition. They just told him to eat what he felt like eating. Well he didn't feel like eating much of anything most times and when he did it was the sweets and processed carbs that he preferred. I think he had difficulty tasting also.

Chemo depletes nutrients from the body and you probably can't eat enough to restore those nutrients even if you had an appetite. Here is an unexpected twist discovered in a study done by Eli Lilly.
Vitamins to relieve chemotherapy side effects

The book is a fascinating read.

Take care
PD


This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by RAZD, posted 11-04-2009 12:49 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by RAZD, posted 11-04-2009 8:36 PM purpledawn has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022