Culturally Fat

Off Topic
41

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:

[quote]anonym wrote:

It’s already been shown that one can lose weight eating Twinkies and Hostess cup cakes.

Sorry, Taubes.[/quote]

When in a controlled situation :wink:

that said, I believe the food diary of that professor showed that he was consuming many “healthy” foods and not strictly the junk. I believe his carb intake was still around 150 per day much less than the avg american[/quote]

Hey, I am the first one to admitt that Ornish showed that his diets works.

His subjects lost weight, they even reversed artery damage.

Of course, not only did they only eat rabbit food, they also quit smoking, were taught how to handle stress and exercised.

So, the conclusion I draw from this is that all of this put together, works.

Of course I also know the nurse study that suggested that estrogen supplementation reduced the risk of CHDs.

It did not, it raised it signficantly, but their otherwise healthy lifestyles offset that.

So much for observational studies which are just good enough to form a hypothesis which is to be tested in a clinical setting and no more.

If we want to be all scientific and stuff.

42

633×800 130 KB

This is a cow that is fat and lazy

43


This is a cow with the willpower to eat less and exercise.

Obviously.

44

[quote]orion wrote:
What actually has been shown is that people with an impaired insulin sensitivity do much, much better on a low carb diet.

People with a normal sugar metabolism actually do quite well with both a low carb and low fat diet.

What has been shown is that people with a normal sugar metabolism who are technically obese are healthy as fuck and live to be a 100 (joint problems may occur, who knows) whereas people who show all the signs of a hyperinsulinemia and are thin drop dead just as readily as their fat counterparts.

That has been shown.

That fat leads to diabetes, heart disease or even diabetes however has not been shown.

That nutritionary cholesterol significantly raises your blood cholesterol has not been shown, in fact, a high fat diet has been SHOWN to drop it significantly.

That high cholesterol levels lead to CHDs has also not been shown, except that individuals with more than 300 might, might, have a 1-2% higher chance of developing one.

So why do you pity Taubes, because he has done his research whereas you have not?

That is psychologically understandable and scientifically worthless. [/quote]

So what is it you want to discuss, really? What makes someone fat or what results in diabetic, atherosclerotic, hypercholesterolemic (etc.) states?

I suppose it doesn’t really matter, though. The solution to all these health woes is not going to be found in demonizing an entire macronutrient group with sweeping statements.

But, I know, it sells books.

If you are curious how much research I have done, start a thread in the nutrition forum. You can really cut loose and continue to explain “what has been show” to support Taubes’ theories, replete with links to studies and everything.

We can discuss his rationale, the studies he bases his opinions on and everything in between. Just be sure to clearly outline what, exactly, you think his stance is. I’ve run out of fish to fill my barrels with, so Taubes’ theories are about the next best thing I can shoot at to pass the summer between my graduate studies in (gasp) nutrition.

45

The difference between people and cows is that people have the ability to become conscious of excessive fat gain and can make choices to offset the factors leading to that.

Bad eating habits have to be treated like an addiction. Don’t allow foods that you crave that are bad for you into your home. Accept that it’s going to suck at first and that’ll be like rehab. Move around more. It’s simple, but at least at first it can be hard and it sucks. I’ve seen obese people put these principles into practice and what happened is that they became leaner and health marks improved. There’s no magic, ground-breaking diet/fad, or advanced degree required to do that. Sure relapses happen, but like any other addiction you pull yourself up by the bootstraps and get to it again.

The reason you don’t see much of it is because it’s hard and most people follow the path of least resistance. Same reason you don’t see many people doing squats or deads or challenging themselves in commercial gyms.

46

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
The difference between people and cows is that people have the ability to become conscious of excessive fat gain and can make choices to offset the factors leading to that.
[/quote]

You dont get the point.

Some cows are fatter than others because they are bred that way.

If you take willpower and exercise out of the equation some will be “morbidly obese” and others wont.

If you look at overfeeding studies it becomes obvious that this is also true for humans.

In fact Taubes has a point when he says that maintaining your weight by counting calories MUSt fail, simply because you eat an enormous amount of calories a year and if you are off by even one per cent you will either be obese or anorexic in no time.

No, body weight is a self regulating system and in some people it is seriously out of whack.

The evidence points to excessive carbs.

47

[quote]anonym wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
What actually has been shown is that people with an impaired insulin sensitivity do much, much better on a low carb diet.

People with a normal sugar metabolism actually do quite well with both a low carb and low fat diet.

What has been shown is that people with a normal sugar metabolism who are technically obese are healthy as fuck and live to be a 100 (joint problems may occur, who knows) whereas people who show all the signs of a hyperinsulinemia and are thin drop dead just as readily as their fat counterparts.

That has been shown.

That fat leads to diabetes, heart disease or even diabetes however has not been shown.

That nutritionary cholesterol significantly raises your blood cholesterol has not been shown, in fact, a high fat diet has been SHOWN to drop it significantly.

That high cholesterol levels lead to CHDs has also not been shown, except that individuals with more than 300 might, might, have a 1-2% higher chance of developing one.

So why do you pity Taubes, because he has done his research whereas you have not?

That is psychologically understandable and scientifically worthless. [/quote]

So what is it you want to discuss, really? What makes someone fat or what results in diabetic, atherosclerotic, hypercholesterolemic (etc.) states?

I suppose it doesn’t really matter, though. The solution to all these health woes is not going to be found in demonizing an entire macronutrient group with sweeping statements.
[/quote]

If you had read the book you would know that Taubes “sweeping statements” consist of 500+ well referenced pages.

Ahem.

What makes me fly of the handle is when someone thinks that snippy remarks regarding Taubes or Atkins are considered to be an argument when, given the available data, they had it more right than wrong and they were and in Taubes case are, infinitely better than the orthodoxy of our times.

Disregarding that neither of them demonized anything except maybe stuff that is so full of processed carbs that it is a wonder that people do not drop on the spot.

48

Well, come to think about this, what actually does pisses me off even more is when people attribute obesity to a lack of willpower.

In my opinion this is as worthless as attributing tuberculosis to demonic possession.

If you such an insulin response that you shuttle your calories immediately in your fat cells and then cannot get it out due to a still elevated insulin level you will eat more and move less.

What other choice do you have?

49

[quote]orion wrote:
Well, come to think about this, what actually does pisses me off even more is when people attribute obesity to a lack of willpower.

In my opinion this is as worthless as attributing tuberculosis to demonic possession.

If you such an insulin response that you shuttle your calories immediately in your fat cells and then cannot get it out due to a still elevated insulin level you will eat more and move less.

What other choice do you have?

[/quote]
Your choices are to eat more and move less. Guess what if fat people eat too many calories even on a low carb diet they will stay fat. This doesn’t happen often, but why? Easy, it’s because protein and fat are keeping them full. You could and people do the same while still incorporating evil carbs to their diet. Taubes biggest problems is digging up research that only supports his claims.

50

Orion- you are wrong… within that past 30 yrs the US population has apparently lost their willpower, :wink: I keed. I’m with ya dude

51

[quote]orion wrote:
If you had read the book you would know that Taubes “sweeping statements” consist of 500+ well referenced pages. [/quote]

No.

Not all “well-referenced”.

Had you checked some out yourself, or even availed yourself of a basic Google search, you would know this.

They are not all junk, but he does make a lot of the same mistakes the Wheat Belly guy did.

52

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
Orion- you are wrong… within that past 30 yrs the US population has apparently lost their willpower, :wink: I keed. I’m with ya dude[/quote]

The MAIN reason: For most of recent human history we made our living performing back breaking labour. Now everyone works in an office, sits at a desk and watches tv at home.

You didn’t need to exercise recreationally because working on a farm 7 days a week would burn enough calories off you. Heck, just to maintain your weight you had to eat Paula Deen type dishes.

53

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
Orion- you are wrong… within that past 30 yrs the US population has apparently lost their willpower, :wink: I keed. I’m with ya dude[/quote]

Wouldn’t ya know it, people are consuming a couple hundred more calories per day than they did 30 years ago. You can propose sugar as a contributing factor in they “why,” but you can’t write off an extra 200+ calories a day and blame something else. People eat too much…fix that and then we’ll see if sugar is as bad as everyone thinks.

54

permabulkers=culturally fat lol

55

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
Orion- you are wrong… within that past 30 yrs the US population has apparently lost their willpower, :wink: I keed. I’m with ya dude[/quote]

The MAIN reason: For most of recent human history we made our living performing back breaking labour. Now everyone works in an office, sits at a desk and watches tv at home.

You didn’t need to exercise recreationally because working on a farm 7 days a week would burn enough calories off you. Heck, just to maintain your weight you had to eat Paula Deen type dishes.

[/quote]

Really? so all those people in teh 70s that didn’t have manual labor jobs, were driving in droves to the gym? I think not.

56

701×563 63.9 KB

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
Really? so all those people in teh 70s that didn’t have manual labor jobs, were driving in droves to the gym? I think not.[/quote]

“In the early 1960’s almost half the jobs in private industry in the U.S. required at least moderate intensity physical activity whereas now less than 20% demand this level of energy expenditure. Since 1960 the estimated mean daily energy expenditure due to work related physical activity has dropped by more than 100 calories in both women and men.”

Graphs are courtesy of “DECLINING RATES OF PHYSICAL ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES: What Are the Contributors?”
http://www.annualreviews.org.libproxy.edu/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.26.021304.144437

If anyone needs an explanation as to why Figure 6 is in there, let me know.

57

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
Orion- you are wrong… within that past 30 yrs the US population has apparently lost their willpower, :wink: I keed. I’m with ya dude[/quote]

The MAIN reason: For most of recent human history we made our living performing back breaking labour. Now everyone works in an office, sits at a desk and watches tv at home.

You didn’t need to exercise recreationally because working on a farm 7 days a week would burn enough calories off you. Heck, just to maintain your weight you had to eat Paula Deen type dishes.

[/quote]

Really? so all those people in teh 70s that didn’t have manual labor jobs, were driving in droves to the gym? I think not.[/quote]

They were also eating less, since you haven’t acknowledged that.

58

[quote]sardines12 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
Well, come to think about this, what actually does pisses me off even more is when people attribute obesity to a lack of willpower.

In my opinion this is as worthless as attributing tuberculosis to demonic possession.

If you such an insulin response that you shuttle your calories immediately in your fat cells and then cannot get it out due to a still elevated insulin level you will eat more and move less.

What other choice do you have?

[/quote]
Your choices are to eat more and move less. Guess what if fat people eat too many calories even on a low carb diet they will stay fat. This doesn’t happen often, but why? Easy, it’s because protein and fat are keeping them full. You could and people do the same while still incorporating evil carbs to their diet. Taubes biggest problems is digging up research that only supports his claims. [/quote]

That I actually agree with.

He neither addresses insulin pulses after protein intake nor non insulin mediated shuttling of fatty acids into fat cells, so his claims that only carbs raise insulin and that you cannot gain weight on a low carb diet are flat out wrong.

What he also fails to explain is how people become insulin resistant in the first place, because that is actually a rather hard thing to become if you keep calories at your maintenance level no matter what your macro ratio looks like.

Except for fructose, that seems to work like a charm, but who knows.

59

[quote]anonym wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
If you had read the book you would know that Taubes “sweeping statements” consist of 500+ well referenced pages. [/quote]

No.

Not all “well-referenced”.

Had you checked some out yourself, or even availed yourself of a basic Google search, you would know this.

They are not all junk, but he does make a lot of the same mistakes the Wheat Belly guy did.[/quote]

If YOU had looked at it you would know that he was well referenced.

That he drew some simplistic conclusions from it is true but the point of referencing something is that people can look it up and evaluate the authors conclusions.

My point still stands though, he got it more right than wrong.

Carbs raise insulin levels, high insulin levels make it impossible to get fat out of your fat cells and in the absence of carbs you wont raise insulin literally cannot gain weight is almost entirely wrong.

Almost all of it.

BUT, on a practical level, it works.

60

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
Orion- you are wrong… within that past 30 yrs the US population has apparently lost their willpower, :wink: I keed. I’m with ya dude[/quote]

The MAIN reason: For most of recent human history we made our living performing back breaking labour. Now everyone works in an office, sits at a desk and watches tv at home.

You didn’t need to exercise recreationally because working on a farm 7 days a week would burn enough calories off you. Heck, just to maintain your weight you had to eat Paula Deen type dishes.

[/quote]

For most of recent human history,yes.

If you look at hunter gatherers, not so much.