Why You're Addicted To Bread, and The Myth Of "Complex Carbohydrates"

[Spats]

I'm pretty well versed in how science and research work as I have a bachelor's in Biology and Geology and a M.S. in Ecology.

So you should know to cite primary sources, instead of the secondary/tertiary bushwah you cited.

Nice job leaving out the conclusion from those scientists examining their own data:

Reduced fat and calorie intake and frequent use of low-calorie food products have been associated with a paradoxical increase in the prevalence of obesity. These diverging trends suggest that there has been a dramatic decrease in total physical activity related energy expenditure.

Their "conclusion" is irrelevant, because that's a matter of personal interpretation. The data is what's important, and the data says that these scientists smoked a lot of crack when they wrote that conclusion. "...the prevalence of sedentary lifestyle represented almost 60% of the US population, with no change over time."

In other words, "The data didn't say what we want it to say, so we'll just ignore it and parrot our preconceived notions -- because we don't want to admit that everything we've been telling people for decades is both factually wrong and a colossal failure."

Just like you're doing. The data says that people are eating the same number of calories and exercising the same amount -- and getting fatter. End of story.

(I've spent a lot of time reading studies, and this is surprisingly common. The data will say one thing, and the "conclusion" will say whatever the researchers thought it was going to say when they designed the study.)

Here's a more recent article (2004) that pretty much reiterates that a change towards a fatty, low nutrient diet and a sedentary lifestyle is a big reason why we have an obesity problem.
Diet, nutrition and the prevention of excess weight gain and
obesity
http://www.who.int/nutrition/publica...ealth_nut3.pdf

That isn't a scientific study. It's a WHO paper. Try again. Primary sources, remember?

It's also full of materially false statements like "Foods high in fat are less satiating than foods high in carbohydrates." Anyone who can make that statement with a straight face has zero credibility...it's like saying "The Sun orbits the Earth."

I dug into this, and the study they reference doesn't actually support that conclusion. First, it contains no fat-rich meats, and only two fat-rich foods (eggs and cheese). The only two meats in the study were ridiculously lean: 'ling fish' (lingcod), a white fish with only 1g of fat to 23g of protein, and a similarly lean cut of beef...and they were #2 and #7 out of 37 foods tested!

Second, the study doesn't control for the amount of water in a food. So boiled potatoes get #1 and oatmeal gets #3...because they're mostly water. Are you going to eat 240 calories worth of steak without drinking some water? No, you're not. But the study didn't let people drink until two hours later.

Most importantly, it only measured satiety two hours later. How long is it from lunch to dinner? 5-7 hours for most of us -- so this study is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to the real-world case. Read the BAGEL vs. EGG study below to see what happens when you actually track calories over the rest of the day. (Hint: eggs win.)

Conclusion: the WHO statement is, to put it mildly, unsupported by the data.

This is why you have to read primary sources and see the original data: people twist them around to say anything they want. That is why my articles link the original papers: you can verify that they say what I claim they say.

Going back to the WHO paper: it's an argument against the Standard American Diet, not against a paleo-based diet (which is, by necessity, relatively low-carb). As such, it's an invalid comparison: french fries are neither paleo nor low-carb.

Further, the studies that paper cites aren't real-world, as I've demonstrated. You can feed people shakes in a lab all you want...but the studies that actually track real-world outcomes under real-world conditions all say the same thing. We're eating less fat and more carbohydrates, eating the same amount of calories, exercising the same, and getting fatter.

In support of this, here's another real-world outcome:

JAMA. 2007 Mar 7;297(9):969-77. Comparison of the Atkins, Zone, Ornish, and LEARN diets for change in weight and related risk factors among overweight premenopausal women: the A TO Z Weight Loss Study: a randomized trial. Gardner CD, Kiazand A, Alhassan S, Kim S, Stafford RS, Balise RR, Kraemer HC, King AC.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17341711
CONCLUSIONS: In this study, premenopausal overweight and obese women assigned to follow the Atkins diet, which had the lowest carbohydrate intake [and highest fat intake], lost more weight at 12 months than women assigned to follow the Zone diet [and over double the Ornish diet], and had experienced comparable or more favorable metabolic effects than those assigned to the Zone, Ornish [= low-fat, high-carb], or LEARN diets.

Note that the women were only coached for the first two months, and left completely on their own for the next ten. So this study measures adherence to the diet, which is most of a diet's effectiveness...

...and that's my point. Reducing fat reduces calories, sure. But it also increases glycemic index, which increases hunger, which makes it harder to stick to the low-fat diet. And since over 95% of traditional "diets" fail, we know that adherence to the diet is far more important than how much you eat under supervision. It's not like anyone doesn't know soda and cookies make you fat: it's that they can't stop eating them.

Further in opposition, there is the BAGEL vs. EGG study:

Ratliff et. al. Consuming eggs for breakfast influences plasma glucose and ghrelin, while reducing energy intake during the next 24 hours in adult men
Nutr Res Vol 30, Issue 2, pp. 96-103 (Feb 2010)
http://www.nrjournal.com/article/S02...003-5/abstract
"Subjects consumed fewer kilocalories after the EGG breakfast compared with the BAGEL breakfast (P< .01). In addition, subjects consumed more kilocalories in the 24-hour period after the BAGEL compared with the EGG breakfast (P < .05). Based on VAS, subjects were hungrier and less satisfied 3 hours after the BAGEL breakfast compared with the EGG breakfast (P < .01)."

Again, this is real-world data, and it says that you will eat less after a high-fat egg breakfast than an isocaloric low-fat bagel breakfast.

This next article that is part of a larger WHO report from 2000

Again, that isn't a primary source, it's a WHO report. And once again, all the real-world evidence indicates otherwise, as per my citations above and in the articles.

This article is very thorough and long. I didn't have time to read all of it,

In other words, you were just trolling for the first sentence that appeared to contradict what I said, and this whole exercise is irrelevant on my part because you have no intention of doing the research or even keeping an open mind.

Why didn't you say so in the first place?

Your body needs carbohydrates, fats, and proteins along with other nutrients to perform all its basic functions.

That is a materially false statement. Carbohydrates are completely unnecessary to the human diet. One cannot live without protein, and one cannot live without fat, but one can easily live without carbohydrates. You can talk to the Maasai, Inuit, and Yupik about that, reference the multiple cases in the literature of people who lived on an all-meat diet under strict medical observation, or just ask Owsley Stanley

The explanation is simple: your body cannot manufacture amino acids (the building blocks of protein) or essential fats. You must eat them. Carbohydrates do nothing but provide energy -- which you can also get from protein or fat.

(Note that I am not advocating a zero-carb diet, nor an Atkins diet.)

How you get these can occur in MANY different ways as is evidenced by the huge variety of diets throughout the world and even within a particular culture (meat, veggie, vegan, paleo, whatever).

There are a lot of diets that will keep you alive. Paleo-based diets will keep you healthier, stronger, and happier.

Personally, what I've taken from everything I've read and anecdotal observations of myself and others I've met in life, low quality food, lack of a varied diet, and lack of exercise are 3 of the biggest contributors to poor health.

Yes, but what does "low quality" mean?

Answer: it means calories without nutrition.

Animal protein is by definition nutritious, because it contains a complete complement of essential amino acids. Animal fat is by definition nutritious, because it contains a complete complement of essential fats. (And we've already proved that saturated fat is not harmful, contrary to propaganda.) They may be eaten raw in their natural state.

Grains are poisonous in their natural state, and must be cooked in order to not kill us. They provide mostly empty calories ('carbohydrates' = sugars) and anti-nutrients (lectins, phytate, exorphins).

Humans are not birds or rodents: we did not evolve to eat grains. Can we survive on them? Yes. But why, when we have a choice?

[DoWork]

I smash on bread like it owes me money, and yet I stay ripped as a motherfucker... hmmm...

Fat people are mostly fat because they are lazy and gluttonous bastards. No reason to tear apart every bit of pseudo-scientific speculation ever because some blowhard nutritionist wants to make a name for himself. There's a whole list of reasons fat fucks are fat.

Bread is important. It is also delicious. I stopped reading right after the r'tard compared them directly to skittles. It's funny how some of the smartest people out there are just so fucking stupid... So what is the point again?

[jon turner]

Their "conclusion" is irrelevant, because that's a matter of personal interpretation. The data is what's important, and the data says that these scientists smoked a lot of crack when they wrote that conclusion. "...the prevalence of sedentary lifestyle represented almost 60% of the US population, with no change over time."

In other words, "The data didn't say what we want it to say, so we'll just ignore it and parrot our preconceived notions -- because we don't want to admit that everything we've been telling people for decades is both factually wrong and a colossal failure."

The conclusion isn't irrelevant. It's part of their study. You are making an assumption on the 60% sedentary population not changing over 5 years to mean the same thing as not changing over the 15-20 years of the study. Whether you agree with their conclusion or not, it's important to state it and critique it if you are going to cite the results of their study. I wanted to read the whole text of that article rather than just the short abstract but couldn't, because it was a pay-for-pdf site. I was curious if they had sedentary data going back to the beginning of their study. The reason I went to the WHO and other article is because they both cite the article you presented. Both the article you presented and the other two contradicted many of your statements. Yeah, yeah, secondary resources. They're worthwhile, because they do exactly what you are doing, compiling lots of information from many different primary sources to synthesize the data.

Just like you're doing. The data says that people are eating the same number of calories and exercising the same amount -- and getting fatter. End of story.

I didn't say it was end of story. I said your side has some merit to consider, but my perspective from seeing all the contradictory information, is there is more than one right path to nutrition and health.

Going back to the WHO paper: it's an argument against the Standard American Diet, not against a paleo-based diet (which is, by necessity, relatively low-carb). As such, it's an invalid comparison: french fries are neither paleo nor low-carb.

I would agree it's an argument against what Americans actually eat, which isn't reflective of what the recommended diet is most of the time. Americans eat way too many calories period compared to their activity levels.

In other words, you were just trolling for the first sentence that appeared to contradict what I said, and this whole exercise is irrelevant on my part because you have no intention of doing the research or even keeping an open mind.

Why didn't you say so in the first place?

Because, that wasn't what I was doing. I read a great deal of it, just not all of it. I actually found it pretty interesting and ended up reading probably 90% of it and went and read a couple of the articles you posted. When I find something I disagree with, I tend to read both sides of the issue.

I'm not really trying to argue against you here. I never said you were wrong. I'm just saying there are other perspectives and more diets than just your paleo diet that can be effective. And, when I say diet, I'm not talking about how to lose weight. I'm talking about effective nutrition for people who are already healthy and are just trying to maintain that.

That is a materially false statement. Carbohydrates are completely unnecessary to the human diet. One cannot live without protein, and one cannot live without fat, but one can easily live without carbohydrates. You can talk to the Maasai, Inuit, and Yupik about that, reference the multiple cases in the literature of people who lived on an all-meat diet under strict medical observation, or just ask Owsley Stanley

The explanation is simple: your body cannot manufacture amino acids (the building blocks of protein) or essential fats. You must eat them. Carbohydrates do nothing but provide energy -- which you can also get from protein or fat.

This may be technically true, but your body will function more effectively with carbohydrate intake, because your body processes them for energy much more effectively and efficiently than fats and proteins as these two are not intended to be used for energy as their primary purpose.

There are a lot of diets that will keep you alive. Paleo-based diets will keep you healthier, stronger, and happier.

I agree with the first part, but the second part we are going to have to agree to disagree on.

Yes, but what does "low quality" mean?

Answer: it means calories without nutrition.

Animal protein is by definition nutritious, because it contains a complete complement of essential amino acids. Animal fat is by definition nutritious, because it contains a complete complement of essential fats. (And we've already proved that saturated fat is not harmful, contrary to propaganda.) They may be eaten raw in their natural state.

Grains are poisonous in their natural state, and must be cooked in order to not kill us. They provide mostly empty calories ('carbohydrates' = sugars) and anti-nutrients (lectins, phytate, exorphins).

Humans are not birds or rodents: we did not evolve to eat grains. Can we survive on them? Yes. But why, when we have a choice?

This is just the silliness that turns me off of the paleo perspective. And all the different diets have their respective statements. Yes, quality meat products have good nutritional value, but plant-based diets, particularly ones that are supplemented with some animal-based foods, can provide all that nutritional value as well. You are just biased towards the particular diet you have chosen. You have a lot of support for your diet, and I'm happy you've found it. But, other diets can be just as effective.

What types of foods do primates eat? Have you looked into that? It's not a high-meat diet from what I understand.

[hafilax]

Everybody has slightly different dietary needs and if you look at either end of the spectrum healthy diets can have quite extreme variations. A lot of people are quite sensitive to dairy and grains but that is not to say that other people can't include them in their diet. I think it's accepted that too much of just about anything isn't healthy, it's about finding what amounts work for one's own lifestyle.

Following Paleo simplifies things for a lot of people because it eliminates the most common problem foods and that will work well for a lot of people. I think that I'm one of the people that it doesn't work for. I'm doing crossfit 4 or 5 days per week and I have a pretty fast metabolism. I don't have a sweet tooth, grains don't drain me and milk doesn't give me the trots. I get plenty of nutrients since my diet is meat and veggie based, but I see no harm in supplementing with dairy and grains. I can carb load before big days, maintain glycogen with energy gels and have a couple of servings of milk for some carbs and protein. My body can handle it, I won't get fat and most of all I enjoy it.

I guess that's why I don't have a problem with the government dietary guidelines; they work for me (at least as I understand them). I also don't think that a low income family can afford to not eat grains, time-wise or financially. I believe that the problem is that people don't follow the guidelines or they believe that they are but are blinded by instant gratification carb traps that they don't realize. I could be wrong and maybe grains don't work for a majority of the population.

All of the data mining that I've seen trying to correlate the increased obesity in the US with the dietary guidelines in the 70's don't really do it for me. The underlying causes in the conclusions still come off as speculation. I have yet to see a satisfactory system of obesity mechanisms to explain it to my satisfaction. I still think that it has more to do with processed foods in general than the recommendation to include carbs in your diet.

[lionelhutz]

Food is fuel. Eat what you need to stay fueled. Have you ever seen the portion size of americans? It's calories in/calories out with a balance of starches, protiens and fats and stay away from processed foods.

The rest of this is mumbo jumbo, psuedo - science.

[hafilax]

Food is fuel. Eat what you need to stay fueled. Have you ever seen the portion size of americans? It's calories in/calories out with a balance of starches, protiens and fats and stay away from processed foods.

The rest of this is mumbo jumbo, psuedo - science.

That's not true at all. It's not a pseudoscience, it's an immature science. Big difference. There are some solid conclusions from the experiments, it's just that it's an incredibly complex system and there are only so many things that can be measured that it's difficult to make umbrella statements that work for every case.

My vision is that there will be a set of dietary recommendations that can be prescribed for the individual that will allow them to meet their needs.

[XXX-er]

That's not true at all. It's not a pseudoscience, it's an immature science. Big difference. There are some solid conclusions from the experiments, it's just that it's an incredibly complex system and there are only so many things that can be measured that it's difficult to make umbrella statements that work for every case.

My vision is that there will be a set of dietary recommendations that can be prescribed for the individual that will allow them to meet their needs.

I think there isnt a recommendation made that the average north american can't ignore

Canadians are overweight and getting fatter ,americans are over weight and possibly fatter tham Canadians .In spite of living in the same conditions and having the same basic foods & lifestyle , americans don't live as long ... I think they are just eating themselves to an earlier death

you wana live better / longer just eat way less of everything not including junk & sugar of course

[ArmadaBC]

Food is fuel. Eat what you need to stay fueled. Have you ever seen the portion size of americans? It's calories in/calories out with a balance of starches, protiens and fats and stay away from processed foods.

What I love is when fat people say I've tried everything and I just can't lose weight.....So if I locked you in a room with only water for 2 months you would still come out at 500lbs ?

I think some of the stuff Spats posted is probably right but the bigger problem is people are just eating way too much of everything. I've never been a big eater, no one in my family is and surprise surprise nobody's fat even the one's who exercise once a year.

[sidewall]

So even if you get the "good" wheat bread it's actually shitty? Should I just eat white bread?

[Skipig25]

I'm making all my sandwiches with skittles now

[Mofro261]

XXX-er-

this study here links LOW carb consumption in healthy adults in Canukistan to increased obesity. Actually, this would also argue that IF Americans actually held themsleves to the caloric intake guidelines and the reccomended % of carb, protein, and fat, they would remain healthy and not be obese.


Carbohydrate intake and overweight and obesity among healthy adults.Source:Journal of the American Dietetic Association [0002-8223] Merchant yr:2009 vol:109 iss:7 pg:1165 -1172.

Based on analysis of ~5000 people in 2004, concludes:
Consuming a low-carbohydrate (approximately <47% energy) diet is associated with greater likelihood of being overweight or obese among healthy, freeliving adults. Lowest risk may be obtained by consuming 47% to 64% energy from carbohydrates.

But this study also has it's limitations, since it also notes that individuals in the 47-64% trended to exercise more frequently than the lower carb group.

I stay away from nutrition books, because the field is changing so quickly right now that anything in a book is in grave danger of being obsolete. I base my research primarily off of Google Scholar.
.............
The fun thing about doing science-based research, like I've been doing, is that you don't just stop when you get an idea and then argue endlessly about it. You look around for data to either confirm or deny your hypothesis.

.............
If you thought of it in a few seconds while reading the posts, odds are I thought of it while spending weeks researching and writing them. Then I investigated it, and either confirmed it or denied it.

First of all, I applaud your devotion to paleo and agree with you on many of points re: physiological effects of carbs, fat, and protein on satiation.

But please take a step back from the pulpit. You are NOT conducting scientific research as would would like to believe, you are doing literature review of others published scientific research, and then seizing on those bits of data that conform to your pre-conceived hypothesis and dismissing or outright ignoring data that does not. Criticizing the author's interpretations of their own data as "smoking crack" only further weakens your position. I am not a dietician or an expert on nutrition. Even if I read "google scholar" or pubmed non-stop for a year only looking up dietary related papers, that will still not make me a dietician or an expert in the field. But apparently it will make me qualified to spew on the internets as if I had those credentials and freely disparage those doing the actual science as morons for the interpretation of their data.


There is a wealth of research that has been generated relating to increases in caloric intake between 1971-2000. Yes, the increase has come in the carbs, while the overall NUMBER of calories from fat and protein has remained relatively the same. These increases stopped around the year 2000 such that over the last ten yrs calorie comsumption has been consistent or even a slight decline.

The study you cite from 1997 by Heini and Weinsier, regarding increases in obesity while observing decreased calorie consumption, uses only 2 time points, 1977 and 1987 for assessing the reduction, and does not mirror the results of the actual final published studies, and is focused only on those already considered obese.



vs.

During 1971--2000, a statistically significant increase in average energy intake occurred (Table). For men, average energy intake increased from 2,450 kcals to 2,618 kcals (p<0.01), and for women, from 1,542 kcals to 1,877 kcals (p<0.01). For men, the percentage of kcals from carbohydrate increased between 1971--1974 and 1999--2000, from 42.4% to 49.0% (p<0.01), and for women, from 45.4% to 51.6% (p<0.01) (Table). The percentage of kcals from total fat decreased from 36.9% to 32.8% (p<0.01) for men and from 36.1% to 32.8% (p<0.01) for women. In addition, the percentage of kcals from saturated fat decreased from 13.5% to 10.9% (p<0.01) for men and from 13.0% to 11.0% (p<0.01) for women. A slight decrease was observed in the percentage of kcals from protein, from 16.5% to 15.5% (p<0.01) for men and from 16.9% to 15.1% (p<0.01) for women.
The decrease in the percentage of kcals from fat during 1971--1991 is attributed to an increase in total kcals consumed; absolute fat intake in grams increased (5). USDA food consumption survey data from 1989--1991 and 1994--1996 indicated that the increased energy intake was caused primarily by higher carbohydrate intake (6). Data from NHANES for 1971--2000 indicate similar trends. The increase in energy intake is attributable primarily to an increase in carbohydrate intake, with a 62.4-gram increase among women (p<0.01) and a 67.7-gram increase among men (p<0.01). Total fat intake in grams increased among women by 6.5 g (p<0.01) and decreased among men by 5.3 g (p<0.01).

At least some of this increase is the result of shifting dietary habits of eating a larger percentage of meals away from home and bigger portions as well (more fast food).

Nielsen SJ, Popkin BM. Patterns and trends in food portion sizes, 1977--1998. JAMA 2003;289:450--3



Also, in the same 1997 Heini and Weinsier paper citing no increase in sedentary lifestyle, that conclusion was made using only the 5 year period from1986-1991. Other published research is aligned with an increased sedentary lifestyle contributiing to obesity. See Am J Med. 2009 Jun;122(6):528-34.

BACKGROUND: Lifestyle choices are associated with cardiovascular disease and mortality. The purpose of this study was to compare adherence to healthy lifestyle habits in adults between 1988 and 2006.
METHODS: Analysis of adherence to 5 healthy lifestyle trends (<5 fruits and vegetables/day, regular exercise <12 times/month, maintaining healthy weight [body mass index 18.5-29.9 kg/m2], moderate alcohol consumption [up to 1 drink/day for women, 2/day for men] and not smoking) in the National
Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 1988-1994 were compared with results from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2001-2006 among adults aged 40-74 years.
RESULTS: Over the last 18 years, the percent of adults aged 40-74 years with a body mass index <30 kg/m2 has increased from 28% to 36% (P <.05); physical activity 12 times a month or more has decreased from 53% to 43% (P <.05); smoking rates have not changed (26.9% to 26.1%); eating 5 or more fruits and vegetables a day has decreased from 42% to 26% (P <.05), and moderate alcohol use has increased from 40% to 51% (P <.05). Adherence to all 5 healthy habits has gone from 15% to 8% (P <.05).

Hopefully those still following all this will see that the increase in % carbs in the diet is one of many factors leading to the current increase in obesity, along with changes in eating habits (more fast food), increased caloric intake, and decreased levels of exercise- it is not the smoking gun that has single handedly led to an obesity epidemic. If people actually stuck to the nutritional guidelines and daily calories, and got sufficient exercise, then taking in 50% of your energy from carbs wouldn't matter.

I eat generally pretty good, and exercise like a mofro 6-7 days a week. I actually have to eat a ton now to maintain my weight where it is (~150lb) since I cut back on drinking beer from 12+ to 6-12/wk. My brother who is about my height does not exercise, eats a high calorie diet that is particularly high in fat, and weighs at least 60-70 pounds more than me. Any other grown men you know drink whole milk and half&half by the glass?

[woodstocksez]

I'm making all my sandwiches with skittles now

Beautiful the way you cut right through all the mumbo jumbo to glean the real point of this thread.

I'd also like to point out a lucrative business opportunity to start making really big Skittles on which slices of bologna can fit comfortably. Perhaps we can work together?

[Spats]

Fat people are mostly fat because they are lazy and gluttonous bastards.

Have you ever been fat?

No?

Ever notice how 95% of the people who say "Fat people are just gluttonous and lazy" have always been thin throughout their life, and never gain weight no matter what they eat?

(Read up on epigenetics and the effect of obesity during pregnancy on the obesity of the child. Or keep on acting morally superior because you were lucky enough to have thin parents. Your choice.)

Sure, YOU have no problem not eating. The articles aren't written for you, Mr. I Eat Anything I Want. Some of us are fortunate that way. But most of America isn't. There are plenty of fat people out there who are exercising daily, eating the recommended foods, trying desperately to lose weight...but they can't.

Why is that?

Why do they keep stuffing pie down their pie holes, even when they know it's making them fat? Obesity causes depression, and depression causes obesity. No one honestly says "I FRIGGIN' LOVE BEING FAT!" (Well, a couple fetishists, but let's ignore them.)

That's the question that demands answering, and you -- Mr. I've Always Been Ripped Guy, are in NO POSITION to answer them.

You're telling a bunch of cigarette smokers "It's easy! Just stop smoking! You're lazy and gluttonous!" Or a bunch of alcoholics and heroin addicts "It's easy! Just stop drinking and shooting up! You're lazy and gluttonous!"

Obviously it ISN'T, or they would have already quit by now. Fact. And that's why those articles exist.

I smash on bread like it owes me money .. Bread is important. It is also delicious

So what you're saying is that you're just as addicted to bread as the fat people are, except you're lucky enough to have a fast metabolism so you don't get fat?

I stopped reading right after the r'tard compared them directly to skittles.

Which is about, what, the third sentence? So you're totally qualified to comment on what the next six pages say

[BeanDip4All]

the problem with all this is there's knowledge, then there's practice.

i could read all the papers and study nutrition in depth, but at the end of the day i'd still eat the bread basket when it's brought to the table

and op don't lie we all know you hit up the all you can eat sushi joint quite a bit... you honestly getting no rice when you're there? :P

so what's the solution? moderation? exercise it all off?

signed,
gluttonous carb lover

[Mazderati]

Mofro said it.

[PowderHorse]

Hafilax nailed it with "we all have different dietary needs". Some people are just more aware of what works for their body. And for the majority of us the metabolism drops multiple times as we get older which means dietary adjustments.

I am a sugar addict, it's practically poison to me and what I mean is that it only takes a tiny bit to make me crave more...then feel hungry again and eat bad carbs or more sugar. However, I am aware of this and I can either work through it or cave in and try not to let it spiral. I can feel an immediate difference in my body when I eat crappy food.

I'm also pregnant and prior to that I was pretty much doing the paleo thing though I didn't know that's what it was called. I would eat normal if I went out to dinner with friends and I wouldn't freak out at dinner parties and not eat what was served. All of the sudden when the preggers symptoms kicked in, I couldn't stand eggs or meat. When I wasn't sick, I was eating bad carbs or whatever I could stomach. I gained 8 pounds in 6 weeks! (Granted I was also too exhausted to exercise like normal).

Now that I'm through the first trimester, I can eat normal again and my weight went down to a normal level for where I am. Sure I crave carbs and hell yes I still eat them but avoiding really bad carbs, everything in moderation and portion control are key, at least for me. And being outside doing something at least 5-7 times a week.

OH and I track my calories every day. Goal should be: add a zero to your ideal weight for total # of calories per day. Adjust slightly for age, activity level.

[Spats]

i could read all the papers and study nutrition in depth, but at the end of the day i'd still eat the bread basket when it's brought to the table

and op don't lie we all know you hit up the all you can eat sushi joint quite a bit... you honestly getting no rice when you're there? :P

so what's the solution? moderation? exercise it all off?

signed,
gluttonous carb lover

^^^ This is why I wrote the articles. Some people can snort coke and not get addicted, but most do. And a lot of the people who eat lots of carbs but remain thin are still addicted -- like a habitual coke user who still has a job, they're able to manage their addiction. But they can't stop pounding carbs any more than the overweight person can.

I've actually got a lot to say about the process of recovery...please post your question as a comment on the last article (click here) and I'll go into depth. I may even write another article

[woodstocksez]

Have you ever been fat?

No?

Ever notice how 95% of the people who say "Fat people are just gluttonous and lazy" have always been thin throughout their life, and never gain weight no matter what they eat?

(Read up on epigenetics and the effect of obesity during pregnancy on the obesity of the child. Or keep on acting morally superior because you were lucky enough to have thin parents. Your choice.)

Sure, YOU have no problem not eating. The articles aren't written for you, Mr. I Eat Anything I Want. Some of us are fortunate that way. But most of America isn't. There are plenty of fat people out there who are exercising daily, eating the recommended foods, trying desperately to lose weight...but they can't.

Why is that?

Why do they keep stuffing pie down their pie holes, even when they know it's making them fat? Obesity causes depression, and depression causes obesity. No one honestly says "I FRIGGIN' LOVE BEING FAT!" (Well, a couple fetishists, but let's ignore them.)

That's the question that demands answering, and you -- Mr. I've Always Been Ripped Guy, are in NO POSITION to answer them.

You're telling a bunch of cigarette smokers "It's easy! Just stop smoking! You're lazy and gluttonous!" Or a bunch of alcoholics and heroin addicts "It's easy! Just stop drinking and shooting up! You're lazy and gluttonous!"

Obviously it ISN'T, or they would have already quit by now. Fact. And that's why those articles exist.



So what you're saying is that you're just as addicted to bread as the fat people are, except you're lucky enough to have a fast metabolism so you don't get fat?





Which is about, what, the third sentence? So you're totally qualified to comment on what the next six pages say

Spats, do you really know many fat people? I think you're pretty far off base with most of what you've written above. In particular, I just don't buy your assertion that "[t]here are plenty of fat people out there who are exercising daily, eating the recommended foods, trying desperately to lose weight...but they can't." That is contrary to my consistent experience.

There are plenty of fatties in my extended family. With one or two exceptions, none of them are lazy (edit to modify - a lot of them are not lazy in that they work hard, but they don't exert themselves physically much), but they are gluttonous. Their fatness is most definitely a consequence of their inability to simply stop eating too fucking much food. Without giving it overly much thought, I'd say that's also the case for most other fat people about whose lifestyle I have knowledge. Is it easy to make the appropriate lifestyle change? Not for some of them. (Edit to add - Some just don't feel that negatively about being way overweight.) But then that's often true of exercising self-control. And, in my experience, that is most often what this is about: self-control. (Edit to add - I expect there are addictive mechanisms in play, though I'm not very knowledgeable. I'm very skeptical that those can't be overcome with reasonable self-discipline and/or that those dominate in perpetuating their obesity.)

I put on 20-25 pounds around the time my third son was born a couple of years ago. I mostly kept it on until a few months ago. I've worked back down to near my fighting weight of about 175 or so (I'm 6'). Why is that? Because I finally decided to put some effort into making sure I took that weight back off. I don't know, but I don't think my metabolism is especially favorable; I suspect it's pretty average. I make (with the exception of that period of a year and a half or so) a choice to eat and live in a way that does not result in becoming fat. I don't spend a lot of time worrying about nutrition, and I have no doubt I eat too much crap and could stand to do better in that regard. But I do choose whether or not to be fat by choosing how much and what I eat. And that's what I've seen to be the case with most everyone else I've known.

[XXX-er]

XXX-er-

this study here links LOW carb consumption in healthy adults in Canukistan to increased obesity. Actually, this would also argue that IF Americans actually held themsleves to the caloric intake guidelines and the reccomended % of carb, protein, and fat, they would remain healthy and not be obese.

But please take a step back from the pulpit. You are NOT conducting scientific research as would would like to believe, you are doing literature review of others published scientific research, and then seizing on those bits of data that conform to your pre-conceived hypothesis and dismissing or outright ignoring data that does not.

All I did is state an opinion that canadians eat too much and american's appear to eat even more based on their waist lines and according to WHO figures Canada is 11th in life expectancy while America is 37th in spite of the fact both countries have VERY similar lifestyles ,america has an arguably better HC system if you can afford to pay for it but I don't think they let people die in america cuz they don't have money

I think people kill themselves by eating too much which again I don't have any study to back up ...its an opinion

AND I have NO studies to back up my opinion that if you eat less just eat smaller quanities of everything that is healthy ,move more ... you will live longer/better

[DoWork]

Have you ever been fat?

No?

Ever notice how 95% of the people who say "Fat people are just gluttonous and lazy" have always been thin throughout their life, and never gain weight no matter what they eat?

(Read up on epigenetics and the effect of obesity during pregnancy on the obesity of the child. Or keep on acting morally superior because you were lucky enough to have thin parents. Your choice.)

Sure, YOU have no problem not eating. The articles aren't written for you, Mr. I Eat Anything I Want. Some of us are fortunate that way. But most of America isn't. There are plenty of fat people out there who are exercising daily, eating the recommended foods, trying desperately to lose weight...but they can't.

Why is that?

Why do they keep stuffing pie down their pie holes, even when they know it's making them fat? Obesity causes depression, and depression causes obesity. No one honestly says "I FRIGGIN' LOVE BEING FAT!" (Well, a couple fetishists, but let's ignore them.)

That's the question that demands answering, and you -- Mr. I've Always Been Ripped Guy, are in NO POSITION to answer them.

You're telling a bunch of cigarette smokers "It's easy! Just stop smoking! You're lazy and gluttonous!" Or a bunch of alcoholics and heroin addicts "It's easy! Just stop drinking and shooting up! You're lazy and gluttonous!"

Obviously it ISN'T, or they would have already quit by now. Fact. And that's why those articles exist.



So what you're saying is that you're just as addicted to bread as the fat people are, except you're lucky enough to have a fast metabolism so you don't get fat?





Which is about, what, the third sentence? So you're totally qualified to comment on what the next six pages say

Holy shit dude... No, I just know some seriously lazy, fat fucks. I was really just joking, but most people I know who are REALLY fat really don't do anything about it and lead pretty damn sedentary lives.

I also know people who are technically probably overweight and very healthy, it's just their body type and they can only lose so much weight.

Oh, and you're fucking crazy. Let's be honest- For every 10 morbidly obese people there's like MAYBE 2 that have a legit medical excuse for it.

But on a serious note... Can someone make bun-sized skittles happen? I want to try that burger.

[char]

First of all, I applaud your devotion to paleo and agree with you on many of points re: physiological effects of carbs, fat, and protein on satiation.

But please take a step back from the pulpit. You are NOT conducting scientific research as would would like to believe, you are doing literature review of others published scientific research, and then seizing on those bits of data that conform to your pre-conceived hypothesis and dismissing or outright ignoring data that does not. Criticizing the author's interpretations of their own data as "smoking crack" only further weakens your position. I am not a dietician or an expert on nutrition.

This....

[Spats]

this study here links LOW carb consumption in healthy adults in Canukistan to increased obesity.

Carbohydrate intake and overweight and obesity among healthy adults.Source:Journal of the American Dietetic Association [0002-8223] Merchant yr:2009 vol:109 iss:7 pg:1165 -1172.

Read the full text and you'll see some interesting details:

1) The curve goes BACK UP for high carb intakes. How about that?

2) A quote: "Intakes of fiber, protein, total fat, or its subtypes were not associated with risk of overweight or obesity (data not shown)." A question: then how can carb intake be negatively associated? That doesn't make sense...

Something doesn't add up here. Let me know if you have any insight.

3) Most importantly, even if you accept it at face value, the total range of variation is tiny: 26 to 28 BMI. For a 5'10" person, that's 181 to 195 pounds. That's barely significant compared to the change that's happening OVER TIME.

Everyone is getting fatter, even the marginally less-fat people...note that BMI 25 is 'overweight', meaning the average Canadian is overweight according to BMI.

4) BMI is just weight vs. height, and is therefore not very useful except for large changes, because it doesn't take bodyfat into account. Furthermore, according to the numbers, 25-30 BMI is where the BMI range is least useful. Sensitivity fluctuates between 36% and 84% for men, and specificity goes from 64% to 92%:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...tool=pmcentrez

In other words, 26-28 BMI is exactly the transition range where a lot of people are obese by bodyfat but not BMI (16% -> 64%), and where a lot of people are still obese by BMI but not by bodyfat (36% -> 8%). And since we're only talking about a 7% difference in weight, net, actual bodyfat could easily be lost in the statistical noise.


Yes, the entire difference in the study was TWO TICKS on the above chart (26 to 28). That's insignificant compared to the change in obesity over time. Everyone's getting fatter.

5) "Participants in the highest carbohydrate intake category were likely to be younger, female, never smokers, and with lower income"

6) The high-fat quartile is getting 17% of their fat energy from polyunsaturated fat...which means they're not eating meat, they're eating 'vegetable oil' (probably french fries and chips). I guarantee they're not paleo.

7) Most importantly, there is the fact that as of 2009, we've been told for over 30 years that FAT AND CHOLESTEROL WILL KILL YOU!!!11!!! Anyone remember this magazine cover?


So anyone who still eats lots of fat and cholesterol is guaranteed to NOT CARE about their health. (Paleo freaks are insignificant as a percentage of population.)

Remember how hormone replacement therapy was associated with a 40% decrease in cancer risk? And when they did an actual controlled trial, they found that it increased the cancer rate so dramatically that they STOPPED THE STUDY? That's because women who voluntarily did HRT before it was a big deal were very attentive to their health.

Here's how you make celery into a KILLER FOOD:
http://www.fathead-movie.com/index.p...-killer-foods/

*** Once again, the articles (nor any variant of 'paleo') do NOT recommend that you eat just any fat. (That's Atkins.) *** Yes, there's more to a healthy diet than just "eat more fat and less carbs". The articles have never claimed otherwise: they're about beating carb addiction.

Moving on:

you are doing literature review of others published scientific research, and then seizing on those bits of data that conform to your pre-conceived hypothesis and dismissing or outright ignoring data that does not.

I'm American, so I naturally used data from America.

Criticizing the author's interpretations of their own data as "smoking crack" only further weakens your position.

What else do you call it when the conclusion directly contradicts the data from the previous sentence?

I am not a dietician or an expert on nutrition. Even if I read "google scholar" or pubmed non-stop for a year only looking up dietary related papers, that will still not make me a dietician or an expert in the field. But apparently it will make me qualified to spew on the internets as if I had those credentials and freely disparage those doing the actual science as morons for the interpretation of their data.

Science isn't magic. I'm an educated person with common sense. It doesn't take a doctorate to figure out when someone directly contradicts themselves in two sentences. And it's funny when you call seven pages of research with exhaustive citations "spew."

Meanwhile, the "experts" have told us for 40 years that eating fat makes us fat. We've dutifully eaten less fat, and gotten fatter. You can't argue with the end result:

Not to mention the explosion in type II diabetes and the decrease in functional lifespan. (We're living longer, but our functional life outside a wheelchair or nursing home bed is getting shorter.)

There is a wealth of research that has been generated relating to increases in caloric intake between 1971-2000. Yes, the increase has come in the carbs, while the overall NUMBER of calories from fat and protein has remained relatively the same. These increases stopped around the year 2000 such that over the last ten yrs calorie comsumption has been consistent or even a slight decline.

You'll notice that fat consumption has started going back up as of 2006 (1%), while carbohydrate consumption has gone down (-1.5-2%). Protein and saturated fat are also up slightly, more so for women than men.

And you'll also notice that obesity, while still growing, has leveled off somewhat in its growth rate.

The study you cite from 1997 by Heini and Weinsier, regarding increases in obesity while observing decreased calorie consumption, uses only 2 time points, 1977 and 1987 for assessing the reduction, and does not mirror the results of the actual final published studies, and is focused only on those already considered obese.

^^^ You're comparing a dataset of obese people to a dataset of everyone and claiming it's a conspiracy that they're different...? Besides, the NHANES survey only happens every so often, and there was a big gap in the 1980s. That's not a conspiracy, that's a fact.

Anyway, these results are exactly what we'd expect from the theory that carbohydrates are not satiating, and will cause people to eat more calories. Obese people are eating the same amount of calories but getting fatter, everyone else is eating more calories and getting fatter.

In fact, given the data from the chart you linked:
For men, calorie intake is up 7.3%, while carb intake is up 15%.
For women, calorie intake is up 20.6%, while carb intake is up 12%.
This is consistent with the theory.

At least some of this increase is the result of shifting dietary habits of eating a larger percentage of meals away from home and bigger portions as well (more fast food).

No doubt. But why do people demand fast food in bigger portions, and why do they eat them? Thats the unanswered question here. Blaming McDonalds for obesity is fashionable, but as Fat Head demonstrates, not factual. McDonalds has been around since long before 1978.

Most of the calories in a big McDonalds meal come from the large soda -- 310 calories of pure carbs -- and the large fries (500 calories, ~250 carbs) -- totalling 810 calories, of which 560 are carbs. There are more carbs in the fries and drink than there are total calories in a Quarter Pounder with cheese! (510)!

So a McDonalds meal isn't a high-fat meal: it's a high-carb meal.

Even if you only get a medium soda and medium fries, you're still getting 590 calories...more than are in the Quarter Pounder w/cheese.

It's not the burgers, it's the soda and fries.

And, a McDonalds meal is still a high-carb meal: 310 in the soda, 250 in the fries, about 150 in the QP+C = 710 carb calories out of 1320, or 54% of calories from carbohydrate (sugar)!

(part II below, ran out of room)

[shroom]

two years ago i lost about 75 pounds. up until pulling my mcl skiing about 3 weeks ago i ran ~8 miles every day. i messed around a lot with my diet, and when i was paleo i'd drop down to about 163-165. when i would decide i wanted to eat more carb-based foods (burgers, subs,pizza, pasta) with my roommates for a while i'd go up to 175-180. Same workout routine every day. i've taken courses on nutrition from a woman pretty high up at the ANA, so i know the subject area, but not enough to be arguing it on here. i can just vouch that a diet based moreso on protein will dramatically accelerate what's done at the gym.

(and yes, I have been fat before, 235 going into college three and a half years ago)

[Spats]

Part II of above because it got too long:

Also, in the same 1997 Heini and Weinsier paper citing no increase in sedentary lifestyle, that conclusion was made using only the 5 year period from1986-1991. Other published research is aligned with an increased sedentary lifestyle contributiing to obesity. See Am J Med. 2009 Jun;122(6):528-34.

You most likely have your cause and effect backwards.

Obesity was already on a rapid upswing previous to 1986. The chart is clear: the upswing began when the dietary recommendations came out in 1977. If lack of exercise was the primary cause, then obesity shouldn't have increased until after 1988.

What is more likely is that obesity caused people to exercise less. Then, once people become obese, this process feeds on itself: the fatter you get, the less you exercise, the fatter you get...

Hopefully those still following all this will see that the increase in % carbs in the diet is one of many factors leading to the current increase in obesity,

Yet, as just explained, it started the cycle, and it perpetuates the cycle.

If people actually stuck to the nutritional guidelines and daily calories, and got sufficient exercise, then taking in 50% of your energy from carbs wouldn't matter.

You're missing the entire point. People CAN'T stick to the guidelines -- because all basic principles of human metabolism (and experimental science) have proven that low-fat diets leave us constantly hungry.

The most successful diet of those directly compared, apples to apples, is low-carb. That should tell us something.

I eat generally pretty good, and exercise like a mofro 6-7 days a week. I actually have to eat a ton now to maintain my weight where it is (~150lb) since I cut back on drinking beer from 12+ to 6-12/wk. My brother who is about my height does not exercise, eats a high calorie diet that is particularly high in fat, and weighs at least 60-70 pounds more than me. Any other grown men you know drink whole milk and half&half by the glass?

Your brother doesn't sound like he's trying to lose weight

Seriously: he never exercises, you exercise all the time. That's going to trump any dietary change. Again, the articles are aimed at people who are trying to lose weight and failing.

[Spats]

Spats, do you really know many fat people?

Yes, I know several people in that position. They tend not to be on TGR, and I'm not going to talk about them because it's rude.

I also know plenty of people, like your relatives, who are fat and don't care. But that's not who the articles are for.

Look at any bookstore: there's a whole SECTION devoted to diet books. Every few months there's a new, hot weight-loss plan whose author makes the talk-show rounds. Do you ever read a woman's magazine? It's half sex tips and half weight loss tips, more if it's Oprah. How about Men's Health? When did that magazine have to start existing?

Why are there entire AISLES full of low-calorie, low-fat foods in the supermarket? Why does EVERYTHING have a low-fat version now?

I put on 20-25 pounds around the time my third son was born a couple of years ago. I mostly kept it on until a few months ago. I've worked back down to near my fighting weight of about 175 or so (I'm 6').

Congratulations! Feels a lot better, doesn't it? That's an entire backpack full of junk you're not carrying around anymore

But I do choose whether or not to be fat by choosing how much and what I eat. And that's what I've seen to be the case with most everyone else I've known.

Of course. But it's a lot easier to do it some ways than others. And some people (more women than men due to biochemistry) crave carbohydrates more than others. It's like some people can snort a line of cocaine and be all "Meh..." and some are immediately addicted.