 |
| Comments on ""Rights" of the Obese" |
|
 | Friday, January 2, 2009 at 1:01:08 mst
Comment ID: #1
Name: Andrew Baker
I worry when there will be a "fat" tax that will punish who eat the supposed unhealthy diet of meat and other high fat foods. Unfortunately with socialized medicine a private health crisis becomes a public one.
I am reading "Good Calories, Bad Calories" and it seems to me that government promotion of nutritional guidelines when the disaster really begins. It seems to be a parallel to the whole climate change politics. And like climate change they will only look at "consensus," not conflicting evidence, so perhaps they will continue to view being a moral flaw of our fellow citizens if the obese population is able to continued to be maligned.
|
| Friday, January 2, 2009 at 4:25:32 mst
Comment ID: #2
Name: djr
E-mail: dan.rohr(at)yahoo.com
I don’t have data at hand right now, but I have been hearing / reading that obesity is up planet-wide â€" even in Africa. As much as I tend to think the problem is entirely a product of our culture’s irrational drift (it is partially), it doesn’t account for other countries long steeped in mysticism. I also can’t imagine that these developing countries have gotten so luxurious that calorie burning labor is a thing of the past. It must be â€" mostly â€" something in the food.
|
| Friday, January 2, 2009 at 5:40:51 mst
Comment ID: #3
Name: Wendy
Consider this, though. Meat is expensive and generally rare in countries other than the U.S. Immigrants from other countries wouldn't be eating a high-protein, low-carbohydrate diet. I recall my grandmother making many meat-free or dishes with very little meat. So if it is indeed true that carbohydrates are to blame, you'd think that obesity would be way up in the 30's and 40's.
|
| Friday, January 2, 2009 at 5:49:54 mst
Comment ID: #4
Name: Alex Knapp
E-mail: jalexknapp(at)gmail.com
URL: http://hereticalideas.com
Study after study after study has shown that diet is nearly irrelevant when it comes to keeping weight off. People can make even radical changes in their diet and still hit a "plateau" of weight loss well above their goal weight. You can't' lose weight through diet alone. The scientific literature is virtually consistent on the point that the key is *exercise*. This is not to say that proper nutrition isn't important, but anyone who studies the literature can see that it's lack of exercise, not change in diet, as the primary reason for increasing obesity.
Additionally, it's worth pointing out that there are several hormonal disorders which lead to obesity, and people with those disorders often have a very, very difficult time losing weight--if indeed they can at all. There are case studies of people who, as "treatment" for their obesity, are placed on strict 1,000-calorie a day diets and exercise for hours a day and *still* don't lose weight.
For some, the causes of obesity go beyond merely "not being able to control themselves."
|
| Friday, January 2, 2009 at 7:42:38 mst
Comment ID: #5
Name: Jennifer Snow
E-mail: Snowconic(at)hotmail.com
URL: http://literatrix.blogspot.com
I'm not surprised that this came from Binghampton of all places. Appalled, but not surprised--my experience in New York was that the "entitlement" mentality is out of control there.
I suspect (but do not know) that most obese people simply find the conscious monitoring of their food intake to be unspeakably tedious, and when you eat from habit, you don't think long-term. I have found at least one thing that prompts me to eat more--the aftertaste when you've just eaten something is usually unpleasant and can be easily fixed by . . . eating more stuff. So I try to remember to brush my teeth and drink a couple of glasses of water immediately after my meals. It prevents me from snacking, because my teeth are all clean and I don't want to get them dirty again right away.
I've heard that some people eat less if they eat several small meals or snack all day, but I've never found this to be the case with me. The only way I've ever been able to decrease my calorie intake was to eat *less often*.
|
| Friday, January 2, 2009 at 9:03:04 mst
Comment ID: #6
Name: Diana Hsieh
E-mail: diana(at)dianahsieh.com
URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog
Alex -- Just FYI, there is a vast, vast quantity of data in Gary Taubes' _Good Calories, Bad Calories_ that contradicts nearly every claim you make in your comment. You can get a taste of his work from some of his articles that I linked to here:
http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/2008/10/reading-recommendations.shtml
On the effects of exercise on losing weight, I recommend this "We Can't Work It Out." The summary reads: "We all know exercise helps you lose weight. But does it? There is almost no scientific evidence to support the orthodoxy. Indeed, it could even do the exact opposite... Gary Taubes weighs up the facts and takes a controversial look at why the gym is not going to fix it." It's at:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2007/oct/28/healthandwellbei ...
I highly recommend Taubes' book though most of all; you'll be blown away. He's got some very, very interesting material on those 1000 calorie diets, the causes of obesity, etc. (The problem is definitely not that the obese cannot control themselves; they eat no more than you or me.)
Undoubtedly, my own experience supports Taubes. I was slowly gaining weight on a fairly standard restricted diet, plus at least 40 minutes of vigorous cardio every day for years. Then I switched to a high-fat, low-carb diet (by eliminating grains, sugars, modern vegetable oils, and frankenfoods) and limited my exercise substantially, and I'm easily losing a pound a week or so. (Just a few more to go!) More importantly, I'm not in a miserable battle against food any longer.
|
| Friday, January 2, 2009 at 9:55:23 mst
Comment ID: #7
Name: Keith Norris
E-mail: asharpaxe(at)gmail.com
URL: http://theorytopractice.wordpress.com/
I think the only place that Taubes missed the mark in GCBC was on the subject of exercise. I do believe that diet alone is accountable for the greatest affect vis-a-vis body composition (the old "80 -20" rule at play here), however, Taubes seem to consider only low-impact, low-intensity aerobic work -- which, I have to agree, is not optimal for weight loss -- or health, in general, for that matter. What Taubes fails to consider is the positive impact to a favorable body composition that high-intensity, short duration workouts offer. Forcing the body to become a fast-twitch muscle fiber dominant organism (i.e., a "sprinter" vs a "jogger") enables a whole cascade of positive hormonal influences that serve to influence a favorable body composition.
|
| Friday, January 2, 2009 at 10:14:36 mst
Comment ID: #8
Name: Ryan C
URL: http://ryantheegoist.blogspot.com/
Don't I wish I could blame my love for soda on some kind of disease of compulsion. Actually, I don't wish that. I'm fat, and I don't bitch at places that don't have things that accommodate my larger size, and thankfully I've not reached the point of being that fat.
I might be going to college in Binghamton, NY soon. What a silly place.
|
| Friday, January 2, 2009 at 10:15:30 mst
Comment ID: #9
Name: Diana Hsieh
E-mail: diana(at)dianahsieh.com
URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog
I'm with you, Keith, on the importance of high intensity, short duration exercise. However, I've definitely had to limit it -- mostly not lifting as heavy or doing sprints on the rower -- in order to lose weight. Even if I overdo it one day, I can feel the ravenous hunger. Once I'm down another five pounds, I'm going to return to the hard (and fun!) stuff to build more muscle.
|
| Friday, January 2, 2009 at 11:03:28 mst
Comment ID: #10
Name: Patrick Reynolds
E-mail: preynol(at)twmi.rr.com
I think one of the main points in this posting was the issue of discrimination. How should matters of discrimination be handled when one group (blacks, Latinos, obese, gays, etc) feel they are being discriminated against in the housing and job markets? Is there any legal remedy for this in an objectivist society?
|
| Friday, January 2, 2009 at 11:05:08 mst
Comment ID: #11
Name: KPO'M
E-mail: ka84796(at)comcast.net
Paula,
I'm not surprised that there isn't more concern from the government. Government is the only institution that feeds off its own failures. Now that the best state in terms of obesity (CO) in 2007 is where the worst states were in 1985 (at least from the data we know), that means that the CDC has a lot more "work" to do in finding more "solutions" to the problem. It also means higher healthcare costs, and yet another argument to support nationalized health care. While drug companies are accused of this all the time, in reality the government rarely seeks lasting solutions for any problems it tries to address, simply because a real solution would put government workers out of jobs.
|
| Friday, January 2, 2009 at 11:15:52 mst
Comment ID: #12
Name: Diana Hsieh
E-mail: diana(at)dianahsieh.com
URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog
Patrick -- Unless a contract has been broken, discrimination would not be legally forbidden in a capitalist society. People have a right to deal with whomever they choose -- including on a non-rational basis. Others have the right to refuse to deal with those people. And in some cases, I think they ought to refuse: it would be morally revolting to patronize a restaurant that refused to serve blacks, for example.
|
| Friday, January 2, 2009 at 12:21:33 mst
Comment ID: #13
Name: Jennifer Snow
E-mail: Snowconic(at)hotmail.com
URL: http://literatrix.blogspot.com
I wouldn't mind patronizing a few restaurants that refuse to serve screaming children, though.
|
| Friday, January 2, 2009 at 12:52:15 mst
Comment ID: #14
Name: Jim May
E-mail: seerak(at)gmail.com
"I wouldn't mind patronizing a few restaurants that refuse to serve screaming children, though. "
Hear hear! I live in Thousand Oaks California, screaming (that is, "badly-raised") children central.
Fortunately, while the state would likely come down hard on restaurants that "discriminated" in that fashion, there is a legal antidote: liquor licenses. Many jurisdictions forbid children from being within areas where liquor is served. Just be sure you get out of those places by 11, when the bigger children get drunk...
|
| Friday, January 2, 2009 at 12:55:48 mst
Comment ID: #15
Name: Jim May
E-mail: seerak(at)gmail.com
Question: how much, if any, of the changes expressed in these maps, might be a function of moving goalposts -- that is, alterations in how "obesity" is measured? As I understand it, such a shift just took place in measuring hypertension; 120/80, once considered the norm, is now held to be borderline hypertensive.
|
| Friday, January 2, 2009 at 15:12:48 mst
Comment ID: #16
Name: John Stark
E-mail: raistlan(at)atheist.com
URL: http://starkrelief.blogspot.com
First of all, this post has two parts: on the issue of entitlement "rights", I agree, but I vehemently disagree with the other part. Overweight people have become just about the last group of people that it is socially acceptable to mock, belittle, dehumanize and morally condemn, because many, many people believe that they are that way by choice.
But that's just not true. No matter how appealing it is to think that's the case, the science just doesn't support it at all.
http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2007/03/all-diets-work-wait-for ...
http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2008/10/first-law-of-thermodyna ...
http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2007/10/junkfood-science-exclus ...
And as far as any "obesity epidemics":
http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2008/08/jfs-special-report-obes ...
http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2008/05/epidemic-that-wasnt.html
http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2008/07/is-it-real-or-is-it-mem ...
http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2008/12/this-is-how-you-do-it.html
And then there's the so-called "obesity paradox": the fact that most fat people actually live longer than thin people.
http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2006/11/obesity-paradox-1.html
http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2006/12/obesity-paradox-2-how-c ...
http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2006/11/obesity-paradox-3.html
http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2006/11/obesity-paradox-4.html
http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2007/04/baby-paradox.html
http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2007/05/big-bad-bones.html
http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2007/06/when-does-it-stop-becom ...
http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2007/07/reading-in-dark-will-ma ...
http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2007/10/obesity-paradox-9-fat-o ...
http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2007/04/news-women-can-use.html
http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2007/06/when-fat-dare-i-say-it- ...
http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2007/10/its-better-to-die-of-hi ...
http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2007/10/obesity-paradox-13-take ...
http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2008/03/obesity-paradox-14-seri ...
http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2008/04/obesity-paradox-15-no-n ...
http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2008/08/obesity-paradox-two-for ...
|
| Friday, January 2, 2009 at 15:13:26 mst
Comment ID: #17
Name: Kevin Clark
The obesity epidemic is the result of irrational science combined with the welfare/regulatory state. Taube's book shows the irrational science and the dogmatists that championed it like Ancel Keys and Jean Meyer. But GCBC also gives a hint at the damage that the welfare/regulatory state did by forcing food manufacturers - through bad economic pressure group based incentives and the stigma of being against the "lipid hypothesis" - to mass produce unhealthy and addicting foods (sugars, starches, sweets, etc).
My guess is that a fully free market of food production would have resulted in a nation-wide system of Farmer's markets selling fresh produce and grass-fed meats. The culture at large would have eaten a more natural-foods diet and the American citizenry would be among if not the healthiest in the world. But this was not and will not be allowed to happen in our anti-fat welfare state / nanny state (liberal fascism). Couple this with socialized medicine which looks very likely especially with Obama and it becomes necessary for each individual to try their best to optimize the health of their diet. Relying on socialized medicine for your health is a losing proposition.
|
| Friday, January 2, 2009 at 15:40:05 mst
Comment ID: #18
Name: Diana Hsieh
E-mail: diana(at)dianahsieh.com
URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog
Sorry about the server errors, Kevin and John. I've deleted your extra posts. I need to talk to my internet host about the problem, I think.
|
| Friday, January 2, 2009 at 16:23:18 mst
Comment ID: #19
Name: Paula Hall
E-mail: paula.hall(at)live.com
URL: http://www.msthink.com
@ John Stark --
Can obese people lose weight? Why are there more obese people now than there were decades ago? Why has my sister, who has been at least 80 pounds overweight for at least 15 years, been able to lose weight by eliminating bad carbs?
Or are you saying obese people should not lose weight? Are you saying that obese people are healthier than other people, other things being equal?
I am genuinely interested in your thoughts. However, I would prefer if you could offer your arguments in the comments, instead of making declarative statements and referring me to 20 lengthy blog posts for support.
|
| Friday, January 2, 2009 at 17:33:47 mst
Comment ID: #20
Name: John Stark
E-mail: raistlan(at)atheist.com
URL: http://starkrelief.blogspot.com
Paula: "However, I would prefer if you could offer your arguments in the comments, instead of making declarative statements and referring me to 20 lengthy blog posts for support."
I understand and agree that it can be a bit of reading, which is why I tried to go in a priority order with my links, but the links are references, themselves with many links to other references; this isn't a topic where I can just toss out some anecdotes as evidence to try to convince you of scientific conclusions, which is unfortunate for this venue, as something short and concise is easier to read through while going through blog comments.
Paula: "Can obese people lose weight?"
Yes, the same as everyone else. From my second link [http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2007/03/all-diets-work-wait-for ...]:
"All diets work (wait for the punchline)...
"The fact is, virtually all weight loss diets work â€" the specific diet plan is irrelevant. They are merely whatever gimmick people will buy. By cutting calories, most everyone will lose weight initially. Just long enough for those before-and-after photos.
"But, regardless of the diet or weight loss method, weight regain within five years is guaranteed for virtually everyone.
"This was not lost on the researchers, either. Buried in the discussion section they mentioned that 'weight-loss trajectories for each group had not stabilized...suggest that longer follow-up would likely have resulted in progressively diminished group differences.'
"Only long-term results, after weights have stabilized, are relevant when evaluating any diet and, more importantly, any actual impact on health outcomes. This short-term study was unable to credibly determine health outcomes â€" beneficial or harmful â€" so we’re not even going to bother going there.
"Doesn’t it ever strike you odd that virtually no popular diet study ever lasts even five years? In a century of diets and weight loss programs, you would think more than one would have. Yet, it is well-known and openly acknowledged among professionals that to demonstrate any degree of effectiveness for a weight loss intervention, people need to be followed for at least five years.
"Popular diet studies commonly stop...conveniently when the initial weight losses still look good and before the weight regain and health complications manifest themselves.
"[There is a notable recent exception: a careful, well-designed, long-term clinical diet trial. We’ll discuss it in an upcoming post. Hint: Not surprising in the least, it was a dismal failure on all counts, which is probably why you heard little about it.]"
[The trial she is referring to here is the third link in my post: http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2007/10/junkfood-science-exclus ...]
|
| Friday, January 2, 2009 at 17:34:17 mst
Comment ID: #21
Name: John Stark
E-mail: raistlan(at)atheist.com
URL: http://starkrelief.blogspot.com
Paula: "Why are there more obese people now than there were decades ago?"
The main reason is because the definition of "obese" changed. From my fourth link above [http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2008/08/jfs-special-report-obes ...]:
"Now, to create perceptions of a contemporary obesity epidemic, two key things have transpired. And neither was that the numbers of truly obese people have gone through the roof as is widely believed. The bell curve still looks roughly the same as it always has.
"First, an arbitrary line through the bell curve was drawn and everyone to the right of the line was called 'overweight' or 'obese'. The line used to be drawn to the right of the main peak on the curve (BMI 27), but that changed in 1998, when the line was moved to the left, to cut directly through what is average for most of the population (BMI 25). Instantly, 30.5 million more people found themselves added to the rosters of the ‘overweight’ and the arbitrary change increased the numbers by nearly 50% -- without a single person gaining a single pound. [The image, from Dr. Wang et.al., plots BMIs since 1976 from NHANES surveys]
[http://bp1.blogger.com/_DjrlSOJqAn0/SJYv7fnU0MI/AAAAAAAAFVg/wNRwID7 ...]
"The second thing that has transpired over the decades, as you can see, is that the entire bell curve has scooted over to the right a bit. This means that the average weights and heights of the population have increased. But as you can see, it’s not all that impressive. There’s a reason you hear about obesity rates (the number of people crossing that arbitrary BMI threshold) as doubling and never hear how much our heights and weights have actually increased: the change is far less dramatic-sounding and wouldn’t illicit the hysterical reaction needed to create a crisis. Going back forty years, by the way, we’ve also gained an inch in height (the other part of the BMI equation).
"And how much weight have we, as a population, gained on average?
"While describing the difference between genes and the 'misconception about the role of environment because of the misuse of statistics,' Dr. Friedman explained:
"'So let me give you an analogy... Imagine that 40 years ago the average IQ was 100 and there was a bell-shaped curve. Imagine now that our educational system improves and the bell-shaped curve shifts a little and the average IQ is now 105. With that you could imagine that the number of people who have an IQ greater than 140, so-called geniuses, might have doubled. Now is it more useful to think about how our education is doing by saying, "average IQ increased 5 points" or "number of geniuses is doubled." I think probably both are of interest but the former seems to me more informative.
"'Ok. So how does that analogize to weight? Over the time period that you’ve heard that the obesity rates have quote "doubled" or gone up by 70 percent, the average weight gain is 7 to 10 pounds... think about the fact that 7 to 10 pounds is almost nothing compared to the hundreds of pounds of difference in weight that you might see in any two people walking around the street today, both of whom essentially have unlimited access to calories.'
"A crisis declared over 7-10 pounds! Failing to understand statistics also means a lot of people don’t understand why moving the entire bell curve on a graph by such a nominal amount can mathematically increase exponentially the numbers of people falling within a category and enhance perceptions of an epidemic.
"Remember that 2003 Rand report which had announced that the prevalence of the fattest people has increased the most? Once again, it’s not that their numbers have gone through the roof or that they’re responsible for the 'obesity epidemic'. Over the past two decades, the largest people (those common television images of obesity), with BMIs >= 50 have increased 5-fold (to a mere 0.5%), and those with BMIs >= 40 have quadrupled (to only 2%). The exponential increases are a mathematical phenomenon of that entire bell curve shift."
|
| Friday, January 2, 2009 at 17:57:12 mst
Comment ID: #22
Name: John Stark
E-mail: raistlan(at)atheist.com
URL: http://starkrelief.blogspot.com
Paula: "Or are you saying obese people should not lose weight?"
That's a fairly broad question, but I, personally, do not think they are, in *any* way, morally obligated to try. What's really sad is that overweight and obese people internalize these judgements and loath themselves, blaming themselves for the failure of diets and exercise to appreciably lower their weight, even though none of those have ever been shown to be capable of removing more than 10-15 lbs. over the long term.
Paula: "Are you saying that obese people are healthier than other people, other things being equal?"
As health is a complex, multi-dimensional attribute, I am saying that there are several circumstances where being heavier is more conducive to living longer, and many, many circumstances where being underweight is a large hindrance to surviving. The "Obesity Paradox" series that I linked to is about this issue, which is only a paradox if you believe that weighing more has to be detrimental for your health.
For the record, I do not believe obesity to be a disease; it is an attribute, similar to height, that is mostly determined by genetics.
|
| Friday, January 2, 2009 at 18:53:51 mst
Comment ID: #23
Name: rrlv_frsh
Diana's posting provides the following excellent web link:
[1] http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/metabolism/metabolic-efficiency/
That webpage, in turn, provides another excellent link:
[2] http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/metabolism/is-a-calorie-always-a ...
I spent a little time studying these two links. Here are some key excerpts and my notes on them.
Link [1] develops two key concepts: adaptive thermogenesis, and metabolic advantage. Here is an excerpt explaining adaptive thermogenesis:
----->
The reality is that our bodies have the capacity to deal with calories by changing the rate at which we burn them. Calories in and calories out are dependent variables, not independent variables: the one depends upon the other. Let me show you what I mean and explain why it’s often so difficult to lose weigh[t] while dieting.
[The article then describes driving a car conservatively to save gas, but not so conservatively when there is plenty of gas available.]
Underfeeding or starvation studies show just the opposite [of fuel availability inducing increased energy expenditure]. When people are fed calorically-restricted diets, they go into kind of a metabolic slow down process to conserve fuel just as I did with the vehicle when we were running out of gas. These calorically-restricted subjects become lethargic - they move less and they sleep more. Their reduced calories in induces their bodies to reduce the calories going out.
This phenomenon is called adaptive thermogenesis, which is defined as increase or decrease in energy expenditure in response to overfeeding or underfeeding (or even temperature change).
-----<
Link [1] explains metabolic advantage as follows:
----->
In between these two points [starvation vs. overconsumption], in the caloric range where most of us operate most of the time, macronutrient composition does matter. In fact, in our friend’s book, he actually lists a couple of studies in which there does appear to be a metabolic advantage. And guess what? Those are studies in which the caloric intake is up more in the range one would expect while dieting, not starving. And those studies do indeed show that a low-carb diet brings about more weight loss than an equal number of calories given as a high carb diet. These studies were done in Germany under metabolic ward conditions by a researcher named Udo Rabast. Dr. Rabast did the studies mentioned in this book plus a few that weren’t mentioned because, although they were done under metabolic ward conditions, they didn’t fit the selection criteria of our friend, i.e., they didn’t show what he wanted them to show to substantiate his argument [claiming that "a calorie is a calorie"]. The Rabast studies do indeed show a fairly robust metabolic advantage to the low-carb diet. [...]
Following a low-carbohydrate diet that is in the calorie range where the metabolic advantage exists makes one able to lose weight without the weight-retaining effects of adaptive thermogenesis kicking in. You can, so to speak, have your cake and eat it to. The body is getting enough calories to keep it from going into starvation mode yet the macronutrient composition of the diet leads to enough of a caloric deficit to ensure weight loss. The best of all worlds.
-----<
These excerpts seem to saying that to lose weight, one must definitely reduce one's caloric intake. The key is to do it without going into "starvation mode." A low-carb, high-fat diet accomplishes this (metabolic advantage), while a high-carb diet does not.
Link [2] provides a striking, quantitative comparison of a Keys weight-loss diet to a Yudkin weight-loss diet, confirming the huge benefit (metabolic advantage) of the low-carb, high-fat diet. But the problem with Keys' high-carb diet wasn't that the subjects failed to lose weight. They actually lost *too much* weight, and suffered from *too much* of a calorie deficit. In other words, on the high-carb diet, they needed more calories than they were getting. This certainly shows the calorie-conserving benefit of a high-fat, low-carb diet, but it doesn't refute the possibility of losing weight on a higher calorie, high-carb diet.
If I understand Taubes' book correctly (Good_Calories,_Bad_Calories), carbs raise glucose levels in the bloodstream, which triggers insulin secretion needed to promote the burning of glucose for fuel, and the storage of fat for later use after the glucose is depleted. After the glucose is used up, residual insulin apparently promotes continued fat storage rather than the burning of fat for fuel. This effect is most apparent if the carbs involved are of the refined type, which cause excessive surges in glucose level and (a little later) insulin level. On the other hand, *unrefined* carbs, if I understand Taubes' data correctly, are metabolized far more gradually and do not have as great a metabolic disadvantage as the refined ones.
Furthermore, if the mere availability of fuel promotes a higher metabolic rate, then why wouldn't a high-carb diet merely result in more calories being burned for fuel, especially if the fuel is in the form of glucose? The main explanation I have been able to glean from Taubes' book is that *refined* carbs trigger too much of a glucose surge and resulting insulin surge. If one were to avoid refined carbs, but still consume substantial carbs in *unrefined* form, the mismatch between glucose levels and subsequent insulin levels would be less pronounced, and the effect of the insulin on suppressing later energy expenditure would be far less. One would need more calories in the form of unrefined carbs to diet successfully on a high-carb diet (because of the increased metabolic rate), but one could still lose weight because of the increased burning of the carbs and the net caloric deficit of calories ingested compared to calories burned, i.e., more burning of fat for fuel after the glucose is used up, before one's next meal. (This also assumes that the carbs don't cause unbearable cravings for more carbs, resulting in too many carb calories being ingested. But do *unrefined* carbs necessarily have that increased-craving effect, especially if combined with plenty of vegetables and maybe some fruit and possibly some protein as well?)
In short, I don't quite see how the links Diana has provided rule out losing weight on a high-carb diet, *if* the carbs are entirely of the unrefined, slow metabolizing type rather than the refined carbs that Taubes so thoroughly dissects. Taubes also points out that "diseases of civilization" (including accelerating obesity rates) did not occur at a high rate prior to the increased refining of carbs and other agricultural products within the last one or two centuries.
|
| Friday, January 2, 2009 at 22:57:16 mst
Comment ID: #24
Name: Paula Hall
E-mail: paula.hall(at)live.com
URL: http://www.msthink.com
John --
Thanks for replying.
That is a lot to look at, and I'm not sure I will because I have a problem with a lot of the reasoning in the four or five "obesity paradox" posts I had a look at. Specifically, it seems as if the author mentions and spends her time dicussing studies showing that once you're sick, you may have a better outcome for the illness if you weigh more. She seems to try to argue from those studies to something close to "being obese can be healthy" in a way that makes me uncomfortable. That is, to have a better survival rate once you're sick doesn't say anything about how you may have gotten sick, or what weight is desirable to maintain health. She mentions a study by Ancel Keyes that Wikipedia wasn't too hot on (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancel_Keys), to support the claim that body weight didn't correlate with "atherosclerotic build-up." Not that Wikipedia is a be-all and end-all; it's just that now I'm in a he-said, she-said situation. Also, I got the impression that Keyes was talking about dietary fat, not body fat, and that the author of the blog posts sometimes blurs that distinction. Finally, her post about anorexia and underweight women seemed to attack a straw man; surely, adding body fat onto an underweight woman is healthy, but that's not controversial; and demonstrating that underweight women can get healthy by adding body fat doesn't demonstrate that above-average body fat is desirable (although there may be other arguments for that conclusion).
Because of what looks like sloppy reasoning in the aspects I mentioned above, it's hard for me to accept uncritically any of her claims to have found evidence that obesity rates are exaggerated, or that being obese is beneficial, or that one's weight is determined by genetics and can't be changed long-term by more than 10 or 15 pounds. Maybe that's all true; I don't believe it when *she* says it.
|
| Saturday, January 3, 2009 at 6:08:52 mst
Comment ID: #25
Name: Rory Hodgson
E-mail: cowboybebop(at)ntlworld.com
This whole Gary Taubes thing has started to make me think that I can't morally blame people. I used to look at a really obese person and think, "Eurgh! How can they do that to themselves?!" However, if it's the fact that they've been fed (no pun intended) bad science, which has been reinforced by their doctors, then I don't know how much I can blame them.
But, then when overweight people start pointing at me, eating fatty, meaty meals, and say that I'm going to kill my body, I start think, well, wait a moment - I only ever believed the same as them because I uncritically accepted the Fat-Is-Bad doctrine. I never, ever considered the science or the data. In fact, I never even considered the distinction between evidence which leads to a certain conclusion, and evidence which just shows one of a number of conclusions, or a conclusion which is proved false by other evidence or other well-reasoned conclusions.
All in all, I think people are to blame for uncritically accepting an uncritical approach to the science they've been taught, but at the same time, the educators and professors and scientists are even more to blame, for corrupting their ability (or even their belief in the importance of) critical thinking and the practice of rational philosophy.
|
| Saturday, January 3, 2009 at 10:34:31 mst
Comment ID: #26
Name: Monica
E-mail: monicabeth10(at)gmail.com
URL: http://fa-rm.org
Keith, your comments about exercise are right on -- I've lost several pounds in the past couple of weeks incorporating intermittent fasting and high intensity workouts. It makes perfect evolutionary sense. My guess, though, is that Taubes would be more than willing to abandon his position on exercise, since he's a very honest person.
John Stark -- all right then, the obesity goalpost changed in 1998. So what? Have you looked at the data graphing obesity from 1970 to 1998? And seen where that rate of increase is highest (in children)? DO you know what obesity rates were in the 1800s? I'm not going to give you the answers. I know them.
Most of the rest of your comments, i.e. that people can lose weight on any regimen, is absurd pseudoscience. It's just demonstrably not true. Quite a few short-term studies have been done now comparing various diets differing drastically in macronutrient composition. Almost all of them that were done well show the superiority of low carb diets -- both in weight loss and lipid profiles. These claims have been thoroughly dissected by Taubes, Eades, and others. Notably, all of your information comes from one source. I don't have a problem with some of the information from junkfoodscience, but anyone who has done hours of research into nutrition -- and I have -- can spot some of the problems with her line of reasoning on some issues. In any case, sometimes the data from NHANES and USDA do not add up, it's true. But all one has to do is watch a movie made before 1970 to see that the country has gotten fatter. While BMI is not a good predictor of body fat, this excellent post sums up the obesity issue well : http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/weight-loss/changing-perceptions ... This is not a point I consider debatable.
Kevin -- absolutely. Farming in this country is highly socialized and welfare programs of all types -- including food stamps, the school lunch program, price supports and subsidies for a few limited crops, and money handed out selectively to various industries -- have all resulted, intentionally or not, in the big fat mess America is in today. CAFOs particularly could probably not survive without taxpayer assistance, and they receive a ton of it in the form of grain subsidies that decrease feeding costs, and pollution cleanup control capped at $450k per feedlot. The fact that grass-fed meat is only slightly more expensive than grain-fed meat is very telling, because grass-fed meat is not subsidized indirectly as grain-fed meats are.
There is really no question that subsidies have made healthier food more expensive and unhealthy food less expensive for anyone who has objectively reviewed the data on nutrition and farm policy. Every single product containing HFCS, wheat, soy, and vegetable oil is subsidized indirectly -- and that's practically 90% of the items sold in a grocery store. 50 million people per day are fed according to government guidelines, and the USDA food pyramid is a pseudoscientific piece of junk that needs to be completely abolished. Talk about a conflict of interest! It serves the industries that the government has chosen to subsidize -- and in almost all cases, the foods the government subsidizes (corn, soy, wheat, and canola) are demonstrably less healthy than the alternatives sold in a freer market. Canola and soy oils were virtually unheard of in foods 30-40 years ago. Same for HFCS.
Various food regulations, on the increase in the past few decades, make producer to consumer sales of many perfectly healthy items illegal. About the only things you can sell at a farmer's market without having them federally inspected are produce and eggs, and the costs of federal inspection are enormous, as I've written about on my blog: http://www.fa-rm.org/blog/2008/12/abolishing-usda-inspection-laws.html. Forget milk or meat or even anything produced in a home kitchen. The fact that it occurs at times in farmer's markets means it's simply not enforced -- because in almost all cases, it's illegal.
I've written a lot of highly detailed posts on government interference in the food supply at http://fa-rm.org/blog/index.html. Most people are under the impression that we pretty much have a free market in food in the United States. Nothing could be farther from the truth. It's extremely socialized.
As to the actual point of this post -- it's true that the obese don't or shouldn't have special rights, but that's irrelevant as to whether obesity is a disease. Diseases are not all contagious (cancer! heart disease! Alzheimer's!) and the evidence indicates that most diseases in high prevalence in our society are caused by diet. In that case, we should say that people with heart disease and cancer should have special rights, too. It's absurd. Nevertheless, I feel very sorry for the very obese who don't want to be that way and who have tried all the conventional methods of trying to lose weight: low fat diets, exercise, etc. It's got to be very disheartening. It's terribly sad to see so many of them adopt the position that there's nothing they can do about their metabolic condition, but it's not surprising given that the conventional medical establishment works hand in glove with the government's food policy and continues to tell people that a high fat diet will destroy their livers, hearts, and leach calcium from their bones. That would scare anyone away.
To the extent that the government continues on the disastrous nutritional path it's on, though (and there is zero reason to believe they will change course soon), the obesity issue will going to continue to rear its head. Because in three or four decades we'll probably be looking back at 30% obesity rates as the good old days if the government doesn't reverse course or at least if people don't stop listening to the government (and the vast majority of doctors, too).
|
| Saturday, January 3, 2009 at 10:44:42 mst
Comment ID: #27
Name: Monica
E-mail: monicabeth10(at)gmail.com
URL: http://fa-rm.org
Kevin -- as another argument in your favor, New Zealand completely did away with farm subsidies in 1984 under a newly elected labor government (shocking I know). Mostly it was sheep farming that was subsidized. The farmers are now MUCH better off and their export market is thriving. The president of Federated Farmers of New Zealand actually said that his advice to American farmers was to get off the subsidy gravy train ASAP. THe wine industry pretty much completely took off after the elimination of subsidies. I plan to write more on this on my blog in the future. We have a wonderful, extremely successful 35 year case study of free market economics in farming. Americans really need to sit up and take notice.
New Zealanders eat a ton of fatty food, BTW. Lamb, whole milk, cream, etc. were all high on the list when I was there -- ALL grass-fed. I remember thinking at the time that eating all that fat couldn't be healthy, particularly the lamb. Their espresso drinks made with whole milk were the best I've ever had. It was very uncommon for anyone to ask for a drink made of skim milk. I don't have any public health statistics, but the populace seemed remarkably thin and healthy.
|
| Saturday, January 3, 2009 at 14:49:32 mst
Comment ID: #28
Name: Ted Coxhead
E-mail: tedcoxhead(at)yahoo.co.uk
Diana: and I'm easily losing a pound a week or so. (Just a few more to go!)
Monica: I've lost several pounds in the past couple of weeks incorporating intermittent fasting and high intensity workouts.It makes perfect evolutionary sense.
I have never met either of you and I have not seen a picture of Monica. I have seen a picture of Diana here on the blog and this concern with losing weight is a puzzle to me. Why do you feel it is necessary?
And whatever "evolutionary sense" may mean, did it cease 40,000 years ago?
Also, Monica, what do you mean when you say "But all one has to do is watch a movie made before 1970 to see that the country has gotten fatter"? Fatter than what or who? I did a quick run through of pre-1970 movies and movie stars in my mind and I did not come to that conclusion.
|
| Saturday, January 3, 2009 at 15:20:32 mst
Comment ID: #29
Name: Diana Hsieh
E-mail: diana(at)dianahsieh.com
URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog
Ted -- You really haven't seen enough of me to comment: I've not posted many pictures of myself on this blog, and those few I have posted aren't revealing.
In any case, my reasons for wishing to lose weight are not particularly difficult to understand. I've been heavier than I would like for some years now. Even though I was exercising regularly (mostly cardio) and limiting my eating (mostly limiting calories and fat) for those years, I was slowly gaining a few pounds every year. (Surprise, surprise.) I wasn't happy with my appearance, I was worried about the health effects of the extra pounds. Most of all, I was worried by the upward trend. I saw no reason why I should be content to be dumpy old woman. Perhaps you wouldn't mind if that happened to me, but I would. I like being fit and athletic, and I'd like to be that way well into my 60s and 70s.
Right now, I'm very happy with my current weight and appearance. (I weigh 15 pounds less than I did in July 2008 and 20 pounds less than at my peak.) However, before I shift into some serious weightlifting, I'd like to lose another five pounds of fat, simply so that I can see some better muscle definition. I've got plenty of fat to lose, so I won't be s stick. I like an athletic build, not a skinny, waifish one.
|
| Saturday, January 3, 2009 at 17:54:27 mst
Comment ID: #30
Name: Monica
E-mail: monicabeth10(at)gmail.com
URL: http://fa-rm.org
Hi Ted -- as for my personal weight goals, I need to lose about 20 pounds (I've lost roughly 12 so far). My body fat percentage is at least ten percentage points higher than it should be -- and it should be around 18-20%, as a woman. During the past 15 years, I've only been at an ideal weight about 5 of those years, off and on. Thankfully, I'm no longer resigned to believe that I'm genetically determined to be pudgy for the rest of my life, nor even encased in a thin layer of flab even though I weigh a mere 120 pounds. I have some great muscles underneath my fat. I'd like them to show for the first time in my life.
Movies... look at the extras. They are all thin.
Evolutionary sense... No, this didn't cease 40k years ago. It ceased 10k years ago, around the time when man hunted big game to extinction and had to start planting grass seeds to merely survive... during which time he became demonstrably less healthy. Paleolithic man would have gorged during times of plenty, after a kill, and gone at least 1-2 days at a time without food. Before a feast, he (often women helped in this endeavor) would have had a brief, intense period of pursuit of their prey and probably eaten a couple of hours later -- with plenty of food for days as they sat around doing very little. Here's an excellent post on the biochemistry of that issue: http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/ketones-and-ketosis/metabolism-a ...
I just don't know primitive man managed to do that type of intense exercise after not eating for a day or two. How he did it without Gatorade to replenish his blood sugar afterward, I certainly don't know! ;)
The logic of intermittent fasting and a brief high intensity workout a few hours before breaking a fast makes evolutionary sense. And medical sense as well. It is actually backed up by our modern knowledge of growth hormone -- both fasting and that type of anaerobic exercise increase growth hormone. There are numerous benefits to growth hormone, one of them is a faster fat metabolism, and the very well-off can actually go to clinics to get GH injected. Within months they look years younger and have lost fat and gained muscle mass. You can turn an old flabby man into a hunky stud in no time. Here's an excellent example: http://cenegenics.com/ THis concept is discussed in greater detail in the book "Protein Power" by Michael Eades, MD.
The good news is that one doesn't need to resort to expensive treatments to get the benefits of growth hormone. All one needs to do is fast periodically (at least 24 hours once per week) to start producing more growth hormone. High intensity exercise during that period helps burn fat and also releases more growth hormone, particularly if the legs are used. Fasting is not really a method of caloric restriction.... since I eat like a horse as soon as I break the fast. It's simply a method to get my hormone levels back in line to what they should be and working for ME... insulin, glucagon, growth hormone, etc.
Our genes haven't yet fully adapted to our modern way of eating -- in either quality or intermittency. There are numerous benefits to the intermittent lifestyle... increased muscle mass, fat burning, and better mental acuity are a few of these.
I simply can't argue with these results like this: http://www.flickr.com/photos/kateden_bodyincredible_com/3085815577/ ...
Or this: http://theorytopractice.wordpress.com/2008/11/10/this-is-what-44-an ...
|
| Saturday, January 3, 2009 at 22:31:07 mst
Comment ID: #31
Name: Anime'
Diana said: "...it would be morally revolting to patronize a restaurant that refused to serve blacks, for example."
Well, perhaps... however, I once walked into a "soul food" restaurant (six or seven years ago), hoping to purchase a dinner of fried chicken, and was totally ignored for about 10 minutes, until I walked out. No one said a word to me at all. They apparently refused to serve a white person.
To me, that is just as morally reprehensible; but I'm sure that had I protested, things would not have turned out so well.
|
| Saturday, January 3, 2009 at 23:12:01 mst
Comment ID: #32
Name: Diana Hsieh
E-mail: diana(at)dianahsieh.com
URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog
Anime -- How could your experience cast doubt on the grave immorality of white people patronizing a restaurant that refused to serve black people? Are we somehow supposed to engage in a game of racial tit-for-tat, whereby if one black person discriminates against me, then I'm justified in discriminating against other black people? That would be absurd. It would also be collectivist, irrational, and self-defeating.
People are individuals, and they ought to be treated as such. The fact that some black people are racist could not possibly justify or excuse or mitigate white racism.
|
| Sunday, January 4, 2009 at 0:04:59 mst
Comment ID: #33
Name: Anime'
I'm not suggesting racial tit-for-tat. Just making an observation. I would also say that if people want respect from others, they ought to be willing to give it.
But the more such experiences I encounter in real life, the more cautious I am around people of that group in the future, is all.
I also got mugged once by two black men, about 30 years ago, while walking to a bus stop at night after my second job (when my car was unavailable after being rear-ended). They told me that they didn't care if they killed me because I am white. Maybe they were just talking jive? Who knows? But there were two of them and one of me, and they scared the bejesus out of me. They also took my purse, and I had to call some friends to take me home.
Does that justify me being nasty to other black people? Of course not, and I am not suggesting that it does in the least. But it was one of my first experiences with real, honest-to-goodness black racism and anti-white hostility; and it made me more cautious in the future--I got more street-smart. I don't walk around on strange streets after dark anymore, and I make sure that my car is always in running condition.
Yeah, people are individuals. Not saying that they are not. But if I experience individual members of that group acting in certain ways, and if it seems typical of many of the members of that group which I happen to meet over time, then I may just save myself the headache and avoid members of that group in the future. I don't harm them; but I do avoid them where possible.
In my dealings with some black folks, it seems that some of their hostility in certain situations has to do with a feeling that they are getting back at whites for perceived (by them) historical injustices. I once asked a black woman not to crack gum in my face, and a different black woman proceeded to lecture me that it was Black History Month, and she was teaching her children not to "give in to the oppressors."
I couldn't figure out how in the hell I was oppressing one black woman by asking a different black woman not to drive me up the wall with her gum-cracking, but I sure didn't appreciate the hostility and racial paranoia.
I do not attempt to get back at one black person for what other black people may have done to me in the past, but obviously this woman was doing exactly that to a white person.
I'm also of Jewish descent, and I avoid most Middle Easterners for similar reasons.
It's called freedom of association.
|
| Sunday, January 4, 2009 at 5:27:37 mst
Comment ID: #34
Name: Ted Coxhead
E-mail: tedcoxhead(at)yahoo.co.uk
Thanks Monica and Diana for taking the trouble to explain just why weight loss is so important a value to you. It goes a long way to explaining why you regard as important a diet that gives such emphasis to ketosis.
I stil do not agree, Monica, that the appearance of film extras (or even leading actors) in pre-1970 movies, tells us anything useful about modern nutrition. If indeed they do look any different, it might tell us something about the extras themselves, but nothing from which we can reasonably generalize. ("... look at the extras. They are all thin.") Well, they are not exactly obese on shows like "Bay Watch" or "The OC" and that is without getting started on the great "Size Zero Model" phenomenon of today.
Also, on this sort of anectodal level, we could just as easily conclude that Rubens was painting the typical woman of the sixteenth century when he completed "The Toilet of Venus". To our eyes she borders on the obese, but they sure liked the big gals back then.
I am not sure if we are talking about the same thing, but when I asked you if you thought that evolutionary sense ended 40,000 years ago, you replied that, in fact, it ended 10,000 years ago. To clarify, what I was asking was if you thought that human evolution ended then. Your reply seems to indicate that you think it did as you say: "Our genes haven't yet fully adapted to our modern way of eating --."
When you wrote: "You can turn an old flabby man into a hunky stud in no time," (that is, given the application of your diet preferences) my eyes moentarily lit up. Although living on a non "paleo" diet, I have never been flabbby, I am now relatively old, and so "hunky stud" was tempting! Then I thought, you know, what with us having continued to evolve during the last 10,000 years, maybe hunky stud is not the way to go. It is probably more useful to be a highly intelligent geek with great computer skills AND financial acumen, in order to attract the triple A females of our era, than it is to be a hunk who can hunt (or play football.)
|
| Sunday, January 4, 2009 at 5:36:02 mst
Comment ID: #35
Name: Ted Coxhead
E-mail: tedcoxhead(at)yahoo.co.uk
Sorry, folks, when I wrote: "we could just as easily conclude that Rubens was painting the typical woman of the sixteenth century", I should clarify, that, although Rubens was born in the sixteenth century, the painting was actually begun and completed in the seventeenth century.
|
| Sunday, January 4, 2009 at 7:17:00 mst
Comment ID: #36
Name: Monica
E-mail: monicabeth10(at)gmail.com
URL: http://fa-rm.org
Ted, stop being a moron.
Of course human evolution didn't end 10k years ago. Duh: http://www.freetheanimal.com/root/2009/01/rapid-evolution.html
"Of course, this raises the question of whether you want to be part of the evolution going forward, i.e. "do your part for the human race," or do you want to live in accordance with the genetic makeup you already have, which implies a Paleo-like diet of meat, natural fats, vegetables, fruits and nuts to the exclusion of grains, refined vegetable oils, and processed foods?
I know what path I'm taking."
I'm not wasting any more time arguing arguing with you over nonsense. My diet is really none of your business. I'm glad to hear one has to be an out of shape geeky professional or a sports buff, though, rather than pursuing the best of both worlds. Very enlightening.
|
| Sunday, January 4, 2009 at 7:32:25 mst
Comment ID: #37
Name: Ted Coxhead
E-mail: tedcoxhead(at)yahoo.co.uk
"My diet is really none of your business."
Yet you continue to share it.
|
| Sunday, January 4, 2009 at 7:37:55 mst
Comment ID: #38
Name: Monica
E-mail: monicabeth10(at)gmail.com
URL: http://fa-rm.org
Oh, and by the way, Ted, you obviously didn't visit the last link I provided in my second to last post, or you would have discovered that high intensity workouts to achieve that look take about 1 hour per week, tops. What a terrible sacrifice to that time that should be spent slaving away in front of a computer!
This confirms exactly what I thought: you're really not generally curious or honestly interested in a productive discussion about human health or well-being. You simply want to antagonize. It's nice to see your body/mind dichotomy mindset at work, though. I'm sorry I spent so much time replying to you in an attempt to get you to see reason. I hope the information I provided helps someone else on their path to self-betterment, though.
As an fungal taxonomist I have a firm grounding in evolutionary biology, thank you, and thus I find your comments attempting to "educate" me about evolution completely annoying. You're so smart: you know it all, don't you? Well, play the game with someone else. It's obvious that more repeated attempts on my part to knock some sense into your thick skull will be futile. For that reason, I won't be interacting with you further in this thread -- or any others for that matter.
|
| Sunday, January 4, 2009 at 8:10:25 mst
Comment ID: #39
Name: Diana Hsieh
E-mail: diana(at)dianahsieh.com
URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog
Ted -- There is indeed a problem here: it's you. You're consistently acting like an ass on these food and diet threads, and I'm sick of it. (As are others, obviously, most notably Monica.) The problem isn't that you disagree with us. The problem is that you don't care to even learn enough or think enough to disagree that intelligently. So all you're doing is making assumptions, and needling on the basis of them. And, of course, when you're proven wrong, you don't bother to learn anything from that, you just sit back and wait for another opportunity to needle based on your own little strawmen.
It's all a stupid waste of time, and I'm sick of it. I was hoping that you would get tired of your little shtick because it's so petty and pointless -- and why would you be wanting to routinely antagonize a blogger that you supposedly respect? -- but alas no. Here you are, yet again.
So you have three choices:
(1) Start acting like a decent, intelligent person concerned with the truth on these health/diet threads.
(2) Stop commenting on these health/diet threads.
(3) Continue to do what you're doing. You'll be banned from the comments for repeatedly acting like a jerk.
|
| Sunday, January 4, 2009 at 8:19:30 mst
Comment ID: #40
Name: Diana Hsieh
E-mail: diana(at)dianahsieh.com
URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog
Anime -- You are being collectivist and racist: you are making nasty assumptions about people on the basis of their skin color before you know anything else about them. Your bad experiences with some black people do not justify your general hostility and suspicion toward blacks or middle easterners, just as the bad experiences that a black or middle eastern man might have had with white people justifies his racism.
So again, I simply repeat that any and all such racism is morally revolting. And I would regard a person willing to patronize a restaurant that refused to serve blacks with the utmost contempt. If that includes you, and it seems you might be open to that, then so be it.
|
| Sunday, January 4, 2009 at 12:55:43 mst
Comment ID: #41
Name: Richard Nikoley
E-mail: rnikoley(at)gmail.com
URL: http://www.freetheanimal.com
A note to add regarding obesity, diet, intense exercise, and fasting.
Someone wrote early on in the thread:
"Study after study after study has shown that diet is nearly irrelevant when it comes to keeping weight off. People can make even radical changes in their diet and still hit a "plateau" of weight loss well above their goal weight. You can't' lose weight through diet alone. The scientific literature is virtually consistent on the point that the key is *exercise*. This is not to say that proper nutrition isn't important, but anyone who studies the literature can see that it's lack of exercise, not change in diet, as the primary reason for increasing obesity."
Absolutely false. It's about 80% diet. Exercise alone is a very poor way to recompose your body, lose fat, gain muscle. Moreover, this has an awful lot to do with leptin resistance which hasn't been mentioned.
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/12/leptin-resistance-and ...
More:
http://www.jci.org/articles/view/17953
http://www.neuroanatomy.wisc.edu/selflearn/leptin.pdf
http://www.neuroendo.org.uk/content/view/8/11/
Here's a 400 pounder that figured out the leptin issue on his own and here's the result:
http://www.jongabriel.com.au/weightloss/
http://nourishedmagazine.com.au/blog/articles/weight-loss-without-d ...
Fortunately, a paleo-like diet will automatically restore leptin sensitivity naturally. I and other paleo eaters have often noted that gradually, after a few months, you realize you're never hungry anymore, at least in the sense most people recognize. It's difficult to explain, but nothing like the kind of gnawing, nauseated feeling that cane come only hours after the last meal. If on fasts of 36 hour duration where I truly do get hungry, it's of a nature that's substantially less trying than in the old days even 4-5 hours after a high-carb meal like pasta or pizza, of a meal where lots of bread and potatoes were consumed.
To Ted Coxhead: For the record, I never believed for one second that you actually read Good Calories, Bad Calories (Diet Delusion in the UK, I believe), as you claimed. In other words, I think you lied about that. I have no idea of your motivation, but it's clear to me that you actively don't want I, Diana, Monica and others who've seen tremendous results (remember Greg Perkins, too) to continue to achieve them, report them, and motivate others to try similar approaches.
You're projecting something. I just don't know what it is.
|
| Sunday, January 4, 2009 at 15:19:30 mst
Comment ID: #42
Name: Ted Coxhead
E-mail: tedcoxhead(at)yahoo.co.uk
"To Ted Coxhead: For the record, I never believed for one second that you actually read Good Calories, Bad Calories (Diet Delusion in the UK, I believe), as you claimed. In other words, I think you lied about that."
I have my copy of the Taubes book in front of me as I type. It is the GCBC title, hardback, published by Knopf, New York. I purchased it after seeing it referred to I think on HBL by a contributor there ( I may have the HBL reference wrong, but apart from here I don't go to many other sites apart from Dr Peikoff and ARI - and it wasn't one of them. Also I do not visit foodie sites ). I bought it, and read it, Mr Nikoley, before I saw it referenced on Diana's blog. I also read, at about the same time, Kendrick's work attacking the cholesterol hypothesis and "Panic Nation" by Feldman and Marks.
You should not interpret disagreement as a personal attack, although I am aware that diet protagonists like you do exhibit a degree of zeal. In deference to Diana, I shall take up Option 2 of her ultimatum and simply not post comments on your diet discussions and recipe swaps.
Whilst I can tolerate your manners in previously calling me full of shit, and I can tolerate Monica calling me a moron, you have absolutely no right to call me a liar.
|
| Sunday, January 4, 2009 at 19:15:35 mst
Comment ID: #43
Name: Richard Nikoley
E-mail: rnikoley(at)gmail.com
URL: http://www.freetheanimal.com
Ted:
Well, I stand convinced, then, that you've indeed read it. That renders your approach even more mysterious to me. However, for the accusation -- to my mind -- you stand wronged and I stand wrong.
I apologize.
|
| Sunday, January 4, 2009 at 20:03:02 mst
Comment ID: #44
Name: Anime'
Diana, as I have seen you do to several other posters here, you are on a high horse, you seem to get pissed off easily, and you seem to delight in being nasty and condescending as often as possible.
Have you ever tried to walk or even drive through a bad section of town--say, Watts? South Central L.A.? East L.A. (barrio land)? Did you lock your windows? Did you proceed with more caution than usual? I bet you would be more cautious, if you had been there.
If Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Alan Keyes, Larry Elder, Ken Hamblin, or people like them, were my neighbors, I'd rejoice. However, they are not (and I repeat NOT) the same as the ghetto boys I see in the town where I live. We have some nasty customers who moved up here from South Central L.A. to be near their incarcerated family members.
I won't bother wasting my time perusing your blog anymore. Frankly, I've got better things to do with my time. You're already one of the laughingstocks of the so-called Objectivist movement.
|
| Sunday, January 4, 2009 at 20:38:35 mst
Comment ID: #45
Name: Diana Hsieh
E-mail: diana(at)dianahsieh.com
URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog
Anime -- I do not judge whether a part of town is bad or not based on the skin color of the people who inhabit it. At the very least, that would be most unhelpful, as thugs come in every possible color. Other factors -- like known criminal activity, people's dress and demeanor, and upkeep of the houses -- tells me loud and clear whether to be extra cautious or not.
I do not pre-judge people based on the color of their skin. I don't take kindly to people who do, and I'm not going to apologize for that. So, by all means, go take your eyeballs -- and potshots at me and Objectivism -- elsewhere.
|
|
| Post Your Comment on ""Rights" of the Obese" |
|
|
|
