Obesity and Food Politics

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
162

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Well you seem to have it all figured out. [/quote]

God, no. Far, far from it.

But then, neither do you. And neither do those LC disciples I see shouting from the rooftops that thousands of researchers over decades of study have somehow managed to get it all wrong. That a journalist with NO BACKGROUND in the health sciences has managed to pick up the intellectual ball that innumerable MDs and PhDs just can’t seem to hold onto and score an infallible, paradigm-shifting touchdown with it. That not only is the LC lifestyle a healthful dietary option, but that it is, in fact, the ONLY one… for ALL people. That LC diets are a panacea for ALL Western diseases and that anyone who says otherwise is either ignorant of the ironclad pro-LC evidence or biased into ignoring it out of pride or greed. That the lower your carb intake, the better… because glucose is a TOXIN.

One thing I DO have figured out, though, is that if you want to make a case for demonizing an entire macronutrient group (one that has played a prominent role in sustaining human life for thousands and thousands of years), you better bring it with some serious scientific evidence. None of this “well, it worked for ME” and “I can’t prove it, but still believe…” nonsense.

I don’t wade into scientific discussions trying to wield my opinion as fact, and I expect the same courtesy from those who decide to participate in the debate I take time out of my day to involve myself in.

163

This is what I will say. The obese would do well on a LCHF diet. The lean that are active depending upon goals can consume more carbs.

In the end, Weston A Price had this shit figured out decades ago :wink:

I favor LCHF mainly because the population I deal with is so deathly afraid of natural fats (mainly saturated and cholesterol) that they’ve changed their diet for the last 30 years. These same people that fear eating liver, beef or eggs daily (while they ate it when they were youngins) are now the same ones complaining they can’t lose weight, they’re T2 diabetic and/or have heart disease.

I guess this has lead me to over-emphasize LCHF in general blanket statements when in reality not everyone has to eat in such a manner, nor is this how I teach/coach clients.

164

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
This is what I will say. The obese would do well on a LCHF diet. The lean that are active depending upon goals can consume more carbs.
[/quote]

Yes, insulin sensitivity is usually not an issue with lean and regularly active people.

165

Basically boils down to insulin sensitivity.

Question for Anomym: In the studies you have read about doing fine on carbohydrate diets (healthy individuals) how active were participants? How old?

Another link showing that a lower Carbohydrate diet improves profiles on the tested obese.

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/84/4/813.full

Btw Anomym: You come across as a arrogant snobbish prick if you mean it or not. Just a heads up. Dr Matt in all of his intelligence does not. FWIW.

166

[quote]FISCHER613 wrote:
Question for Anomym: In the studies you have read about doing fine on carbohydrate diets (healthy individuals) how active were participants? How old?[/quote]

I think you are confused as to what I am arguing in this thread.

[quote]FISCHER613 wrote:
Btw Anomym: You come across as a arrogant snobbish prick if you mean it or not. Just a heads up. Dr Matt in all of his intelligence does not. FWIW.[/quote]

It is completely intentional.

Look, if you want to participate in the discussion by posting compelling, thoughtful evidence rooted in sound scientific practices and a thorough understanding of nutrition and physiology, that is fine. I’ll play nice because I appreciate an intelligent debate and because I am, in fact, a fairly nice guy.

If, however, you want to participate by a) making shit up, b) refusing to even ACKNOWLEDGE contradicting evidence, c) posting “evidence” that you, yourself, have not personally vetted, (that, as it turns out, has little to do with the argument it is meant to support), d) making wildly unsubstantiated health claims to support your position, e) stubbornly championing your personal opinion as a scientific fact… then yes, I WILL be a prick because you are both wasting my time and willfully spreading misinformation in an effort to mislead those who might not know any better… just so you can avoid having to admit just how much of a religion your diet has become to you.

That is bad science and shitty debate etiquette. I take the time to avoid getting caught up in those because I would EXPECT a negative backlash from it. That’s why I make sure I don’t talk out of my ass.

My posting style? It is an abrasive, abrupt and unapologetic, yes, but I am not sure how you can read “arrogance” in it, particularly in light of the fact that I have already admitted to being far, far from having it all figured out.

But, yes, I am a “snob” for intelligent, quality scientific material. Dogma and superstition don’t cut it.

167

[quote]FISCHER613 wrote:
Dr Matt in all of his intelligence does not. FWIW.[/quote]

Dr. Matt is an exceedingly intelligent person whom I applaud for having an impressively patient and informative posting style. However, he and I are distinctly separate people with distinctly separate posting styles.

My posting style in this thread has little to do with any perceived intellectual disparity between me and lifty (as I do not feel one exists in my favor, if at all); therefore, holding a poster of superior intelligence up as a model for me to aspire to is missing the point. Instead, my tone is a manifestation of the derision I feel towards those who violate points ‘a’ through ‘e’ (or whatever it was) above. I do not waste time sugarcoating my opinions of those who refuse to extend the basic courtesy of engaging in an intellectually honest debate. Call me arrogant, rude, prickish, childish, whatever… but I HAVE been intellectually honest. My facts and position DO stand on their own scientific merit. I have not fabricated, misrepresented or omitted anything from the evidence I have offered.

It isn’t about having a differing perspective on the issue – again, I am far from having it all figured out, myself – it is about engaging in a scientific debate using quality scientific evidence and not dicking around with dogmatic beliefs, distorted physiology and outright lies.

168

Fair enough on your answer just don’t lump me in as a Zealot for a certain diet or method please.

Care to answer my questions?

I understand your point you are arguing.

I posted links showing studies of lower carbohydrate Diets being the better of the Diets being tested.

Ok off to train clients, will try to check thread later on.

169

[quote]FISCHER613 wrote:
Another link showing that a lower Carbohydrate diet improves profiles on the tested obese.

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/84/4/813.full[/quote]

Oops, got my tabs mixed up and commented on the paleo article.

I’ll comment on this one a little later.

170

[quote]FISCHER613 wrote:
I posted links showing studies of lower carbohydrate Diets being the better of the Diets being tested.[/quote]

OK, from your first study (the paleo one):

“The usual diet had a calculated K/Na intake ratio of 0.6±0.3 and averaged 18% of calories from protein, 44% from carbohydrates and 38% from fats. An analyzed paleolithic diet composite had a K/Na intake ratio of 4.3 (Po0.0001) and contained 30% of calories from proteins, 32% from fat (mainly unsaturated) and 38% from carbohydrates.”

While this is a lowER carb study (in that the subjects decreased carb intake slightly), it isn’t what I would consider to be low carb, at all. 38% of calories coming from carbohydrate isn’t low by any stretch.

Of course, fat intake decreased when the subjects switched to paleo, as well. By the same percentage as carbohydrate. But then, I wouldn’t consider this a low fat diet, either.

In fact, carb intake only decreased approximately 5g total. The percentage shift is due largely, it seems, to the increase in protein.

So, what was it that resulted in the favorable shift in these surrogate markers?

Was it…

  • the 6% (5g) decrease in carbohydrates?
  • the 6% (3g) decrease in fats?
  • the 50% cut in SFAs?
  • the ~50% cut in MUFAs?
  • the doubling of PUFAs?
  • the change in micronutrient intake?
  • the switch to a diet emphasizing unprocessed foods?
  • the increase in protein?
  • a combination of all, or any, of these (my guess)?

What are YOUR thoughts on the article? Why would you think this is a lower carb diet for these subjects?

171

JF, I’ll get to your study too… just been a little busy. Wouldn’t have even chimed in if I wasn’t specifically addressed.

I’ll get something up later tonight or tomorrow.

172

I have no dog in this fight, but I did glance at jf’s reference:

The skeptic may here skip the methods, but let’s see if the results support the conclusions.
Refer to Table 5. One will see that
–the diets are not isocaloric (“energy density”). THe Paleo diet is a comparatively a weight loss diet.
–there is no statistically significant difference between them in their protein or fat component, leaving the energy contribution to higher carbohydrates in the “diabetes” diet, and
–the “Paleo” diet has significantly lower glycemic index and glycemic load.

The authors slid by these differences. Considering their conclusions, could there be an alternative explanation of the data? I think so: the results (Figure 1) may be attributable not to the proportions of fat or protein vs carbohydrate, but to the differences is high glycemic load vs low glycemic load. It is possible that a diet hight in carefully chosen carbohydrates with low glycemic index may be as effective.

The data massage I would choose here to support my contention would be a logistic regression analysis, which cannot be done with just 13 subjects.

173

A Calorie is a Calorie violates the second law of Thermodynamics. Explained in above article

Aragorn touched lightly on this.

174

[quote]anonym wrote:

[quote]njrusmc wrote:
However, if I eat a dozen donuts per day @ 2000 kcal and my imaginary identical twin brother eats steak, wild salmon, greek yogurt, blueberries (you guys get my point) per day @ 2000 kcal, one of us is going to look like shit and the other won’t assuming we both exercise the same. This is one of those things I strongly believe but cannot prove, especially when some evidence suggests otherwise. You just can’t out-train a shitty diet.[/quote]

You are making the same mistake that other LC advocates make when researching their position. LC does not invariably equal high(er) protein and LF doesn’t automatically mean low(er) protein.

[quote]njrusmc wrote:
I realize this is a little off topic but I tend to agree with LIFTY on CICO being an imperfect model. Not a shitty or usefull one, though; an obese land-whale could benefit from CICO … but even a novice athlete would need something more. After all, if life was all about CICO then why would we ever discuss food varieties and “super foods” and “power foods”, etc. We could all do the Dave Tate bulking diet of McDonalds, Chinese Food, and oil covered pizza … even when preparing for a BB show. Just some thoughts.[/quote]

Food variety staves off boredom and allows for a complete spectrum of vitamins, minerals and phytonutrients.

Super foods get their name for the health benefits they are thought to confer (usually believed to stem from their Vv/phyto/mineral makeups).

I am not arguing about the health benefits of LC vs LF diets.[/quote]

I wasn’t trying to argue LC, LF, or anything of the sort. All I’m saying is that given a fixed amount of calories, the composition of those calories DOES matter. Therefore, CICO is not accurate. If it didn’t matter, we would just drink olive oil all day for a quick energy fix and be done with it. That’s all I’m saying.

175

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
The authors slid by these differences. Considering their conclusions, could there be an alternative explanation of the data? I think so: the results (Figure 1) may be attributable not to the proportions of fat or protein vs carbohydrate, but to the differences is high glycemic load vs low glycemic load. It is possible that a diet hight in carefully chosen carbohydrates with low glycemic index may be as effective.
[/quote]

Yes, a low glycemic load is inherent in a diet that abstains from seeds and starchy root vegetables; however, these diets are not anti-carbohydrate, per se, rather they are anti-certain kinds of carbohydrates.

Still, I think using fat for energy makes more sense for obese people rather than carbohydrates. Eating a carbohydrate dense diet makes it almost impossible for the body to have a calorie deficit. It seems insulin may negatively affect the bodies ability to burn fat for energy.

176

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
The authors slid by these differences. Considering their conclusions, could there be an alternative explanation of the data? I think so: the results (Figure 1) may be attributable not to the proportions of fat or protein vs carbohydrate, but to the differences is high glycemic load vs low glycemic load. It is possible that a diet hight in carefully chosen carbohydrates with low glycemic index may be as effective.
[/quote]

Yes, a low glycemic load is inherent in a diet that abstains from seeds and starchy root vegetables; however, these diets are not anti-carbohydrate, per se, rather they are anti-certain kinds of carbohydrates.

Still, I think using fat for energy makes more sense for obese people rather than carbohydrates. Eating a carbohydrate dense diet makes it almost impossible for the body to have a calorie deficit. It seems insulin may negatively affect the bodies ability to burn fat for energy.[/quote]

Lifty I get why Anomyn is getting frustrated with you. Your above paragraph is all your own personal conjecture on the subject matter. He wants you to show scietific proof to prove your theory. Make sense?

177

Now my own “scientific Studies” with over 250 people who have used me for nutritional advice as well as personal training is when I slowly steer them from their “Typical American Diet” to one that is lower in calories, more meals and keeps them full and sated it works very well.

And yes it is a Drastially lower Carbohydrate ratio than they are used too. Protein 40% Carbs 25% Fat 35%
With Carb up days include in there.

178

[quote]FISCHER613 wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
The authors slid by these differences. Considering their conclusions, could there be an alternative explanation of the data? I think so: the results (Figure 1) may be attributable not to the proportions of fat or protein vs carbohydrate, but to the differences is high glycemic load vs low glycemic load. It is possible that a diet hight in carefully chosen carbohydrates with low glycemic index may be as effective.
[/quote]

Yes, a low glycemic load is inherent in a diet that abstains from seeds and starchy root vegetables; however, these diets are not anti-carbohydrate, per se, rather they are anti-certain kinds of carbohydrates.

Still, I think using fat for energy makes more sense for obese people rather than carbohydrates. Eating a carbohydrate dense diet makes it almost impossible for the body to have a calorie deficit. It seems insulin may negatively affect the bodies ability to burn fat for energy.[/quote]

Lifty I get why Anomyn is getting frustrated with you. Your above paragraph is all your own personal conjecture on the subject matter. He wants you to show scietific proof to prove your theory. Make sense?[/quote]

It’s not my personal conjecture just because I am not providing you with sources.

The google machine works wonders.

179

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]FISCHER613 wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
The authors slid by these differences. Considering their conclusions, could there be an alternative explanation of the data? I think so: the results (Figure 1) may be attributable not to the proportions of fat or protein vs carbohydrate, but to the differences is high glycemic load vs low glycemic load. It is possible that a diet hight in carefully chosen carbohydrates with low glycemic index may be as effective.
[/quote]

Yes, a low glycemic load is inherent in a diet that abstains from seeds and starchy root vegetables; however, these diets are not anti-carbohydrate, per se, rather they are anti-certain kinds of carbohydrates.

Still, I think using fat for energy makes more sense for obese people rather than carbohydrates. Eating a carbohydrate dense diet makes it almost impossible for the body to have a calorie deficit. It seems insulin may negatively affect the bodies ability to burn fat for energy.[/quote]

Lifty I get why Anomyn is getting frustrated with you. Your above paragraph is all your own personal conjecture on the subject matter. He wants you to show scietific proof to prove your theory. Make sense?[/quote]

It’s not my personal conjecture just because I am not providing you with sources.

The google machine works wonders.[/quote]

No need for smarky answers.

I was just trying to help you understand that when you post your thoughts on a matter of a scientific nature you would put in your references and not use your own personal expirience as your main reference.

180

[quote]FISCHER613 wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]FISCHER613 wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
The authors slid by these differences. Considering their conclusions, could there be an alternative explanation of the data? I think so: the results (Figure 1) may be attributable not to the proportions of fat or protein vs carbohydrate, but to the differences is high glycemic load vs low glycemic load. It is possible that a diet hight in carefully chosen carbohydrates with low glycemic index may be as effective.
[/quote]

Yes, a low glycemic load is inherent in a diet that abstains from seeds and starchy root vegetables; however, these diets are not anti-carbohydrate, per se, rather they are anti-certain kinds of carbohydrates.

Still, I think using fat for energy makes more sense for obese people rather than carbohydrates. Eating a carbohydrate dense diet makes it almost impossible for the body to have a calorie deficit. It seems insulin may negatively affect the bodies ability to burn fat for energy.[/quote]

Lifty I get why Anomyn is getting frustrated with you. Your above paragraph is all your own personal conjecture on the subject matter. He wants you to show scietific proof to prove your theory. Make sense?[/quote]

It’s not my personal conjecture just because I am not providing you with sources.

The google machine works wonders.[/quote]

No need for smarky answers.

I was just trying to help you understand that when you post your thoughts on a matter of a scientific nature you would put in your references and not use your own personal expirience as your main reference.

[/quote]

I know this but it doesn’t matter here. It’s not “my science” that I am defending. I am just linking to someone else’s critique of the science and if you don’t like it…

181

well our body is not a heat engine…it is more like a fuel cell…it stores energy in chemical bonds which can ultimately be converted into mechanical energy…

The energy equation can be further broken down into this…

(Food Intake ? Food Not Digested) = RMR + TEF + TEA + Adaptive Thermogenesis + Glycogen Stored + Fat Stored

RMR ? Resting Metabolic Rate
TEF ? Thermic Effect of Food
TEA ? Thermic Effect of Activity

Our body is extremely good at absorbing nutrients…most people digest close to everything they eat…so, digestion is normally not an issue at all…

RMR is what is needed to basically live without moving or doing anything…

TEF is the incr in thermogenesis due to digesting a food…if you ingest protein or fiber, you will induce a higher rate of TEF

TEA is just energy expended due to movement…if you are exercising a lot, it will have an impact on your TEA

The adaptive component is the hardest to understand…some people will start doing small body twitches throughout the day which are unnoticeable to them which could burn substantial calories…some people may have some type of upregulation of an uncoupling protein which induces this as well…at the end of the day, some type of movement or other heat expenditure is occuring whether it is muscular or molecular…This component is heavily regulated by Leptin which is master hormone that regulates downstream metabolic processes in the body…

glycogen storage is related to insulin signaling…it is very dependent on genetics and the level of fatty acids that are in your blood stream(obese people may have impaired insulin signaling which would favor enhanced fat storage)…

protein synthesis…It is occuring constantly…our body breaks itself down and rebuilds itself every second…this is related to insulin and androgen signaling…If you increased it, it would increase the RMR…

fat would be what is not expended…