Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8950 total)
35 online now:
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 867,227 Year: 22,263/19,786 Month: 826/1,834 Week: 326/500 Day: 25/64 Hour: 0/10


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   More on Diet and Carbohydrates
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 243 (736269)
09-06-2014 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Faith
09-05-2014 10:16 PM


I've regained all the weight I lost.

With respect to weight loss, limited weight loss and regain is the end result of all diets.

Atkins was right about the health benefits of low carb eating, not just losing weight.

Perhaps he was. My point is that you cannot demonstrate that by citing weight loss or looking at weight loss diet results.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Faith, posted 09-05-2014 10:16 PM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Percy, posted 09-06-2014 9:38 AM NoNukes has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19110
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 17 of 243 (736278)
09-06-2014 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by NoNukes
09-06-2014 8:53 AM


NoNukes writes:

With respect to weight loss, limited weight loss and regain is the end result of all diets.

Sorry, I guess this is just my month to nitpick about overly broad statements. Some people do manage to keep off most of the weight they lose. I was wondering if we know what that proportion is and came across this ancient NYT article: 95% Regain Lost Weight. Or Do They?, the gist of which is that at least back in 1999 we didn't really know with any precision, though there were many reports of success.

CBS in 2005 in Diet Plan Success Tough To Weigh reported the Weight Watcher figures of members losing 5% of their weight in 6 months and keeping half of it off two years later, which isn't terribly inspiring.

In Do Diets Work? Scientific American Frontiers in 2004 reported that they were able to find some scientific support for the contention that "8 out of 10 dieters fail to keep the wieght off for any extended period of time."

In 2005 in Long-term weight loss maintenance the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition says in the abstract:

There is a general perception that almost no one succeeds in long-term maintenance of weight loss. However, research has shown that ≈20% of overweight individuals are successful at long-term weight loss when defined as losing at least 10% of initial body weight and maintaining the loss for at least 1 year. The National Weight Control Registry provides information about the strategies used by successful weight loss maintainers to achieve and maintain long-term weight loss. National Weight Control Registry members have lost an average of 33 kg and maintained the loss for more than 5 years.

Because of my own experience I'm not sure that a partial regain of the weight lost during a diet is a bad thing. It's hard to know what is truly one's best weight. I lost 30 pounds around 5 years ago but found that my new weight wasn't conducive to athletic participation, so I sort of trial-and-error'd my way back up to a net 18 pound weight loss that seemed to work pretty well. Then about a year ago my doctor encouraged me to lose weight again. Though I had my doubts I followed his advice, but the result was not good, so I put the weight back on again. It seems that both too little and too much weight take their toll on stamina, and it feels like the older I get the more a little extra weight helps stamina.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by NoNukes, posted 09-06-2014 8:53 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by NoNukes, posted 09-06-2014 2:24 PM Percy has responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 243 (736305)
09-06-2014 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Percy
09-06-2014 9:38 AM


Sorry...

You certainly don't need to apologize to me for nitpicking. . Yes, some people do have success and I should not imply otherwise. Some people actually succeed at climbing Everest too. But is there any diet that can claim, in the large, to be successful for most people? Is any diet so flawed that it fails to work for someone?

I lost 30 pounds around 5 years ago but found that my new weight wasn't conducive to athletic participation

What athletic activity in particular? I can imagine that losing weight might take a few pins off of my sub 100 bowling average and maybe a bit off my bench press, which is scarcely above my own weight, but I'm finding it difficult to imagine that for anything else I'd be willing to try right now.

quote:
There is a general perception that almost no one succeeds in long-term maintenance of weight loss. However, research has shown that ≈20% of overweight individuals are successful at long-term weight loss when defined as losing at least 10% of initial body weight and maintaining the loss for at least 1 year...

At least one year? That is a rather limited definition and puny definition of "long-term", isn't it?

quote:
The National Weight Control Registry provides information about the strategies used by successful weight loss maintainers to achieve and maintain long-term weight loss. National Weight Control Registry members have lost an average of 33 kg and maintained the loss for more than 5 years.

And isn't this a cherry picked registry?


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Percy, posted 09-06-2014 9:38 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Percy, posted 09-06-2014 2:39 PM NoNukes has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19110
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 19 of 243 (736310)
09-06-2014 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by NoNukes
09-06-2014 2:24 PM


NoNukes writes:

What athletic activity in particular?

I started playing tennis as a kid and never stopped. Just got back from playing for 2 hours, temperature and humidity were both around 90. You might think the indoor season would be easier, but we just play harder. I play around 4 times a week now, but when I was playing competitively back in the 90's it was 6 or 7 days a week.

At least one year? That is a rather limited definition and puny definition of "long-term", isn't it?

Agreed.

And isn't this a cherry picked registry?

I had never heard of them before that article, maybe, I don't know.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by NoNukes, posted 09-06-2014 2:24 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by NoNukes, posted 09-06-2014 4:39 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17676
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.1


(2)
Message 20 of 243 (736315)
09-06-2014 4:20 PM


quote:
Isaiah 22:13 And behold joy and gladness, slaying oxen, and killing sheep, eating flesh, and drinking wine: let us eat and drink; for to morrow we shall die.

Eat, drink and die. There is no joy in watching your diet.

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 243 (736316)
09-06-2014 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Percy
09-06-2014 2:39 PM


NoNukes writes:

... snipped blatant accusation of cherry picking

Percy writes:

I had never heard of them before that article, maybe, I don't know

I am going to hazard a guess:

quote:
to Join
Recruitment for the Registry is ongoing. If you are at least 18 years of age and have maintained at least a 30 pound weight loss for one year or longer you may be eligible to join our research study.

I'm reading "may be eligible" if you've demonstrated that you can lose weight and have some track record."

quote:
The NWCR is tracking over 10,000 individuals who have lost significant amounts of weight and kept it off for long periods of time.

I don't think the Yo-Yoers are in this database.

quote:
There is variety in how NWCR members keep the weight off. Most report continuing to maintain a low calorie, low fat diet and doing high levels of activity.

78% eat breakfast every day.
75% weigh themselves at least once a week.
62% watch less than 10 hours of TV per week.
90% exercise, on average, about 1 hour per day.


Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Percy, posted 09-06-2014 2:39 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6890
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 22 of 243 (736345)
09-07-2014 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by petrophysics1
09-04-2014 7:55 PM


Re: On fats (yum!)
It wasn't that there wasn't enough food as much as the type. A lot of times the only meat available was venison or antelope. These meats are very low fat, so there was a constant need for more sources of fat. When they were in Fort Clatsop dog was an important source of protein. Dog is very low in fat.

The idea that they ate 9 lbs of meat per day is not correct. They ate as much as that when meat was plentiful. There were many days when meat was not plentiful. The 9 lb figure is the high end of what they consumed when meat was plentiful. They did consume huge amounts of meat this is undeniable.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by petrophysics1, posted 09-04-2014 7:55 PM petrophysics1 has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19110
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 23 of 243 (750735)
02-21-2015 12:24 PM


Another Author Chimes In
I just became aware of a 2014 book, The Big FAT Surprise by Nina Teicholz. She seems to have followed a similar path as Gary Taubes (of Good Calories, Bad Calories fame). She has an article in today's times: The Government’s Bad Diet Advice.

The gist is similar to Taubes: the government has been giving us bad diet advice for a very long time. More and more researchers are willing to concede that the government is responsible for the obesity/diabetes epidemic. Though the government's updated advice seems to be an improvement, she cautions that given the history skepticism is justified.

--Percy


  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19110
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 24 of 243 (750996)
02-25-2015 12:36 PM


Recommendations of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee
The recommendations of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee were released last week, and once again carbohydrates take a beating, as aptly put as could be in the New York Times editorial How Should We Eat?:

New York Times writes:

The whole less fat/more carbohydrates mess — disaster is not too strong a word, since it likely contributed to the obesity and chronic disease crisis — can be attributed in large part to similarly official dietary recommendations, which in turn are the fault of agency weakness in the face of industry intransigence.

In other words, the new recommendations are an improvement, but be wary.

--Percy


Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Jon, posted 02-25-2015 2:58 PM Percy has responded

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 243 (751003)
02-25-2015 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Percy
02-25-2015 12:36 PM


Re: Recommendations of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee
Isn't the lesson from all this that folks should be maintaining a balanced and reasonable diet, a healthy level of physical activity, and regularly monitoring their weight, blood pressure, etc?

It's hard to miss the coincidence that Americans' health went to shit at the same time McDonald's, Burger King, KFC, Taco Bell, etc. were on the rise along with sedentarism, city-living, and a reliance on processed and prepackaged 'food'; and that the introduction of such 'foods' and lifestyles into other countries is occurring with similar coincidences of increasing obesity and cardiovascular diseases.

I know blaming the government is fun. But how much is really their fault?


Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Percy, posted 02-25-2015 12:36 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Percy, posted 02-25-2015 5:04 PM Jon has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19110
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 26 of 243 (751008)
02-25-2015 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Jon
02-25-2015 2:58 PM


Re: Recommendations of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee
Jon writes:

I know blaming the government is fun. But how much is really their fault?

Who knows in any precise way, but a substantial proportion.

Without the government's dietary advice we would never have witnessed the low fat revolution take over our grocery store shelves - only in the last few years has it begun to give way substantially to low carbohydrate choices. Organizations like the American Heart Association are also culpable, as well as a host of dietary advice "experts" like Dean Ornish. And they all share responsibility for pillorying the early advocates of low carbohydrate diets like Robert Atkins. I believed the hogwash, too. I still remember years ago shaking my head in knowing condescension when my sister revealed she was on the Atkins diet.

Then I read Good Calories, Bad Calories. It goes through the research. There was a thread discussing it over at Good Calories, Bad Calories, by Gary Taubes.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Jon, posted 02-25-2015 2:58 PM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Jon, posted 02-25-2015 6:18 PM Percy has responded

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 243 (751011)
02-25-2015 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Percy
02-25-2015 5:04 PM


Re: Recommendations of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee
Who knows in any precise way, but a substantial proportion.

Really?

You think their fault is substantial?

I really doubt it is.

I think the fault is mostly with people who take general guidelines to the extreme and forget that no amount of research or expensive studies change the fact that each person is unique and needs to do what is best for themselves and not what is best for a certain percentage of a random sample of people.

I, for one, respond relatively well to a mostly-carb diet. I used to eat mostly pastas and bread. In the last few years, though, I've become a big fan of bacon, eggs, adding butter to foods, etc. Since then I've put on about 15 pounds and my blood pressure has gone up.

We're all different. And we're each individually responsible for our own diets and health.


Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Percy, posted 02-25-2015 5:04 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Percy, posted 02-26-2015 6:44 AM Jon has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19110
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 28 of 243 (751024)
02-26-2015 6:44 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Jon
02-25-2015 6:18 PM


Re: Recommendations of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee
Jon writes:

Who knows in any precise way, but a substantial proportion.

Really?

You think their fault is substantial?

I really doubt it is.

As I said before, the government's dietary advice is largely responsible for the low fat revolution that took over our grocery store shelves. It's responsible for the advice to consume less cholesterol, which became the obsession of a generation when the reality is that cholesterol in the blood does not come from cholesterol in the diet (it's broken down by the digestive system). Government dietary advice is responsible for the success of products like Egg Beaters, when it turns out that avoiding egg yolks is a mistake. It's responsible for skim milk and low fat milk, when recent research hints that reduced fat milk may have negative health effects. It's responsible for the advice to avoid saturated fat, which is now also being questioned. Worst of all, fat in the diet was replaced with carbohydrates, which it turns out can have a severe negative impact on health, most visibly obesity and diabetes.

There's a huge amount of confusing research out there, and the government has taken upon itself the responsibility of evaluating the research and issuing dietary guidelines that are promoted to the public and used in marketing campaigns by the food industry. So yes, I think the government bears a substantial amount of the blame.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Jon, posted 02-25-2015 6:18 PM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Jon, posted 02-27-2015 9:53 AM Percy has responded
 Message 31 by NoNukes, posted 02-27-2015 4:16 PM Percy has responded

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 243 (751099)
02-27-2015 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Percy
02-26-2015 6:44 AM


Re: Recommendations of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee
I see words like 'advice' and 'guidelines'.

When someone forces you to do something with disastrous results, that's their fault.

When someone throws something at you to use as you please, and which you continue to use even as the observable effects point more and more to its detrimentality, whose fault is that?

If you follow those guidelines and find you've gained a few pounds and your cholesterol has gone up a little, then you say "damn government" and look for a better diet. But if you continue following those guidelines to an early death, then all you can say is "damn me".

Was their advice bad? Probably.

But who's responsible? The government, or the folks who kept following that bad advice even as they gained weight and saw their health go to shit?


Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Percy, posted 02-26-2015 6:44 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Percy, posted 02-27-2015 3:59 PM Jon has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19110
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 30 of 243 (751143)
02-27-2015 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Jon
02-27-2015 9:53 AM


Re: Recommendations of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee
Jon writes:

I see words like 'advice' and 'guidelines'.

I see dissembling. The government guidelines had precisely the dramatic effects I described and that you're ignoring. By blaming increasing rates of obesity, diabetes and heart disease on high fat diets it increased the carbohydrate intake of a generation and more, to the detriment of everyone's health.

Some of the negative health effects of low-fat/high-carbohydrate diets are very visible, like obesity, but many of the effects are subtle and long-term, like the those of poor triglyceride levels and LDL/HDL ratios. Even when the effects are apparent, when supposedly expert advice doesn't work I think many people conclude that they're not following the advice strictly enough, plus there are confounding factors like exercise, sleep quality, genetics, stress, etc. Drawing conclusions based on self-supervised dieting programs that fail to control for all the various factors and that are performed on a sample size of 1 seems unscientific and ill-advised.

Further complicating things is that one *can* lose weight on any diet that reduces caloric intake sufficiently - millions have done so, though almost the same number of millions have put the weight back on and then some. But those who lost weight on low-carb diets evidently did so much more healthily than those who did it on low-fat diets, and they did it amidst dogged and intense stigmatization of low-carb diets to which the government stance lent substantial legitimacy.

Whether or not you believe the government shares much responsibility, there can be no denying that the old guidelines were spectacularly wrong.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Jon, posted 02-27-2015 9:53 AM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by nwr, posted 02-27-2015 4:27 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 34 by Jon, posted 02-27-2015 8:04 PM Percy has responded
 Message 41 by caffeine, posted 02-28-2015 5:53 PM Percy has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019