ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2017 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Tuesday, July 25, 2017

America, the overfed

Readers here well understand that government science is as intrinsically unreliable as anything else being produced by the government. And the U.S. government's dietary advice has been about as bad as it gets.
"The change in dietary advice to promote low-fat foods is perhaps the biggest mistake in modern medical history."

Let's say you want to lose some weight. Which of these foods would you choose: A skim-milk latte, or the same drink with whole milk? A low-cal breakfast bar or steak and eggs? A salad tossed in light dressing or the same salad doused with buttermilk ranch?

If you're like most Americans, you either aren't sure how to answer, or you're very sure—but very wrong. And it's not your fault. It's the fault, experts say, of decades of flawed or misleading nutrition advice—advice that was never based on solid science.

The US Department of Agriculture, along with the agency that is now called Health and Human Services, first released a set of national dietary guidelines back in 1980. That 20-page booklet trained its focus primarily on three health villains: fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol.

Recently, research has come out strongly in support of dietary fat and cholesterol as benign, rather than harmful, additions to person's diet. Saturated fat seems poised for a similar pardon.

"The science that these guidelines were based on was wrong," Robert Lustig, a neuro-endocrinologist at the University of California, San Francisco, told Tonic. In particular, the idea that cutting fat from a person's diet would offer some health benefit was never backed by hard evidence, Lustig said.

Just this week, some of Lustig's colleagues at UCSF released an incendiary report revealing that in the 1960s, sugar industry lobbyists funded research that linked heart disease to fat and cholesterol while downplaying evidence that sugar was the real killer.
I have to admit, my father called this one in the early 1990s. He never bought the "eating fat makes you fat" line, kept a low-carbohydrate diet, and stayed much slimmer than most of his peers as a result.

The thing is, you can work out all you like, but once you pass 40, the combination of becoming more injury-prone and your body metabolism slowing down means that your diet is a necessary component of losing weight. I've always been in the gym or on the soccer field at least three days per week, and I've never been that overweight, but I've dropped 13 pounds as part of my quest to get back my six-pack and return to my old fighting weight of 175 - I have four more to go -  and it is entirely the result of eating less and eating fewer carbohydrates.

It's not about major changes, just getting your caloric intake south of the energy usage line. In my case, that means a cup of yogurt for breakfast instead of a bowl of cereal, a mochacino after lunch instead of dessert, and a smaller portion at dinner, no seconds, and no snacking. I still have three cappucini - sometimes four, including the one mocha - dessert, and two glasses of wine per day. So, it's not exactly torture, just reasonable exercise combined with a modicum of self-discipline.

Note, by the way, that it's not just Americans who have been affected by this disastrous dietary science. Keep that in mind when you consider the "global climate change consensus".
In a recent editorial appearing in the British Journal of Sports Medicine, researcher Zoe Harcombe from the University of the West of Scotland explains that obesity rates among British men and women rose from 2.7 percent in 1972 to 23 percent and 26 percent, respectively, by 1999.

Labels: ,

167 Comments:

Anonymous Looking Glass July 25, 2017 6:52 AM  

Biggest problems are HFCS because it can be added so easily & high-Gluten Wheat w/ Vegetable Oil. Those are the killer combos, beyond age-related drops in metabolism.

There's also a pretty important interaction that never gets talked about: you can eat a lot more Carbs than you can Fat. Try eating 2kCal of Fat in one sitting, without puking. Fat absorption is resource limited in the body; Carbohydrate intake limits is pretty much the size of your stomach. (That's before Food Reward & other issues that crop up.)

Generally speaking, kill the Carbs, up the Protein a lot and try Intermittent Fasting if you can. (LeanGains approach is good if it works for your life.)

Blogger J A Baker July 25, 2017 6:53 AM  

Americans eat a ton of refined sugar which causes a host of health problems besides weight gain like diabetes and has also been linked to dementia.

Anonymous MaskettaMan July 25, 2017 6:54 AM  

Calories in, calories out. That's been the /fit/ mantra for years, and it always had that appeal of seeming to agree with the laws of physics.

Anonymous I'm Not a Fascist. But My Sons Are. July 25, 2017 6:55 AM  

"Let food be thy medicine and medicine be thy food." (Hippocrates).

The Fascist family's favorite meal: Grass fed Ribeye + mixed greens, strawberry, cranberry, and goat cheese salad with bacon fat and balsamic dressing. Diced, Sauteed pork belly and walnuts for crunch.

Come at me, bro.

Anonymous Steve July 25, 2017 6:57 AM  

Dr. Atkins was told to shut up, because scientific consensus.

Blogger J A Baker July 25, 2017 7:00 AM  

My aunt in her early forties went on this crazy diet where she ate vegetables and drank water all day, and for dinner she could eat meat;she dropped forty pounds in two months.

Blogger VD July 25, 2017 7:00 AM  

Yeah, my Dad was a big Atkins fan. I tried to argue that I ate very low-fat and was ripped, to which my Dad pointed out that I was young and working out 7 days a week for as much as three hours a day. Turned out he was right.

Anonymous jack July 25, 2017 7:00 AM  

do you wake up each morning and say to yourself what thing can i attack next ? do you honestly beleive you (and your father) were the first to beleive in a low carb diet exercise ? diet is major component of weight gain ? VD adding nutrition and exercise to the list of things he knows more about than everyone else.

Blogger Bobo #117 July 25, 2017 7:02 AM  

I second the LeanGains.
I'm down about 30 lbs by cutting carbs, adding fat and skipping breakfast.
I still drink beer, tho. I'm not crazy.

Blogger VD July 25, 2017 7:05 AM  

do you wake up each morning and say to yourself what thing can i attack next ? do you honestly beleive you (and your father) were the first to beleive in a low carb diet exercise ? diet is major component of weight gain ?

No. No. Yes.

Always nice to hear from the gammas.

Blogger mgh July 25, 2017 7:07 AM  

#8 Reading is hard. The connection was stated in the first sentence.

Blogger dienw July 25, 2017 7:08 AM  

skipping breakfast

Don't skip breakfast; it supplies the morning energy needs. I use breakfast as my major source of fat and protein.

Blogger Gloriam Deo July 25, 2017 7:10 AM  

@9
naturally, there's no call to lose your head over a diet.

Anonymous Baseball Savant July 25, 2017 7:10 AM  

Yeah this is true. I'm 5'10-5'11 and weigh 265lbs with abs. For the longest time I kept trying to manipulate my carb intake while keeping my proteins pretty darn high. When I stopped carbs but started eating 200-300g of fat per day, my body completely changed and I got a lot stronger. I've always been pretty strong (weight moves weight), but I think pushing my bench up to 500lbs and my squat to close to 700lbs is a direct result of the fat intake going way high and my carb intake going to almost zero.

Blogger Silly but True July 25, 2017 7:12 AM  

If Its dicks out for Harcombe, but the British are too fat to even see, are they really there?

Blogger Scott Birch July 25, 2017 7:12 AM  

Alt-right Twitter is good on this topic.

Anonymous Looking Glass July 25, 2017 7:13 AM  

@12 dienw

If your schedule allows for it, Breakfast is wholly skippable. If you're up at 6 am doing farm work, you need a different diet type anyway. Anyone with a Desk-type job will generally do well on LeanGains, especially after you get your metabolism in a better state.

The subtle rub is that people use Sugar + Caffeine to jack their mental energy up to 100% really rapidly, however it becomes a vicious cycle. You either need a really well controlled diet high in fat + protein & low in carbs, or you need to go all out on the Carbs to keep the mental energy up.

Ones diet always needs to be customized to the needs of your life. Lord bless the people that can do that naturally without thinking about it.

Anonymous FisherOfMen July 25, 2017 7:14 AM  

But the question is, was this big oopsie an ACCIDENT or on PURPOSE?

I lean toward: Food as dopamine, dopamine as the opiate of the masses.

Anonymous Looking Glass July 25, 2017 7:14 AM  

Also, since it's related, apparently #Liftwaffe is a joke running around, but I really do highly recommend hitting the weights. It's going to be needed.

Anonymous Baseball Savant July 25, 2017 7:15 AM  

@17 yeah i skip breakfast and i haven't shown any adverse affects related to performance in the gym or mental acuity at work.

Anonymous Looking Glass July 25, 2017 7:15 AM  

@18 FisherOfMen

One faction of the AgTech field out funded the other faction. It's the same reason the Salt guidelines are way too low.

Anonymous Looking Glass July 25, 2017 7:21 AM  

@20 Baseball Savant

One of the real problems with a LeanGains approach is that it makes stimulants more potent. So that early morning coffee can start to hit a whole lot harder. If you're not prepared for it, somewhere around day 5 to 7 you're going to get your butt kicked by the caffeine because it hits so much harder.

For those that don't want to search it, LeanGains is high protein + moderate fat + low Carb diet that's put in an 8-hour period per day. Generally you start eating at "noon" your time. It's most effective for Body Recomposition over straight Fat Loss, but it can be used for that as well. The power of not eating breakfast is mostly in the Stress-related effects: as in, they're far lower. Eating early puts a lot of stress on the stomach & nervous system, which is why the classic Farmer Diet is normally eaten 2-3 hours after you start working.

Anonymous James Parliament July 25, 2017 7:22 AM  

Almost a year ago I went low carb, high fat and protein, and dropped 7-8 lbs doing nothing else different.

IF, as well. Felt 10x better in the mornings.

Blogger Russell Fryman July 25, 2017 7:25 AM  

Word.
My experience wasn't that different from others who tried: I went LCHF / Paleo 6 years ago and got my life back. Immediately dropped 20lbs, chronic pain went bye bye, and my brain woke up from a 20 year fog.

Blogger Solaire Of Astora July 25, 2017 7:30 AM  

I was low carb but high protein and neoglucogenesis got me. I didn't understand that one caveat that protein can be a hidden trap and that fat should be higher. Fasting and keto is a great combo.

Anonymous I'm Not a Fascist. But My Sons Are. July 25, 2017 7:32 AM  

Atkins was on the right track; but, IIRC, with Atkins, the source of one's macronutrients isn't nearly as important as the macronutrient profile itself, i.e. 'correct' fat to protein to carb ratios. Which is spot-on for short- and even medium-term weight loss but (probably) lacking in terms of sustainable, long-term health. Also, it's initial phase, at least (again, IIRC), seriously lacks phytonutrients.

Perhaps all of this has changed, I don't know. There are now several brandings out there that are all essentially just the Paleo/Primal diet.

Anonymous 0018 July 25, 2017 7:43 AM  

"You can't outrun a bad diet."

Blogger Harambe July 25, 2017 7:46 AM  

Russell Fryman wrote:Word.

My experience wasn't that different from others who tried: I went LCHF / Paleo 6 years ago and got my life back. Immediately dropped 20lbs, chronic pain went bye bye, and my brain woke up from a 20 year fog.


The conspiracy theorist in me wonders whether the foggy brain side-effect wasn't intentional.

Anonymous o'rety July 25, 2017 7:49 AM  

Deserts? DESERTS? And daily. Lucky you. I once (during my early 30's) cut almost all carbo from my diet. Including bread, potatoes and pasta. Went from 130 kg to 105 kg but no further. Not an inch.

So some of us have to take really draconian measures by any standard and the effect is barely satisfactory. And some...I have a friend who says that when he considers himself too fat he stops drinking cola. That's it. Works for him.

Blogger rumpole5 July 25, 2017 7:50 AM  

One of my favorite dishes for my mother in law (presently 93 yoa) to fix for me when visiting her in Cayman Brac is her eggs fried in coconut oil. My father in law (who died last year at age 93) loved them too. Her Akees and salt fish are pretty good too.

Blogger Stilicho July 25, 2017 7:51 AM  

Fat, dumb, and leftist is no way to go through life, son.

Anonymous Looking Glass July 25, 2017 7:53 AM  

OT

Considering we're talking Diet & Exercise, it would appear that the addition of Mooch to the team has convinced the G-E to return full-scale to BMOC Trump from his high school days. He's now bouncing medicine balls off the MSM's head. The CNN anchors must be having seizures at the moment.

OpenID Dennis July 25, 2017 8:01 AM  

Age can be the real bitch. When you're 20 and eating what you want doing bad form lifts for the gains, you don't believe the old gym guys telling you diet and joint preservation is the way to go. When you hit 40, all your pasts sins come back to haunt you.

Blogger Johnny July 25, 2017 8:04 AM  

FisherOfMen wrote:I lean toward: Food as dopamine, dopamine as the opiate of the masses.

That is me all over. I got enough apatite for two people and a stomach that can take any amount of anything. Fat most of my life, but now in old age the body isn't tough enough to take it. Took a calcium heart test and discovered I was a serious candidate for a, shall we say, cardiac event. Having put some study time into it and going by personal experience I have formed a number of conclusions.

Cardiovascular disease is a diet issue. Adding to that the other bad diet outcomes, and the great majority of people in the US die of a combination of old age and bad diet. Age can not be avoided, but the bad diet can be.

The problem is not so much carbohydrates as refined carbs. White bread is as bad as sugar, and mass quantities of noodles and rice are not helpful either.

Eat your veggies. As for proof of benefit, read The China Study. The latest thinking on cardiovascular disease is that it is an inflammation problem that produces the plaque accumulation. In this the chemical stew in veggies is a great assist, virtually shutting the disease down.

I like it myself so I am not preaching personal preference here, but protein and meat protein in particular is overrated. Maybe not bad but not much in the way of benefit with mass consumption. The main problem is that it replaces veggies which are of benefit.

Blogger Guitar Man July 25, 2017 8:04 AM  

I went from having a six pack to weighing 260 in a time span of five years. I'm 5'9", so I was fat. I cut out sugary drinks and went HCLC and went down to 210. Easily maintaining that for years. Just recently I've incorporated a 16/8 IF and I'm under 200. At about 185 is when I had my 6 pack, so I'm on my way.

Blogger Durandel Almiras July 25, 2017 8:05 AM  

Lustig has been taking on the sugar industry for almost a decade. I heard of him through the famous youtube video https://youtu.be/dBnniua6-oM and a documentary called Sugar Coated http://sugarcoateddoc.com/about-the-film/ He's doing great work, and independently funds research to prove the Sugar industry knowingly lied and supported bogus research.

I'm surprised this article failed to mention Gary Taubes though. I'm sure there were many factors to the rise of the Paleo Diet ten years ago, with Cordain's book coming out in 2002 and taking a while for the ideas to penetrate...but I think the dam broke when Taubes' Good Calories, Bad Calories came out in 2007. The book is a review of the science of the current nutritional consensus, and he pointed out how in some of the tests, the conclusions drawn did not follow the results. The picture painted was that this mess was started by nutritionists who wanted to prove Nazi nutritional science wrong. Then government money came into the picture, and various agricultural groups then seized and directed the FDA in order to secure their businesses. Big Corn definitely did this, as did Big Sugar.

After Taubes' book made a splash, nutritional research on his claims starting appearing in the media (I'm sure the research was in the journals much earlier but journalists didn't care, and even doctors don't read journal research).

What's sad is that prior to the nutritional bunk of the late 1950's, people knew from farming that if you wanted to fatten up an animal, you fed it grains and dairy to do so and to do so rapidly. Many who actually found themselves obese would just cut out the grains, sugar and alcohol and lose the weight. It's only urban elves, so divorced from the farm, who would fall for this. And the FDA, because they were paid to.

Blogger Iowahine July 25, 2017 8:07 AM  

The politics of food is big business, the industrial agricultural-medical-pharmaceutical complex du jour. To trust "official"or government stats is folly.

Blogger Durandel Almiras July 25, 2017 8:08 AM  

By the way Vox, for some odd reason, no matter what web browser I use on my mobile, the comm box does not show, and has not been doing so for a few months now. Any ideas on why this feature no longer shows up? And does anyone else have this problem? It's just for this website, not for Alpha Game or Castalia.

Blogger HanSolo July 25, 2017 8:08 AM  

OT - Cornell and Bennington possibly murdered as they were about to reveal pedophiles in the entertainment industry.

http://yournewswire.com/chester-bennington-murdered/

Now investigators believe that the deaths of Cornell and Bennington – who died on Cornell’s birthday – may be linked.

The parallels between the two deaths are astonishing. The close friends, who were working on exposing notorious entertainment industry pedophiles, died in the same way – with Bennington’s death taking place on what would have been Cornell’s 53rd birthday.

“Murders are sometimes made to look like suicides. We think he was murdered, we just have to find out who was behind it,” said a police source.

Blogger Guitar Man July 25, 2017 8:10 AM  

I went LCHF. Need coffee...

Blogger Nate July 25, 2017 8:10 AM  

"The thing is, you can work out all you like, but once you pass 40, the combination of becoming more injury-prone and your body metabolism slowing down means that your diet is a necessary component of losing weight."

amen.

Life north of 40 is a pain in the ass.

Blogger VD July 25, 2017 8:13 AM  

One of the real problems with a LeanGains approach is that it makes stimulants more potent.

Feature, not bug.

Anonymous Ominous Cowherd July 25, 2017 8:20 AM  

I've done high fat, low carb for years. It works, and it's delicious. It's not new: google up "Banting diet".

Anonymous VivaLaRotor July 25, 2017 8:23 AM  

Vox, we're about the same age I believe and judging from your streams you're holding up well. I do jits and weights for my workouts, and I find I am (as you noted) getting more and more injury prone over the simplist things.

hey, Americans are fat because they don't do any real labor and they eat CONSTANTLY throughout the day. Black women are fat as hell because they do next to NOTHING in physical labor--with white women not far behind. But the abundance of food the the primary issue, Americans literally spend all day eating--grazing, like cattle.

Anonymous Anonymous July 25, 2017 8:25 AM  

Lustig is actually wrong on suger. The obesity epidemic is not becuase of suger it's because of artificial sweeteners (AR). ARs taste sweet which mean they bind to sugar receptors on your tongue, so you sense sweet. In your pancrease you have sugar receptors which have the same structure as the sugar binding area on your tongue, ARs bind to these receptors and release insulin. Insulin drives the sugar from your blood stream into your cells and to fat storage. Eat a big meal with a large diet drink and you make sugar into fat. Evidence for this; recently an FDA warning was issued about giving your dog (xylitol), they die becuase their blood suger is driven to near zero. The fatter you get the more artificially sweetened products you consume the fatter you get. Simple.

VFM42

Blogger Mr.MantraMan July 25, 2017 8:32 AM  

To lower my blood sugar level I cut WAY back on carbs, wife and friends hated on me. Months later I dropped my bit of chubby look and all of my numbers dropped, my doctor was shocked (tells about the "health care" racket).

Because I am a whiny bitch husband the food in our house and our diet changed, wifey who was not fat but slightly over weight just went for a phys all her numbers are better and she is off some stupid fraudulent cholesterol drug.

Higher fat less carbs moderate protein.

Anonymous Johnny Mayonnaise July 25, 2017 8:37 AM  

Is coffee good for you or bad for you? Are eggs good for you or bad for you? Should you skip breakfast, or is it the most important meal of the day?

Depends on whether or not the National Coffee Association, the Dairy Council, or Kellogg's is paying for the research ... er, conclusions.

Anonymous Mister M July 25, 2017 8:37 AM  

Looks like everyone has been fixated on the wrong White Devil.

Blogger Duke Norfolk July 25, 2017 8:37 AM  

Steve wrote:Dr. Atkins was told to shut up, because scientific consensus.

You beat me to it. One of the most unfairly demonized people of the last 50 years (and there's lots of competition there, of course). And mostly it was lefties who considered him the devil incarnate. 'Cause science.

I admit that I was swayed by that kind of propaganda back in the day and mostly adhered to the low fat(ish) regimen; though I wasn't fanatic about it. But luckily I was young, and naturally somewhat lean and so it didn't do much harm (and I was always rather averse to lots of sugary crap).

I'm glad I saw the light in my 40s though, as that lowfat B.S. will really kill you later in life. We are just learning just how dangerous and destructive it is.

All that said, one of the most important things to recognize is just how variable this all is with different people. Very low carb works great for some, but not for others. And the most important thing is to eat quality food; staying away from the junk full of sugar, soy, and the crappy "vegetable" oils, i.e. soybean, corn, canola, etc.

Anonymous Bruce July 25, 2017 8:40 AM  

I've done well with the “calories in, calories out approach.” I tried Mauro Di Pasquale's "Anabolic Diet" but didn't stick to it long - I got sick of eating nothing but protein, fat and brocolli all week.

Couple of relevent notes:
Fat: You need no less than about 15% of your calories from fat to keep hormone levels up. The National Strength and Conditioning Assoctiation recommends 30% with 10% from saturated fats.
Protein: You probably can't utilize much more than about 1.5x your body weight (in kg-assuming you're relatively lean) for protein intake in grams. The excess doesn't hurt but it's wasted. Layne Norton's research has shown that 3g of leucine (the limiting amino acid for muscle protein synthesis-MPS) just about maxes out your MPS cycle – this is about 30-40 g of animal protein depending on the type. You want to wait 4-6 hours between meals to induce the next cycle. So 3-4 meals a day is probably fine.
So I try to eat 30% fat, 30-40 grams of protein 4 times a day and fill in the rest of my calories with healthy carbs (not sweets).

Anonymous I'm Not a Fascist. But My Sons Are. July 25, 2017 8:40 AM  

Deserts? DESERTS? And daily. Lucky you.

(Assuming you're doing everything right) you can desert too. Look into avocado-based mousses and coconut cream based ice 'creams'.

OpenID markstoval July 25, 2017 8:42 AM  

"The Fascist family's favorite meal: Grass fed Ribeye + mixed greens, strawberry, cranberry, and goat cheese salad with bacon fat and balsamic dressing. Diced, Sauteed pork belly and walnuts for crunch.

Come at me, bro."


Sounds like someone has been reading Ray Peat's work. http://raypeat.com/

Anonymous Stickwick July 25, 2017 8:43 AM  

I’ve put on a lot of weight in the last few years, and developed some health problems as a result of being fat and middle-aged, so I’ve had to aggressively change my lifestyle. After some research and experiment, I settled on a non-keto paleo diet + exercise + intermittent fasting. This is a diet heavy on veg, with moderate amounts of healthful fats, a modest amount of animal protein, and a very small amount of things like fruit and nuts. No sugar, no grain, no starch, no dairy. Result: the weight is flying off and minor health issues are clearing up almost immediately.

Medical and nutritional science in the last 30-40 years is so corrupt, it’s to the point that if something is considered conventional wisdom, my instinct is to do the opposite. Remember all the fuss about avoiding the sun at all costs? It’s B.S. Most people are now deficient in vitamin D, because it’s hard to get it in the modern diet and without any sun. I’ve been going outside 20 mins a day at peak sunlight hours to catch some natural vitamin D, which is by far the best way to get it.

Another bit of conventional wisdom that's gone out the window for me is the "need" for 8 hours of sleep. I was suffering from terrible fatigue for months, and finally figured out it was from oversleeping. I was catching 8-9 hours a night, and that was too much. I'm still experimenting to see what the optimal number of hours is, but it's definitely less than 7.

The way it's been working since the 80s is that you're given bad lifestyle advice that seems right because it sounds right, but in reality leads to health problems, which are treated with expensive medicine that creates all-new problems, which are treated by more expensive medicine, and down it spirals. It's going to take a radical paradigm shift to get people out of the death spiral, but it's already started with grassroots movements like paleo and non-conventional scientists.

Speaking of which, I’m glad to see Dr. Lustig mentioned in this article. I’ve been a fan since his interview with Dr. Mercola. He’s absolutely right about sugar — it’s EVIL. I’m firmly convinced at this point that the vast majority of modern health problems are due to poor lifestyle that includes processed crappy food and being sedentary.

Check out Lustig’s eye-opening interview on YouTube.

Anonymous johnc July 25, 2017 8:44 AM  

Unfortunately talking about nutrition is a lot like discussing climate-change: there is a religious element that can't be broken through, regardless of facts. I've found this is true regardless if one is left or right.

It's not so much about official diet guidelines. People are getting fatter primarily because they are eating more (that's an established fact) and are most likely moving a lot less because of job requirements. There are other reasons as well.

People focusing on fats, carbs, sugars, HFCS (which is just sugar with a goofy name), diet conspiracies, insulin (this is the new fad now), etc. are all looking for a bogeyman.

It's about energy balance.

Eat a big meal with a large diet drink and you make sugar into fat.

It's rare for carbohydrates to be stored as fat in humans. Some animals (like cows) are efficient at that process, but humans are not. So it only happens in very rare circumstances that no normal person would experience. What happens in your example scenario is that when you eat that meal, the protein and carbs will raise insulin, and then the fat you consumed in that meal is stored as fat. Carbs are not stored as fat.

Anonymous I'm Not a Fascist. But My Sons Are. July 25, 2017 8:49 AM  

@52 Never heard of him. Those articles appear to be worth reading, though.

Anonymous Forrest Bishop July 25, 2017 8:49 AM  

the U.S. government's dietary advice has been about as bad as it gets.

I have a lifelong habit of listening carefully to what the government schoolmarms say is good for you- then doing the opposite. Today I turn 62 yo. I weigh the same as I did at 20 but with a lower BMI. My eyesight is better, too. They finally stopped carding me a few years ago. The Iranian in Seattle who blindsided me last year thought I was 38. Thanks, .gov!

Anonymous johnc July 25, 2017 8:50 AM  

I'm glad I saw the light in my 40s though, as that lowfat B.S. will really kill you later in life. We are just learning just how dangerous and destructive it is.

Some of the healthiest, longest-living and leanest people in the world lived in the southern Japanese islands (Okinawa area) and their diet was about 80-90% carbohydrate and very low fat.

Caloric restriction played a major role in their health.

Genetics is an important part as well.

Anonymous Jack July 25, 2017 8:53 AM  

Dr. Loren Cordain's Paleo Diet was a game changer for me. There are several variations, such as Mark Sisson's Primal Blueprint (which isn't as strict, allows for dairy and some other stuff) but the general meat-vegetables-fruit-nuts, low carb approach has worked well for me and most everyone I know who has tried it. The only caveat is that if you're an athlete doing a lot of training, you'll probably need more carbs. Paleo diet + paleoconservatism = Mens sana in corpore sano.

Anonymous Anonymous July 25, 2017 8:56 AM  

carbohydrates are sugar, look it up.

VFM42

Anonymous Bruce July 25, 2017 9:05 AM  

VivaLaRotor and VD mention injuries past 40.
I wonder if some of this is because some guys focus on being big. Big is hard on your body, particuarly as you age. I have tried to focus on pound-for-pound raw strength not hypertrophy while keeping relatively lean (not “shredded” lean). –I’m trying to be a “strong for my weight” guy not a big guy. So far, no injuries (lifting heavy, running, etc.) in my 40’s.
Also, there’s nothing wrong with substituting body weight exercises for heavy weights, particularly if you’re older. You’re less likely to get hurt. Herschel Walker got pretty strong without weights.

Blogger Aeoli Pera July 25, 2017 9:14 AM  

It's not about major changes, just getting your caloric intake south of the energy usage line.

This is also an incorrect model. In intro chemistry you measure the calories in something by setting it on fire. Poop burns quite well. Therefore you expel a huge number of ingested calories through your poophole.

Blogger Cail Corishev July 25, 2017 9:14 AM  

Yep, you've gotta cut the carbs. We're just not built to get 60% of our energy from carbs, especially when they come in fast-absorbed forms like sugar and processed grains. It screws up the metabolic process and hormone mix, and that matters as you get older and the hormone mix changes naturally anyway, so it becomes harder to just burn it off. Cutting carbs also tends to reduce harmful industrial seed oils, since they're so often combined in the same products. When you start shopping mostly around the outside edge of the store -- meat, dairy, vegetables, some fruit -- you eliminate a lot of garbage along with the carbs.

Anonymous kfg July 25, 2017 9:16 AM  

" . . . once you pass 40, the combination of becoming more injury-prone . . ."

I'm decades past that and not the least bit more injury prone. I am rather slower to heal though. Can't just shake it off and be as good as new quite the same as I used to.

". . . your body metabolism slowing down means that your diet is a necessary component of losing weight."

It doesn't matter at what rate your metabolism runs, diet is the master control of your weight. Lift all you want, but if you don't add mass to your body there is no mass available to add to your body. Every ounce of you began its journey to becoming you by entering your mouth.

Your activity (or lack there of) provides various stimuli affecting how the mass is partitioned.

Blogger Aeoli Pera July 25, 2017 9:18 AM  

johnc wrote:I'm glad I saw the light in my 40s though, as that lowfat B.S. will really kill you later in life. We are just learning just how dangerous and destructive it is.

Some of the healthiest, longest-living and leanest people in the world lived in the southern Japanese islands (Okinawa area) and their diet was about 80-90% carbohydrate and very low fat.

Caloric restriction played a major role in their health.

Genetics is an important part as well.



Another takeaway here is that your diet should match your lifestyle. Rice farmers are not programmers sitting in front of a monitor- if you're doing hard labor every day you need to eat a lot of carbs or you'll collapse. What makes this tricky is that, in my experience, you can do high fat or high carbs but not both. But generally, the hunter-gatherer diet combined with high-intensity exercise works best for sedentary people.

Anonymous Laz July 25, 2017 9:18 AM  

"Grass fed Ribeye + mixed greens, strawberry, cranberry, and goat cheese salad with bacon fat and balsamic dressing. Diced, Sauteed pork belly and walnuts for crunch." It's like you watched me order at the Roadhouse the other day.

Blogger darrenl July 25, 2017 9:20 AM  

Change the definition of what it is to be obese and that fixes the problem. Right?

Guys?

#crickets

Anonymous Napoleon 12pdr July 25, 2017 9:21 AM  

The health problem comes from not beating up SJWs. Thrashing a Leftist every day would give us all a good workout...and the Leftist a good lesson.

Anonymous Stickwick July 25, 2017 9:23 AM  

carbohydrates are sugar, look it up.

Thank you for this deep insight. The missing bit of information here is that, stripped of the natural fiber or fat content in whole food carbs, sugar is mainlined to the liver, which is very bad. It overtaxes your liver, spikes your blood sugar, and causes your pancreas to flood your system with insulin. That's why sugar makes people fat, sick, and tired.

Anonymous Jack July 25, 2017 9:23 AM  

Caloric restriction is getting more attention these days. Interesting old book by Luigi Cornaro, an Italian who rejuvenated himself and lived into his 90s by limiting his daily caloric intake. That was in 15th century.

https://infogalactic.com/info/Luigi_Cornaro

Anonymous Avalanche July 25, 2017 9:23 AM  

(How can y'all so disbelieve the "Mainstream" in so many areas (fake news, anyone?) and then assume they are telling you the truth about your health and diet!?)

(Sorry, just GOTTA sperge! Been researching this stuff for a decade!)

Start here: "Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science" -- The Atlantic http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/8269/

Anything by Gary Taubes: brilliant debunker of the mainstream: his first book in this area, Good Calories, Bad Calories (called The Diet Delusion in England) (written toward an audience of educated laypersons, which The Dark Lord's regulars certainly are) is earth-shaking! Follow or replace with his popularizer: Why We Get Fat and What to Do About It.


@34 "As for proof of benefit, read The China Study"

The China Study has been debunked and debunked and debunked again!! Start here and catch up with ... let’s call it "Alt Diet"! Links to 43 complete debunkings of that vegetarian activist T. Colin Campbell! https://freetheanimal.com/2010/07/the-china-study-smackdown-roundup.html


@3 Calories in, calories out. ... it always had that appeal of seeming to agree with the laws of physics.

Except that law of physics is extremely ill-applied to humans! The First Law of Thermodynamics applies to a CLOSED system -- which the human body most certainly is not! Study after study after study has proven (all rejected, ignored, and/or hidden by the Mainstream; I wonder why?) that CICO ("cals in, cals out") is NOT true for human eating! Starvation studies, overfeeding studies, studies in twins, etc. -- ALL show CICO is inapplicable!


When you finish any Taubes' book, move on to Nina Teicholtz: The Big Fat Surprise: Why Butter, Meat & Cheese Belong in a Healthy Diet https://thebigfatsurprise.com/ . ("... named a Best Book of 2014 by The Economist, the Wall Street Journal, Forbes, Mother Jones, Library Journal, and Kirkus Review, it also got very strong reviews in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition and The BMJ.") Olive oil producers in (mainly) Greece persuaded mostly American "doctors" to gin up the FAKE Mediterranean Diet to sell olive oil.

Great review of her book: https://proteinpower.com/drmike/2014/05/13/big-fat-surprise/ from which (Dr Mike Eades):

"I think it is one of the most important books on nutrition ever written. Maybe the most important."
and
"She tells the story of how we Americans went from eating enormous amounts of saturated fat (all the while suffering virtually no heart disease) to now eating fats in restaurants that, when heated, throw off a shellac-like substance so toxic it requires workers in hazmat gear to clean up after them."

( Teicholtz's book is riveting (and sometimes funny) -- and changes how you view food forever – and how you view the mainstream medical orthodoxy and their lies!)

Finally, if you like documentaries with sound science and great good humor: "Science For Smart People" Tom Naughton's speech on the 4th annual low-carb cruise. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1RXvBveht0 followed by his actual documentary, "Fat Head": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evcNPfZlrZs

Anonymous Animus July 25, 2017 9:26 AM  

Vox,
If you would like to refine your diet further to increase healthspan, so you can maintain your productivity as you age, you may want to check out the writings or talks of Gary Taubes, Peter Attia and Rhonda Patrick. All super smart people.

Blogger Cail Corishev July 25, 2017 9:32 AM  

This is also an incorrect model.

Just tell the calorie-counters that low-carb suppresses appetite, and that's why you lose weight. That's what many nutritionists claimed when studies first started showing how well low-carb works -- basically, that it was just tricking people into reducing calories like they'd recommended all along. If it gets them to do it, fine.

Anonymous I'm Not a Fascist. But My Sons Are. July 25, 2017 9:33 AM  

Some of the healthiest, longest-living and leanest people in the world lived in the southern Japanese islands (Okinawa area) and their diet was about 80-90% carbohydrate

Largely from micro/phytonutrient-rich vegetable matter. Where there was rice, it was unadulterated and comprised about 12% of intake. A tremendous amount of fermented foods were (and still are) involved as well, positively affecting gut flora and therefore how food, more generally, is processed.

if you're doing hard labor every day you need to eat a lot of carbs or you'll collapse.

Not (necessarily) so. C.f. Flipping the fat as fuel epigenetic 'switch' induced by ketosis.

Blogger VD July 25, 2017 9:33 AM  

I'm decades past that and not the least bit more injury prone.

And you're probably not a full-contact fighter or playing high-level soccer with former professionals.

Don't snowflake. There is absolutely no question that men in their 40s are injured far more easily than men in their 20s. Watch any professional sport.

Anonymous TS July 25, 2017 9:36 AM  

"He’s absolutely right about sugar — it’s EVIL."

Well Stevita and Xylitol are good for you and yet they don't add it to many foods for some reason hmmm.

70-year-old hasn’t eaten sugar for 28 years, looks incredible

Read more: http://metro.co.uk/2017/05/31/70-year-old-hasnt-eaten-sugar-for-28-years-looks-incredible-6674143/#ixzz4nqmPJIfk


Read more: http://metro.co.uk/2017/05/31/70-year-old-hasnt-eaten-sugar-for-28-years-looks-incredible-6674143/#ixzz4nqm2RQJO

Anonymous RobJ July 25, 2017 9:45 AM  

The mainstream medical community hated Dr. Atkins with great intensity.

After Atkins died in New York City in 2003, a doctor named Richard Fleming from Omaha, Nebraska requested his medical report. Dr. Fleming had no reason to have the report, but NYC gave it to him, he passed it on to the "Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine," which then leaked it to the press. At the time of death, Dr. Atkins was severely overweight. His enemies claimed it was evidence that the Atkins diet didn't work, while his family said the weight gain was due to fluid retention from a 9-day coma.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/11/nyregion/just-what-killed-the-diet-doctor-and-what-keeps-the-issue-alive.html

At the time, I wondered what would happen to Dr. Fleming, who excused his blatant violation of patient privacy, for someone who wasn't even his patient, by saying that the subject was too important.

Just today, I learned the rest of the story. Funny that it didn't seem to make national news. From 2010:

http://journalstar.com/news/state-and-regional/nebraska/former-omaha-doctor-faces-possible-sanctions-for-fraud/article_04877e84-3dda-11df-a936-001cc4c03286.html

Anonymous kfg July 25, 2017 9:52 AM  

@Stickwick: "The missing bit of information here is that, stripped of the natural fiber or fat content in whole food carbs, sugar is mainlined to the liver, which is very bad."

It depends on what type of sugar it is. "Fiber" sugars, for instance, are mainlined to the bacteria in your intestines, which "exhale" methane and "shit" fatty acids. Your own metabolism never sees them as sugar. Glucose is mainlined to glycogen stores, but this doesn't put a load on your liver, your liver needs it to do its job maintaining blood sugar levels.

Fructose can only be metabolised by the liver, which process produces toxic by products and fatty acids that remain in the liver rather than being mainlined to adipose.

Sucrose is half fructose. HFCS is from 45 to 65% fructose.

Excessive glucose has its own problems (its what makes your skin get tougher as you age, not "aging"), but it isn't a liver problem.

The main reason that fibrous foods aren't a big issue is because they simply don't contain much in the way human digestible sugars at all. The poison is in the dose and the dose is low. People eat refined sucrose and HFCS by the pound.

Anonymous BBGKB July 25, 2017 9:53 AM  

There is always Milo's method of maintaining his figure https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtEOrVHejUc

The conspiracy theorist in me wonders whether the foggy brain side-effect wasn't intentional.

It's not like the same ((())) have been going after water control, food control, & weapon control for all of history.

OT - Cornell and Bennington possibly murdered as they were about to reveal pedophiles in the entertainment industry

OT: CA reduces child trafficking, rape, assault w/ deadly weapon on a peace officer and other crimes from violent felonies to non-violent misdemeanors http://ace.mu.nu/archives/370753.php



Blogger Cail Corishev July 25, 2017 9:55 AM  

Watch any professional sport.

Even Senior Tour golf, where they ride carts, so it's not exactly punishing. There are no players over 59 in the top 25, and most of them are 50-53. Guys join at 50, immediately zoom to the upper ranks now that they aren't playing against 25-30-year-olds, and then most of them drop back down after a few years when they can't compete with the next crop of 50-year-olds. Strength, flexibility, stability, recovery speed, and so on start dropping off pretty fast, even for men who work hard at maintaining them.

Anonymous I'm Not a Fascist. But My Sons Are. July 25, 2017 9:59 AM  

muh rotator cuff.

No, seriously, muh rotator cuff.

Blogger Cail Corishev July 25, 2017 10:08 AM  

At the time of death, Dr. Atkins was severely overweight. His enemies claimed it was evidence that the Atkins diet didn't work

Yes, which was stupid and unscientific. Knowing how to do something and doing it are two different things, especially something as difficult as avoiding foods which are plentiful and tasty when the chemicals in your brain are doing their best to rationalize eating them. If he had been obese, it would only prove that he couldn't stick to a diet that worked, not that the diet he created doesn't work. But they were willing to say anything, even trashy gossip about the recently dead, to defend the sacred food pyramid.

I tell people low-carb has worked every time I've tried it. It's working for me right now -- 25 pounds lost so far this year. Unfortunately, high-carb has also worked to put the weight back on every time I've "tried" that, too. No one says it's always easy, just that it works if you stick to it and don't sabotage yourself.

OpenID everybodyhatesscott July 25, 2017 10:08 AM  

Lustig is actually wrong on suger. The obesity epidemic is not becuase of suger it's because of artificial sweeteners (AR). ARs taste sweet which mean they bind to sugar receptors on your tongue, so you sense sweet. In your pancrease you have sugar receptors which have the same structure as the sugar binding area on your tongue, ARs bind to these receptors and release insulin. Insulin drives the sugar from your blood stream into your cells and to fat storage. Eat a big meal with a large diet drink and you make sugar into fat. Evidence for this; recently an FDA warning was issued about giving your dog (xylitol), they die becuase their blood suger is driven to near zero. The fatter you get the more artificially sweetened products you consume the fatter you get.

I lost 40lbs drinking diet soda. I'm not under the impression artificial sweeteners are healthy but if I had been drinking regular soda, I wouldn't have lost the weight. Most fat people I know eat way too much sugar, not way too much diet soda.

Anonymous James Parliament July 25, 2017 10:10 AM  

Holy swan.

Blogger Chris Jackson July 25, 2017 10:11 AM  

Reducing sugar and grain has made a massive difference over the last 3 months for me. Some will eliminate both completely.

It's certainly an adjustment, but I find I eat less simply as a function of eating more fat.

I sleep better and I don't get those peaks and valleys in my energy and mental focus through the day.

Down 25 pounds in 3 months and it feels, as the woman in the article said of her low-carb high fat diet, effortless.

Anonymous KJ July 25, 2017 10:16 AM  

--Avoid high fructose corn syrup. Your liver has to work almost as hard to process it as it does to move alcohol through.
--Most grain in the US gets glycosphate at some time. (they use it to dry wheat). Nothing definite yet in the research, but I'm not going to be their guinea pig.
--Saturated fat and especially animal fat is very important to those of Northern descent - See the work of Dr Mary Enig.
--I see some mention the Japanese who do "low fat" except that they fry everything in lard. However it would be more accurate to look at the families in Sardinia Italy who eat plenty of fat, fresh veggies and lots of local red wine. Some of the oldest recorded living active adults.
--China study was complete and utter garbage. Of the original research team all but 1 (the one who published the book) were suspect of the data due to; A. The chinese government lied, B. The local people weren't going to admit to any meat in front of a communist party apparatchik and C. The study failed to capture any data on non-normal (by US standards) meat eaten such as snake, turtle, insects, etc. It was all about chicken, beef and pork.
--Dietary fat is a major building block of every cell in the body, it's also used in vitamin and mineral regulation paths as well toxin removal.

I have a small ranch so while I don't work out more than a few hours a week I'm always working and I've noticed that I can sometimes work for a couple of days in high heat without eating with plenty of energy.

Blogger Harambe July 25, 2017 10:25 AM  

It's weird from a South African perspective seeing this "controversy" unfold. I can't recall every being fed the line that "low fat = good". In 11th grade biology, we learned all about how carbohydrates are broken down into fuel and how any excess was stored as fat. Whereas fat had a lot more processing to go through to break it down into something useful. Now, this was about 20 years ago for me, but I do seem to recall that we basically all went "Oh, so it's not fat that makes you fat, it's carbohydrates?" and that was the end of the matter for us.

The only people pushing the high-carb, low-fat diet were journalists who regurgitated crap they read in articles written by other journalists in a giant cluster of incestuous circular referencing.

Still, I could be misremembering though.

Blogger Mountain Man July 25, 2017 10:25 AM  

Thank God ( and I say this with reverence), my mother was a long time adherent of Weston A. Price. We are talking back in the days when it was " Weston A who?"... early to mid 70's. Her approach to a whole foods diet enabled her children to escape the fat plague.

Blogger Cail Corishev July 25, 2017 10:29 AM  

Lustig is actually wrong on suger. The obesity epidemic is not becuase of suger it's because of artificial sweeteners (AR). ARs taste sweet which mean they bind to sugar receptors on your tongue, so you sense sweet.

Ok, but sugar tastes sweet too and kicks off the same chain of insulin production and glucose storage, so yes, sugar is the problem. It's possible that artificial sweeteners are also a problem for this reason, but that doesn't let sugar off the hook.

Also, when you eat sugar, you have lots of extra glucose for the insulin to push into storage as fat. If you're eating AS and "tricking" your pancreas into producing insulin, it will find some glucose in your blood to work with, but not as much. At normal blood sugar levels (85 mg/dl), you have less than 10 grams of glucose in your blood.

I'm skeptical anyway, because if this were true, then being low-carb and drinking a six-pack of Diet Dew should send a person into severe hypoglycemia, and it just doesn't. I've had episodes of low blood sugar due to eating too many carbs, having it go high, and then crashing later when the sugar runs out and the insulin is still pumping. I've never had one from drinking diet soda.

I suspect there's some insulin reaction to artificial sweeteners, but that other homeostasis factors kick in when the expected glucose rush doesn't materialize. Insulin is the biggie, but it's not the only operator involved. Dogs may be a bad comparison, because they're carnivores who aren't built to eat any carbs at all except the occasional treat found in the gut of their prey.

I do think there are good reasons to avoid diet soda and other artificially sweet products. I think sweets generate cravings for more sweets, so it's harder to pass on the carbs. Also, when your tastebuds adjust to not eating intense sweets, normal foods taste better. Vegetables taste sweeter. And who knows about the other chemicals they put in that stuff.

Anonymous kfg July 25, 2017 10:32 AM  

"And you're probably not a full-contact fighter or playing high-level soccer with former professionals."

That's correct, I am a former professional who still does things more violent than that with professionals.

But slamming into a brick wall at 40 mph isn't the same thing as fighting. There are elements to getting injured in a fight that are from causes other than simple fragility.

I'm not snowflaking because I'm not claiming any special status. I am claiming that you are no more injury prone because you are over 40 than I am. Age isn't the only factor affecting you.

Blogger Mountain Man July 25, 2017 10:35 AM  

Our food today can be summed up as this:
" Chemicals laced with food"..... Big Chemical leave my food alone!

Anonymous fop July 25, 2017 10:37 AM  

A good rule of thumb is when .gov offers you advice on how to live a happy healthy life, (eat low fat, go solar, buy a Chevy Volt, eat less beef, carpool to work, use less electricity, use less toilet paper, don't water your lawn) do the exact opposite.

Anonymous Stickwick July 25, 2017 10:41 AM  

@kfg: Yes, Lustig identifies fructose as the main culprit. He explains that the fiber in whole foods prevents the fructose from being mainlined to the liver. This is why I'm deeply suspicious of the health benefits of juicing.

"Sugar is Poison":

Each sucrose molecule consists of one molecule of fructose joined to one molecule of glucose. In the gut, these two components are quickly split apart. High-fructose corn syrup is a less expensive mixture of glucose and fructose. There is no point in belaboring the difference, Lustig says. “High-fructose corn syrup and sucrose are exactly the same,” Lustig says. “They’re equally bad. They’re both poison in high doses.” Over the past century, Americans have increased their fructose consumption from 15 grams per day to 75 grams per day or more, Lustig explains. The trend accelerated beginning about three decades ago, when cheap, easy-to-transport high-fructose corn syrup became widely available. Much of processed food labeled “reduced fat” instead has sugar added to make it more palatable, Lustig says. But when it comes to harmful health effects, sugar is worse than fat, he claims. Consumption of either results in elevated levels of artery-clogging fats being made by the liver and deposited in the bloodstream. But fructose causes even further damage to the liver and to structural proteins of the body while fomenting excessive caloric consumption, Lustig says.

I think Lustig is also right about fat. It's not the demon-enemy nutritional scientists have made it out to be -- you need more of it than conventional wisdom dicates -- but too much fat is also a problem. This is why I've also become suspicious of the ketogenic diet, at least for someone with my particular health problem. This problem was in large part caused by sugar and is greatly exacerbated by it. However, the best research I can find indicates that the ketogenic diet exacerbates the condition almost as much. As boring as it sounds, overall health does seem to come down to physical activity, reduced calories, and a good balance of nutrients.

Anonymous KJ July 25, 2017 10:59 AM  

Part of the reason our health info is so bad goes back to George McGovern. He was on the Pritikin diet and had two vegetarians as assistants. He suppressed half the data from the Framingham study on fats and cholesterol and insisted on only allowing funding for research which framed dietary fat in a bad light.
The Framingham made the first link between serum cholesterol and heart disease. Showing that high serum cholesterol was was positively correlated to increased heart disease. However the study also showed that increased serum cholesterol was inversely proportional to dietary intake of saturated fat (especially animal sources). This later half of the study McGovern suppressed.

On the plus side there are plenty of ways to find quality local beef, pork, chicken, etc. Many small ranchers now sell meat directly through craigslist and other online sites. Many of us also have open operations where we encourage people to come out and see how the animal is raised.

Blogger Steve Duby July 25, 2017 11:01 AM  

Given the hormonal-environmental component related to the obesity epidemic, sadly it is no longer just a simple equation of calories in-calories out. Avoiding specific foods is crucial, and yes most of those foods are highly processed carbohydrates, but it also includes meat and dairy from CAFO-raised animals (go grass-fed/pasture-raises when/if at all possible) as well as refined seed oils high in polyunsaturated fat. One of the best pieces of diet advice came recently from, ironically, shitlib Zack Galifinackis. He dropped weight simply by not consuming any foods or beverages that show up in ads.

Anonymous johnc July 25, 2017 11:04 AM  

@86 In 11th grade biology, we learned all about how carbohydrates are broken down into fuel and how any excess was stored as fat.

It's possible that you are misremembering or maybe they were just wrong or telling you a fib. Unless they were talking about cows. Were they talking about cows?

Now, this was about 20 years ago for me, but I do seem to recall that we basically all went "Oh, so it's not fat that makes you fat, it's carbohydrates?" and that was the end of the matter for us.

People get fat by consuming more calories than their body uses (over a period of time). Whether that involves an excess of calories from fat or carbohydrates isn't very important, but it's the fat that one consumes that will be stored in the fat cells.

The only people pushing the high-carb, low-fat diet were journalists who regurgitated crap they read in articles written by other journalists in a giant cluster of incestuous circular referencing.

And now they're all pushing low-carb crap articles. It's the same thing as the low fat days, but now we have a new villain. A decade from now "low protein" will be the big diet rage. Anything to side-step the fact that people today can't control the amount of calories they're shoveling down their pieholes because they are addicted to pleasure. "It's the lobbyists making me fat!"

I read an (older) article on the HuffPo the other day written by a physician. He went on the whole spiel about carbs and insulin and how "a calorie is not a calorie". He claimed that carbohydrates and sugars cause "diabesity", which is a portmanteau of diabetes and obesity. It's the carbohydrates, you see... not the overeating. These people are just completely incapable of telling the truth. His entire article was like that: a bunch of half-truths designed to get the reader to draw the false conclusion for himself.

Anonymous kfg July 25, 2017 11:05 AM  

@Stickwick: "Lustig identifies fructose as the main culprit. He explains that the fiber in whole foods prevents the fructose from being mainlined to the liver."

Lustig is right about some things and wrong about others. The problem with juicing is exactly the same as the problem with table sugar. It isn't that fiber changes the metabolic pathways, it's that it displaces sugar. A one pound lump that is mostly fiber necessarily has a lot less sugar in it than a one pound lump of sugar.

Juice is sugar water. Here's an idea, if you don't eat the sugar in the first place, you won't need the fiber to "cure" it.

Yeah, yeah, vitamins, minerals, enzymes, yada yada yada. You need to juice to get that stuff from plants because the plant doesn't have much of that shit in it. Go to USDA and compare the nutritional content of an apple to just an ounce of liver, then talk to me about "nutritionally dense" foods.

When A dietician starts talking to you about "nutritionally dense" foods like fruits and vegetables, you know you're talking to someone who is a liar, an idiot or an idiotic liar.

Dieticians are trained to say things like that because they are trained to tell you not to eat the actual nutritionally dense foods. So the food of slave labor is all that's left on the table.flexibility

@Cail Corishev: ". . . flexibility . . ."

This is an example of how things can get interpreted as as an ageing factor that have nothing to do with age.

There is a time factor, exposure to environment, but that isn't ageing.

Flexibility is a psychosomatic. Within the mechanical limits of your joints, it is entirely controlled by the brain. You can be so inflexible that you can hardly move, until I knock you out. Then I can manipulate you like a rag doll. That's why carrying an unconscious body is so difficult.

If you are inflexible it isn't because you are old and you can, over time, change it with new environmental factors that teach your brain to allow a greater range of motion.

Anonymous dc of sunsets fame July 25, 2017 11:05 AM  

I got into an argument with an internist who objected to my statement that physicians today overwhelmingly push a high carb diet.

He said, "No one pushes high carbs." I responded, "You push low-fat; what's left but protein or carbs, and protein consumed in excess of structural need is simply split into nitrogenous compounds and....wait for it....carbs."

Yes, Virginia, too much protein and you're just burning it as a carbohydrate, plus putting more pressure on your kidneys to dump the nitrogenous waste.

I don't know what is optimal. Yes, the OP is obviously correct, the "experts" in the "government" were industry-captured shills from Day One, but today's data on cellular metabolism is full of conflicting information. Some say C8 fats are ideal for fuel. Your body clearly requires fat for both structure and fuel, and there's increasing evidence that trying to nurture our mitochondria (mostly protecting them from metabolic byproducts saturated in reactive oxygen species) is a key to avoiding cancer and enhancing longevity.

But we live in a time when much of what we thought we know just isn't so, and new (and good/accurate) info is having to fight through the cloud of suspicion.

We continue to watch as social trust, squandered by those in power, drains from our society.

Anonymous VivaLaRotor July 25, 2017 11:06 AM  

@60. Bruce,

Bruce, that might be, not sure. I was your typical "military fit" guy, then got into powerlifting in my early 40s...posted a 1050 total at 175lbs, age 44 (which would be at the top end for weight/age), then got (back) into Judo and BJJ and had a few minor things, pulled muscle, meniscus tear. I think for me at least, even after years of lifting (strength over hypertrophy), I simply am a bit more fragile than some. Injuries seem to come out of nowhere.

Every guy I know in BJJ has had some weird injury that wasn't even from doing something stupid. Most of them heal up though. It's a pretty safe sport, unlike it's predecessor, Judo.

Blogger Phelps July 25, 2017 11:06 AM  

Looking Glass wrote:Biggest problems are HFCS because it can be added so easily & high-Gluten Wheat w/ Vegetable Oil. Those are the killer combos, beyond age-related drops in metabolism.


There's an even bigger problem, and that is how fructose (as opposed to sucrose and dextrose) is metabolized in the liver. It's exactly the same as ethanol plus some more nasty by-products. It's why Dr. Lustig calls soda pop "Beer without the Buzz" and why we are seeing children with fatty liver and cirrhosis, exactly as if they were alcoholics.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

It's long but well, well worth the time.

Anonymous kfg July 25, 2017 11:13 AM  

"People get fat by consuming more calories than their body uses . . ."

No. People get heavier by consuming more calories than their body uses. Diet is the master control of weight. It doesn't control what the weight is.

If you don't understand this, you will never be able to control your body fat percentage, something aesthetic and power to weight competitors have learned to control at will (within biological limits).

Blogger Jack Ward July 25, 2017 11:22 AM  

I've been using the Zone eating regime since 1995. Sometimes religiously sometimes not so much. It does work.
http://www.zonediet.com/

I'm 71 now and most people don't believe that. No excess fat to speak of.
Karl Dinninger has done numerous articles on his marketicker site. Check his archives for another look at diet.

http://market-ticker.org/
Only thing I regret by Barry Sears, originator of the Zone system, is his endorsement of soy. I suppose the soy lobby is too hard a nut to crack; even for him. If his 40-30-30 meal bars would go to something besides soy for protein I would use them far more often.

Anonymous Jack Amok July 25, 2017 11:28 AM  

Well Stevita and Xylitol are good for you...

Read the Amazon review for "Sugar Free Gummy Bears". That's Xylitol at work. And as someone already pointed out, it's poisonous to dogs, so not worth having around even if you don't mind what it does to your digestive system.

Anonymous johnc July 25, 2017 11:32 AM  

@100 No. People get heavier by consuming more calories than their body uses. Diet is the master control of weight. It doesn't control what the weight is.

Technically my statement was: "People get fat by consuming more calories than their body uses (over a period of time)."

That part you cut out was important. Because unless a person has a superior genetic profile in this regard -- and there are a relative handful that do -- overconsuming calories over an extended period of time will result in fat gain. It's very, very, very rare to be able to gain (non-water) weight while maintaining or reducing body fat percentage, over a period of time. Only genetic freaks and gear users can get away with that.

Anonymous kfg July 25, 2017 11:33 AM  

"And as someone already pointed out, it's poisonous to dogs, so not worth having around even if you don't mind what it does to your digestive system."

A mistake I know about because it actually happens with a certain amount of regularity:

When lost in the woods, do not watch squirrels to find out what is safe to eat, what squirrels eat is toxic to humans.

Blogger Dexter July 25, 2017 11:36 AM  

I'm down about 30 lbs by cutting carbs, adding fat and skipping breakfast.

This. I lost 30lbs by eliminating bread, breakfast cereal, and pasta, even without any serious exercise.

Blogger Dexter July 25, 2017 11:40 AM  

In other news, we are all guinea pigs in the government's decades-long diversity experiment and immigration experiment. But no doubt those will go better than the diet experiment!

Anonymous Gen. Kong July 25, 2017 11:41 AM  

Fake Science. All part and parcel of the the Age of Fake - enforced by the fake patriot mercearies of the Fake Banana Empire. Hopefully soon to pass away.

Anonymous Jack Amok July 25, 2017 11:46 AM  

But we live in a time when much of what we thought we know just isn't so, and new (and good/accurate) info is having to fight through the cloud of suspicion.

We continue to watch as social trust, squandered by those in power, drains from our society.


It is interesting how high the percentage is of bad information coming from "public" institutions. If they were merely incompetent, you'd expect them to be accidentally right once in a while. But on diet, exercise, climate, learning, road construction, building codes, you name it, the Credentialled Elite are almost always wrong. Chimps throwing darts would do better.

I think it's because credentialism, leftism, Gamma-ism even, attracts people with amygdalas that keep them from acknowledging reality, so they just do not course-correct like a normal person would. None of us are perfect or never have a wrong idea, but the sort that glom onto agencies and organizations that try to control society find it emotionally painful to admit that, so they charge full speed into error.

And use every lever they can pull to force people to agree with them.


Anonymous kfg July 25, 2017 11:51 AM  

@Johnc:

Technically, yes, that is what happened to a unlimited power lifter. He has maxed out his ability to store mass as anything but fat and continued to eat calories in excess of energy balance.

So let me modify a bit - that is not what happens to average person who puts on twenty pounds, or even to large percentage of obese people (there muscles are actually so atrophied that if you stripped the "marbling" out of their muscle tissue you might take them for an anorexic).

Those people are storing fat because they are not storing something else. And if they are storing it as something else, there are natural metabolic feedback cycles that make it difficult to add more weight.

So something has broken those feedback cycles.

Blogger Jakeithus July 25, 2017 11:52 AM  

I don't have nearly as much to add as many others posting here, except to say that I'm fully convinced sugar is responsible for nearly all of the excess weight plaguing our society. Giving up sweets for the month and a half of Lent this past year was enough for me to drop 8 pounds, with absolutely no other change in diet or exercise. I still ate bigger portions than I needed to, and snacked far more than was necessary, but I went from a weight I really wasnt happy at to something more reasonable with almost no effort.

That's not quite true I guess, as giving up sugar quickly showed me what true cravings really felt like, and it made it clear how often I would turn to sugar for a mental or emotional energy boost.

Anonymous Stickwick July 25, 2017 11:53 AM  

kfg is the designated "ACTUALLY" guy in today's comments.

Anonymous kfg July 25, 2017 11:57 AM  

"kfg is the designated "ACTUALLY" guy in today's comments."

No argument. Guilty as charged.

Blogger Cail Corishev July 25, 2017 12:30 PM  

Only thing I regret by Barry Sears, originator of the Zone system, is his endorsement of soy.

I can't speak for Sears, but I think sometimes that happens because as soon as you come out with a diet, you get swarmed with demands for a vegetarian version. Low-carb without meat is damn near impossible, and if you take out eggs and dairy too, as some freaks do, you're pretty much down to soy as the only low-carb protein source to be had.

So instead of just saying, "Look, you can't do this without animal products. If you want to lose weight and/or get healthy, give up the hippie vegan crap and get with the program," they resort to soy.

Anonymous RobJ July 25, 2017 12:35 PM  

@95 I just finished reading Why We Get Fat and What to Do About It by Gary Taubes, after reading The Case Against Sugar, also by Taubes. In Why We Get Fat, he argues that it's more accurate to say that we eat too much because we are fat, because insulin prioritizes maintaining fat above nearly all else. When we eat carbohydrate-loaded food, insulin comes out in force and keeps our fat cells off-limits for energy, so we have to overeat to maintain the more important organs in our fat bodies.

It sounds counterintuitive, given what we've been told for decades by the government, but another way of saying it is that our hormones have a strong effect on how our bodies process food. Children bathing in growth hormones eat a lot because they need to grow. Adults, and now unfortunately a lot of children, who are bathing in insulin hormones due to carb-loaded diets, eat a lot because they are fat.

Taubes freely admits that he has a strong point of view, and also that he is not a medical expert, but he does a good job of explaining the reasons why we came to believe that "a calorie is just a calorie."

Anonymous patrick kelly July 25, 2017 12:45 PM  

FWIW:

Most of my life I didn't need to care much about diet and exercise, at least as far as maintaining a healthy weight goes.

The most I've ever weighed stripped was 132 lbs. (Yeah, I'm a skinny little guy, if I was training for MMA or something I would be a fly weight). Middle aged, at 132 lbs I was starting to get the spare tire an mud flaps.

About 10 years ago I decided to work on diet and exercise. What I have settled into is a combination of early morning workouts before breakfast (discovered this a "fasted workout" or some other trendy name for it), and the keto-genic diet.

I'm not super strict with the diet, but after analyzing my optimum diet and calories with one of the online calculators, I discovered I was eating about 400 more carb calories in dessert and beer than ideal a day.

Just cutting out most dessert and beer made a big difference, and further avoidance of bread and anything with added sugar helps even more. My mental focus and endurance has improved along with a bit of tightening in the gut.

As others mentioned, I also discovered it takes greater effort to over eat and gorge on bacon, cheese, cream etc. than bread and pasta. The carbs put you into a pleasant, sleepy state, the fat and protein not so much, heh.

Orthodox Christian fasting discipline creates a challenge. You can fill up on guacamole, coconut based food, nuts and shell fish etc., but I choose to eat a lot less on those days, but I rarely do a complete fast from any food for long periods of time.

Blogger Cail Corishev July 25, 2017 12:45 PM  

how often I would turn to sugar for a mental or emotional energy boost.

In James Lileks's collection of old advertising, he has a few that promote sugar to dieting women who are low on energy, by saying things like, "It'll give you energy that lasts all day, for only 20 calories per teaspoon!" Yes, sugar was being promoted as a low-calorie diet food in the mid-20th century.

But they were putting an extra teaspoon of it in their coffee. They weren't eating Chocolate Frosted Sugar Bombs with skim milk and Pop-Tarts for breakfast. It took a while for the amount of sugar/carbs to increase to today's levels, and for so much of it to become refined. I'm no fan of the "complex carohydrate" mantra, but it's true that when most carbs were "complex" over a century ago -- whole grains, cane sugar (no HFCS), potatoes, and the like -- there was no obesity epidemic, despite people eating a lot of bread and other starches.

If you ate that way your whole life, like they did, you'd probably be fine. It's too bad you can't get healthy by eating that way once you're already fat and your metabolism is messed up, because you can't even tolerate those "good" carbs then.

Anonymous TS July 25, 2017 12:50 PM  

"Read the Amazon review for "Sugar Free Gummy Bears". That's Xylitol at work. And as someone already pointed out, it's poisonous to dogs, so not worth having around even if you don't mind what it does to your digestive system."

Thanks. Though I am particular to Stevita.

Anonymous TS July 25, 2017 1:08 PM  

VoxTube

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wc18xt5wQnk

Anonymous Avalanche July 25, 2017 1:15 PM  

@81 "If Atkins had been obese, it would only prove that he couldn't stick to a diet that worked,"

He wasn't obese, there are pix of him shortly before he cracked his skull on the curb and went into a coma -- and and ICU nurse posted:
"Usually, comatose patients will gain weight, but this is "water weight". They swell up like toads. Even with the use of diuretics, this shifting of fluids is almost inevitable. This is why we weigh patients daily and calculate exactly what goes in vs what goes out."

Plus, in the cases of brain injury, they pump the patient full of steroids, trying to keep the brain swelling down -- surely you've all seen "moon face" -- one of the most visible 'signs' of steroid caused water weight gain.

Atkins was NO overweight when he slipped on ice and hit the curb... But -- oh! What a surprise! The MSM (and medical orthodoxy!!) published fake news!

Anonymous Avalanche July 25, 2017 1:21 PM  

@85 " high fructose corn syrup. Your liver has to work almost as hard to process it"

And the whole "fructose" doesn't raise your blood sugar? Sure, but the (poor, tired, old) liver turns in into TRIGLYCERIDES!! And what is the strongest/best indicator of heart disease? NOT cholesterol levels, but the ratio between trigs and LDL!

Jimmie Moore -- who does a great podcast (Livin' La Vida Low Carb), and has several good books on low carb and cholesterol -- says: knowing your "total cholesterol" number is like when you ask someone what was the score of a baseball game and someone answers: "the score was 27." NO USE!

You have to self-educate, cause your doctor either doesn't know or doesn't have time to educate you! (A study showed that the AVERAGE time it takes the latest medical information to reach your local GP/internist is SEVENTEEN YEARS! (Which means half of them take LONGER!)

Anonymous Avalanche July 25, 2017 1:33 PM  

@88 "sugar tastes sweet ..., so yes, sugar is the problem. It's possible that artificial sweeteners are also a problem..."

The thing most folks don't realize is that carbs (wheat/corn/soy carbs, not so much vegetable carbs; but some of them too) are converted in the gut INTO blood sugar! SAME glucose as after drinking sugar! The body does NOT differentiate between glucose from sugar and glucose from wheat -- it's ALL sugar! So, the whole insulin cascade and etc. etc. occurs after wheat!

Mike Eades (sorry to ref him again, I really like his stuff) points out somewhere that your blood sugar (serum) level of glucose is supposed to be about 1 tsp total. After a big-old plate of pasta, your gut pours nearly one CUP of glucose into your serum, and your body goes into hysterical overdrive (because the high sugar is directly damaging) to pump out insulin and do something with all that sugar!

Mostly, if it can, it throws it into liver and muscle cells (IF they're empty of glycogen; mostly they're not); next it tries to force it into fat cells (IF they haven't become too insulin resistant to let the sugar in); and finally, despite your body trying to pee it out, it just takes the damage... things like tears in the lining of our blood vessels (which LDL then comes to try to fix, and sometimes slips through the cut and creates plaques!) or into our eyeballs where it damages your retina, or it overloads the poor liver (again!) and you end up with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease...

Wheat (corn, soy) is SEEDS -- and seeds are food for birds, not mammals! Eating straight wheat makes us sick (we're not birds!); eating 'processed' wheat (made edible by grinding or cooking) makes us sicker!

Anonymous Avalanche July 25, 2017 1:36 PM  

@95 "People get fat by consuming more calories than their body uses (over a period of time). Whether that involves an excess of calories from fat or carbohydrates isn't very important, but it's the fat that one consumes that will be stored in the fat cells."

Idiot troll.

Anonymous patrick kelly July 25, 2017 1:44 PM  

People get fat by consuming calories *that are metabolized by their body into fat*. Not all calories are identical in this process. Fat does not go direct from intestines to your gut as fat. Sugar doesn't either. There are processes that happen between, and these vary from person to person, body to body.

Anonymous Iron Spartan July 25, 2017 2:14 PM  

Only in today's world of "who are you going to believe, the Government or your lying eyes" does the idea that eating a diet based on sugar (starches) being bad and protein based diets being good seem revolutionary.

Anonymous kfg July 25, 2017 3:03 PM  

"People get fat by consuming calories *that are metabolized by their body into fat*. Not all calories are identical in this process."

Prima: Home Depot, how may I help you?
Secundus: I'm going to build a doghouse. I'd like to order 25,000 kilocalories.

Anonymous Anonymous July 25, 2017 3:23 PM  

The fructose and liver story is BS. The whole liver theory is based on genomic database linkages (which is mostly made up stories to fit hypothesis from bad and unconected data). Sugars provide feedback which suppresses appetite, artifitial sweeteners have a two-fold effect, they make you hungry and no appetite feedback and they drive insulin from your blood so you stay hungry and get hungrier. I know very few people will believe this but the simplest answer is usually the right answer. When were artifitial sweeteners introduced and when did a larger portion of the population start to get fat. There is a cycle AS's dont satify apetite so your alway hungry and so you eat more. AS's are a multi-billion dollar industry, you think there might be an incentive to overlook the obvious. The data is there for anyone to sort out.

VFM42

Blogger Johnny July 25, 2017 3:34 PM  

Owing to surgery I spent some time in a rehab center for people with mobility issues. With loss of mobility it is very easy to gain weight, and not uncommonly these people blimp out, either aggravating their mobility problem or making it impossible to get better even with therapy.

Now I don't believe we should force people to diet or control weight gain if they don't want to, but it would seem to me that the medical community should at least have an obligation to bring it up. Make people aware so they make a choice instead of just letting it happen.

The facility I was in was well funded with lots of resources, and nobody ever said anything about weight gain to me or (to my knowledge) anybody else. Because a lot of the people had limits on what they could eat the food served was of considerable variety, but the situation actively discouraged any sort of ration control.

Anonymous kfg July 25, 2017 3:37 PM  

"When were artifitial sweeteners introduced . . ."

To the mass market in significant quantities, during WWI, although they had been on the market for decades before that.

" . . .and when did a larger portion of the population start to get fat."

1980.

Question of my own: Why are so many of the people who are now so fat people who eschew artificial sweetners?

Blogger Johnny July 25, 2017 3:41 PM  

A lot of people like the idea of limiting calories, but they don't like feeling hungry. The industry solution often is to sneak calories in. It is instructive to read labels, or just plain notice how often otherwise healthy food is doctored up with rapid digesting calories, usually sugar or fat. Not uncommonly the added ingredients dominate the calories in the product.

Anonymous Anonymous July 25, 2017 4:03 PM  

" . . .and when did a larger portion of the population start to get fat."

1980.

in 1982, Diet Coke quickly replaced Tab as the Coca-Cola Company's most popular diet cola, although Tab still retained a loyal following. Approximately 3 million cases were sold in the United States in 2008.

Question of my own: Why are so many of the people who are now so fat people who eschew artificial sweetners?

They lie and "3 million cases were sold in the United States in 2008. " Somebodies drinkin the stuff.

VFM42

Blogger CM July 25, 2017 4:09 PM  

--If you ate that way your whole life, like they did, you'd probably be fine. It's too bad you can't get healthy by eating that way once you're already fat and your metabolism is messed up, because you can't even tolerate those "good" carbs then.--

I'm currently working my way through Atkins (10 lbs down) and have thought of doing something like that when I am done.

A typical homesteader would go through 1 5lb bag of sugar in a year for a whole family (gonna take the Ingalls family wasn't atypical). White flour was also a luxury. I wonder what cooking from scratch with those limits would have on a family.

Blogger CM July 25, 2017 4:15 PM  

--There are processes that happen between, and these vary from person to person, body to body.--

Usually differing by highly sensitive hormonal processes that seem to respond to almost any external stimuli... like sunlight, stress, exercise, sleep, and what exactly it is you ate today.

Blogger CM July 25, 2017 4:23 PM  

--Wheat (corn, soy) is SEEDS -- and seeds are food for birds, not mammals! Eating straight wheat makes us sick (we're not birds!); eating 'processed' wheat (made edible by grinding or cooking) makes us sicker!--

I don't know about this.

Yes, certain issues arise in how we currently consume these products, but I am not convinced by this argument that these foods, in unadulterated form or coarsely processed, are not meant for human consumption.

Anonymous DirkH July 25, 2017 4:34 PM  

What, a hundred comments in and nobody mentioned Ansel Keys and his fraudulent Seven Countries study (he erased 20 countries so that the remaining seven showed a nice correlation between animal fat consumption and heart attacks).
1950ies. Procter and Gamble just had created a plant oil concoction liberally treated with hydrogen that they needed to pump into the market so they had government chief nutritian Keys vilify lard and butter.

You know what's in MY fridge. Grass fed butter. And, I *DO* use Sesame oil, Olive Oil (cold pressed) and Linseed oil (cold pressed), to have a variety of fatty acids, but mostly, it's butter for me.

I've been normal weight my entire life. I'm older than Vox. I don't work out. Just a little cycling.

Blogger Cail Corishev July 25, 2017 4:39 PM  

I'm currently working my way through Atkins (10 lbs down) and have thought of doing something like that when I am done.

For what it's worth, I can eat quite a bit of potatoes, lima beans, and sweet corn fresh from the garden, without gaining weight. It's not until I start mixing in grains and processed foods that I start gaining again. But that's bound to vary.

I think we're learning that some of the damage done by modern foodstuffs is permanent, so a Little House diet may not work for many people today. When you get fat, you're not just filling up with stored fat. Your body changes in ways that affect how it works, and losing the weight doesn't necessarily reverse all of it.

Anonymous johnc July 25, 2017 4:47 PM  

@123 People get fat by consuming calories *that are metabolized by their body into fat*.

This is true but those are almost always fat calories in just about any ordinary human diet scenario. De novo lipogenesis of carbs is not a significant contributor in humans, because it's a very inefficient process. (About a third of the calories are lost just in the conversion.)

Eucaloric replacement of dietary fat by CHO does not induce hepatic DNL to any substantial degree. Similarly, addition of CHO to a mixed diet does not increase hepatic DNL to quantitatively important levels, as long as CHO energy intake remains less than total energy expenditure (TEE). Instead, dietary CHO replaces fat in the whole-body fuel mixture, even in the post-absorptive state. Body fat is thereby accrued, but the pathway of DNL is not traversed; instead, a coordinated set of metabolic adaptations, including resistance of hepatic glucose production to suppression by insulin, occurs that allows CHO oxidation to increase and match CHO intake. Only when CHO energy intake exceeds TEE does DNL in liver or adipose tissue contribute significantly to the whole-body energy economy. It is concluded that DNL is not the pathway of first resort for added dietary CHO, in humans. Under most dietary conditions, the two major macronutrient energy sources (CHO and fat) are therefore not interconvertible currencies;

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10365981

Interestingly, when surplus food is available, excess carbohydrate generally is oxidized rather than converted to fatty acids by DNL (3). The oxidation of excess dietary carbohydrate in preference to dietary fat is energetically efficient (i.e., it consumes less ATP per gram of lipid stored) but may exacerbate the propensity for obesity when food is plentiful. In conjunction with increased carbohydrate oxidation during high-carbohydrate/high-fat feeding, conversion of carbohydrate to fatty acids is decreased by downregulation of DNL in adipose tissue (4).

http://www.asbmb.org/asbmbtoday/asbmbtoday_article.aspx?id=15872

@122 Idiot troll.

See above.

Blogger Natalie July 25, 2017 4:57 PM  

If you look at something like Nourishing Traditions you'll see that many "bad" foods are much better when fermented or eaten with fermented foods - grains being no exception. A sourdough that takes 8+ hours for the first rise is (supposedly) much more digestible than your typical loaf made with fast acting yeast.

I'm of the "eat the food" mentality myself. Barring particular health issues I'd rather eat some of everything than try to guess what foods I shouldn't be eating. OTOH, I'm constantly either pregnant or lactating, so eating a pretty wide variety of foods is a high priority.

Blogger lowercaseb July 25, 2017 5:24 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Anonymous kfg July 25, 2017 5:26 PM  

" . . .many "bad" foods are much better when fermented . . ."

The crock you ferment the food in is essentially an artificial rumen. We're not cows, but we can emulate the process by which they turn the indigestible into something they can derive nutrition from.

Blogger lowercaseb July 25, 2017 5:35 PM  

I will spare folks the details unless you really want them...but a high fat/high protein diet combined with intermittent fasting and regular lifting (nothing impressive yet) has caused me to lose 40 pounds since 4/15. The Battle of Berkeley made me make a change, and it is working. This isn't a diet anymore. This is a lifestyle change. I thought I would miss sweets, but for some reason I don't.

Get fit...get strong. I was weak...I'm still fat, but that will not be the case by the end of this year.

Blogger CM July 25, 2017 5:54 PM  

#136 Johnc -

No one has denied that carbs burn easily. That is not in dispute.

But carbs are like mess my family grnerates in a day. If I clean, starting with the easily accessible "new mess", depending on how much new work was created, I may or may not get to the old mess. If my kids continuously generate more mess than I can clean in a day, I have a huge disaster. And some days, cleaning just doesn't happen.

Carbs are easy energy, but only good if you need it. Most people, for most of the day, absolutely do not need ready energy. Anything not used before the end of the insulin cycle is fat to be used when you deplete your next cycle of readily-accessible carbs.

People with fat do not need readily accessible carbs for energy. They need to burn energy that they stored. Much the same way I need to send my kids and husband to the in laws so I can deep clean my house.

Anonymous patrick kelly July 25, 2017 6:32 PM  

" De novo lipogenesis of carbs is not a significant contributor in humans, because it's a very inefficient process. (About a third of the calories are lost just in the conversion.)"

Uh, read up on how consumed fat becomes fat in your body. That process is not very efficient either. (hint: Fat does not go directly from intestines to body fat)

Anonymous johnc July 25, 2017 6:58 PM  

@141

Agreed. It's all about energy balance. It's the only point I'm making.

The current low-carb diet fads are based on two myths:

1) Carbs turn into fat. (They don't.)
2) The fat stored on your body did not come from the fat you consumed. (It did.)

In the aggregate, weight loss comes down to caloric restriction. All of the diets that "work" are ones that ultimately trick people to eat less.

There's nothing wrong with cutting carbs... I'm just saying people should understand that it works because you're cutting calories. One can also cut fat calories if he prefers.

Anonymous Daniel H July 25, 2017 7:14 PM  

It's my observation that soccer players have the best physiques of any athletes, even better than that of sprinters. Most soccer players could do part time work as male models, their physique and condition is that good.

I understand that soccer players don't work out or exercise, they just play the came. Continuous short, intense sprints, exertion and movement of compound muscular systems seems to do the trick. I can recall seeing only one pudgy soccer player every. The dude played for the Colombian national team a few years back and he looked like a baseball pitcher, but, boy, could he play the game. Good sport to get into when one is young, but I would ban head shots for those below the professional rank. Can't be too careful with the cranium.

Anonymous Korbin Ransley July 25, 2017 7:35 PM  

Thank you, great article. I was a little taken aback to read "the science was wrong". That phrase along with lines like "now we know" or "we now know" really stand out when coming from somebody who appears to be smart and educated, and at the same time seems friendly to the establishment narrative or policies.

I'm not saying folks put themselves out there or be indiscreet. But if you know better and can't help at least don't hurt people seeking and speaking truth, or trying to save the west.

Maybe being a believer in the supernatural, and a bit of a conspiracy guy makes some unconvincing "expert sources" sound like the elite are just having trouble hiding the truth.

Blogger CM July 25, 2017 8:25 PM  

johnc wrote:@141

Agreed. It's all about energy balance. It's the only point I'm making.

The current low-carb diet fads are based on two myths:

1) Carbs turn into fat. (They don't.)


YES, They DO. If all I ate was carbs, if it was more than I need, it turns to fat. Readily Accessible means you need to use them before the storage cycle is complete. If I sit on the couch and eat a snickers, continuing to sit on the couch, when the insulin cycle is complete, it is turned to fat.

The nature of our modern lifestyles and the high carb diet means we consume far more carbs than we can burn before they are stored away. And no, that has nothing to do with how many calories you consumed in a day, but rather how much you consume/burn in an insulin phase.

Because insulin prevents fat burning, you MUST prevent yourself from eating after the insulin phase ends in order to burn fat. With the typical low calorie/high carb/low fat diet, for an obese person, that is nearly impossible to do because low blood sugar results in hunger, cravings, and energy loss. But also, the obese person has hormonal balance issues as well, resulting in abnormal insulin increases and extreme drops that only serve to exacerbate the issue.

A diet that focuses on stabilizing blood sugars, regulating insulin, and satisfies hunger long term and reduces cravings is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY.



2) The fat stored on your body did not come from the fat you consumed. (It did.)

It is the same with carbs... eat more than you burn, it gets stored. But unlike carbs whose only purpose is ready energy, fat is used in maintaining brain health. There are studies that show that people who are low in dietary cholesterol have an increased risk of depression and other mental health disorders.

So no, dietary fat is not primarily for ready energy. But for the obese person (who MUST use the excess stored fat, dietary fat has other effects on different hormones regulating appetite and cravings. It produces feelings of satisfaction and fullness with very small amounts. 250 calories of fat will keep me far more full for longer than tne Snickers bar would, actually enabling the dieting obese person to burn the excess fat.


In the aggregate, weight loss comes down to caloric restriction. All of the diets that "work" are ones that ultimately trick people to eat less.

There's nothing wrong with cutting carbs... I'm just saying people should understand that it works because you're cutting calories. One can also cut fat calories if he prefers.


In conclusion, modern high carb/low carb diets facilitate a cycle of feeding and insulin responses that promote hunger and cravings while limiting the dietary means to promote brain health.

A fit and active person is better with moderate fat and moderate carb intake than low fat/high carb. It fuels an active lifestyle while providing the means for satisfaction and brain health.

A fat person requires something to break the cycle to start burning stored fat. Low carb/High fat provides that.

Regardless, low fat/high carb was misguided at best and a huge detriment to EVERYONE.

Anonymous Jack July 25, 2017 8:38 PM  

"There are studies that show that people who are low in dietary cholesterol have an increased risk of depression and other mental health disorders."

Rates of depression and mental illness have skyrocketed since the introduction of the low-fat diet ideal. But I'm sure that's just a coincidence.

Med sale today, folks. Buy an anti-obesity med, get yer anti-depressant half price. Get 'em now, they're going fast.

Blogger Cail Corishev July 25, 2017 9:14 PM  

Regardless, low fat/high carb was misguided at best and a huge detriment to EVERYONE.

Right. The best thing you can say for it is that some people have the genes to stay ahead of it, metabolically speaking. Although obesity isn't the only harmful thing it does; we have thin people dying earlier than they probably should too.

Anonymous johnc July 25, 2017 9:41 PM  

@146

Maybe we're talking past each other here...?

The process of taking excess carbs and storing them as fat is called de novo lipogenesis and is very, very, very rare in humans. You need a real wacko, extreme diet to make that happen to any significant degree. It just doesn't happen.

Insulin is not a barrier to fat loss when in a caloric deficit. You eat carbs (or protein) and insulin will rise, lipolysis shuts off and any fat consumed with that meal will be stored in fat tissue. Then as the hours go on insulin will decrease and eventually lipolysis will resume and fat will be extracted from fat cells and used for energy. Over the course of the entire day (including sleep time) the net fat storage vs. removal will determine if one is gaining fat or losing it. And that is almost entirely driven by energy balance (CICO).

I'm surprised that you find that fat provides a feeling of fullness with "small amounts". Fat is pretty calorically-dense with practically no bulk. Two tablespoons of olive oil is 250 calories. Would that really fill you up? You would have to do a two-mile run to burn that off. You would have to eat five large oranges to get 250 calories, and it comes with a lot of bulk. That has a better chance of filling you up. How many table spoons of olive oil would you need to down until you felt full?

Again, I'm not saying that one shouldn't cut carbs when dieting. It can be an easy way to reduce calories. But so can restricting fat, which is very calorie dense.

Blogger CM July 25, 2017 10:32 PM  

--I'm surprised that you find that fat provides a feeling of fullness with "small amounts". Fat is pretty calorically-dense with practically no bulk. Two tablespoons of olive oil is 250 calories. Would that really fill you up? You would have to do a two-mile run to burn that off. You would have to eat five large oranges to get 250 calories, and it comes with a lot of bulk. That has a better chance of filling you up. How many table spoons of olive oil would you need to down until you felt full?--

How about comparing the snickers bar to a salad with 1 tbl of full fat dressing, some lean protein - what would ACTUALLY be eaten in a low carb/high fat diet. 250 calories (possibly less).

When you boil the whole argument down to calories in/calories out, you miss a huge aspect of diet and nutrition that promotes health, well being, and metabolism.

Carbs are JUST energy. They do nothing for you except many unprocessed carbs are accompanied by minerals and nutrients (apples, broccoli). No one here is talking about not eating that in this conversation (for me, yeah... eating the apple is not for *right now*).

The food industry is not comprised of only unprocessed foods. Do you know how hard it was to find full fat yogurt? Then greek yogurt popped its head up. Once it was popular, you couldn't find full fat yogurt AGAIN. Now, with the new research, full fat options are coming out.

Full fat yogurt > low fat yogurt.

I thought like you a long time ago. My parents kept trying to get me to do low carb and I refused. I went to the gym everyday, counted calories, tried to withstand cravings that felt like something was wrong in my brain (felt like an itch you can't scratch). The only thing that has helped me is low carb diets. Same for many here. My "cravings" feel more normal, where i can exercise self control without feeling like I'm going insane. Since puberty, I have gained 100 lbs. There is something wrong with my hormones. The best help for that is more fat. Losing the carbs seems like a reasonable price for that.

All the research on low carb/high fat backs up my own testimony and that of everyone here. So do I believe you or my lying eyes?

Anonymous kfg July 25, 2017 11:00 PM  

"I'm surprised that you find that fat provides a feeling of fullness with "small amounts"."

I believe what she means is "satiety." Fullness is one of the satiety signals, but it isn't the only one. One can be stuffed to the gills and still be ravenous, or go hours on an empty stomach with no thought of feeding.

Blogger Cail Corishev July 25, 2017 11:18 PM  

Yes, "fullness" isn't about literally having your stomach full, unless you're really stuffed. That misconception is what led people to think drinking lots of water would help you lose weight, because your stomach would be full, preventing hunger, right? Nope, doesn't work that way. Drink water until your stomach hurts; you'll still get hungry.

Eat a stick of butter. It's small, shouldn't be very filling, right? Now eat a couple heads of lettuce. See which one is more filling, and in which case your hunger returns soonest.

One reason fats and proteins are more filling is that part of their digestion process takes place in the stomach, so they have to stop off there for a while. Carbs begin breaking down in the mouth, due to enzymes in saliva, but nothing has to happen to them in the stomach, so they cruise right on through to the intenstine, making room for more.

Blogger CM July 25, 2017 11:21 PM  

--I believe what she means is "satiety." Fullness is one of the satiety signals, but it isn't the only one. One can be stuffed to the gills and still be ravenous, or go hours on an empty stomach with no thought of feeding.--

Thank you. My response did include both so as to differentiate but I may have gotten sloppier the more I wrote.

After my last comment, though, I realized he is conflating fiber with sugars. Though both are called "carbs" because of their structure, fiber doesn't metabolize into energy. While an orange is a higher sugar fruit, it also has very high fiber. It creates fullness without satiety.

Fiber creates bulk, does not affect blood sugar, and reduces the metabolic energy consumed in fat and protein.

But low carb diets are not anti-fiber.

They are anti-sugar in so much as over-consumption.

I get the idea he actually doesn't look into low carb/high fat outside of regurgitated talking points from critics.

Blogger Zeroh Tollrants July 26, 2017 1:02 AM  

I before E, except after C.

In what language does one add several spaces before a question mark?

Anonymous Bruce July 26, 2017 8:29 AM  

My recent experience agrees with what johnc is saying. I found myself at 205 and about 28% bodyfat. Online calorie calculators indicate my caloric needs are about 2500-2800 calories/day for my age/weight. I started eating 2200 per day (550 calories over 4 meals). I have stuck with eating about 30 grams of protein per meal but have varied how much of my remaining calories are fat vs. carbs (caveat: I've never gone very low fat). It hasn't made a difference. Either way, I am steadily losing about a pound a week. Most of my loss is fat not muscle (my "big" lifts e.g. squat, deadlift, benchpress have decreased only slightly--maybe 10-20 lbs). I basically just followed this guy's advice: http://scoobysworkshop.com/gain-muscle-lose-fat/


I agree with what VD wrote in the original post - "just reasonable exercise combined with a modicum of self-discipline." If Americans just ate three squares a day (lay off the snacking!) and exercised a bit, we wouldn't be fat.

Anonymous dystonia July 26, 2017 11:08 AM  

The war-time rationing in Britain allotted 3000kcals daily for adults, and people didn't get fat off that. Nowadays, the recommendation is 2000kcal.

While processed food and more sedentary lifestyles are obvious culprits, one major change less often taken into account is the prevalence these days of central heating. Having to scrape the ice off the insides of the windows in the morning alongside laying the fire is going to burn more calories than living in a home kept at sub-tropical temperatures. Habituating to warmth, and thus wearing heavy clothing in even mild weather, is going to lead to generally sluggish metabolism all round.

Anonymous Avalanche July 26, 2017 11:33 AM  

@133 "I am not convinced by this argument that these foods, in unadulterated form or coarsely processed, are not meant for human consumption."

Go back as far into human/hominid (pre-) history as you can find: "we" didn't eat 'grass seeds' until "we" learned to grind and cook. (Don't) go try to eat raw unprocessed wheat and see how well you (don't!) do. Not "our' foodstuffs.

Anonymous Avalanche July 26, 2017 11:42 AM  

@141 "People with fat do not need readily accessible carbs for energy. They need to burn energy that they stored."

And the problem for very many fat people is: their bodies have gotten (had to get) SO 'out-of-healthy-balance' in regards to insulin, that 'eaten food energy' gets stuffed into fat cells, but the high insulin prevents it from coming back out to be USED as energy. Most fat people are not fat because "they're lazy gluttons," but because their insulin will not let their bodies pull out and USE the energy stored in their fat cells -- so their bodies, desperate for energy, ramp up the hunger. Biochemistry, not psychological weakness.

And the TYPE of food ingested makes a huge difference: your body (not a closed system!) metabolizes different nutrients differently.

(Really, if you want to avoid being an internet troll about this stuff, go read Taubes' Good Calories Bad Calories -- he's got several hundred pages of the actual medical refs for his positions! It is 100% NOT a waste of your time, no matter your weight; it's health info, not diet info!)

Anonymous c matt July 26, 2017 11:52 AM  

I basically follow VD's plan - hard to get fat playing soccer twice a week. I imagine basketball would have the same effect. I could never really get into running just for running's sake, but more power to those who can. That, and eat reasonable proportions and you should be ok. It won't turn you into Thor, but it should keep you from becoming Jabba the Hutt. And yes, refined sugar is likely poison (and addictive). Don't know if the alternatives are much better.

Anonymous Avalanche July 26, 2017 12:07 PM  

@149 Then as the hours go on insulin will decrease and eventually lipolysis will resume and fat will be extracted from fat cells and used for energy."

UNLESS you are insulin resistant,as millions of folks are (type 2 diabetes, ever heard of it?), in which case, the insulin stays HIGH and the fat cells will not (or only barely) give up that energy.

One problem I always see in all the health and diet and lifestyle discussions is that very few people, no matter how educated (or mis-educated) actually bother to differentiate between folks who are healthy and thin and whose hormonal systems work as designed, and those of us old or fatter or with broken ... various systems or parts of systems: thyroid, adrenals, pancreas, pituitary, etc. etc.

Yes, for the most part, younger thinner, healthier folks -- folks who have not yet damaged some or several bodily systems (although now there are rising numbers of type 2 diabetic *infants*: bet they are not lazy gluttons?) can "operate in as-designed" condition. Folks whose systems have already been 'damaged' (soy damages thyroid function; stress and chemicals damage adrenal function; high carb/sugar diets damage the pancreas), not-so-much! Genetic susceptibility opens the door for any of these.

Describing how a system works in an undamaged body helps absolutely no one with type 2 diabetes, or already high weight or a screwed-up thyroid. And since it leads folks to imply or say to: "CLEARLY you're just a lazy glutton!" (often followed by "here's an anti-depressant") -- it goes beyond just wrong into actively unhelpful.

Do I WISH I had not screwed my thyroid as a young 'soy-hotdog' eater? You bet! Does that mean my body operates in 'as-designed' condition? Uh, no. No, it does not. My type 1 diabetic nephew? His system was damaged before he ever got off the factory line! So telling folks how a 'fresh off the factory line' body SHOULD do it does not one damned thing for their(our) health!

If the as-made systems work for you -- great, you're lucky, watch what you eat anyway -- cause so did MINE when I was young! So did my nephew's when he was a baby. {shrug} Med school textbooks give you perfect (or, more usually, average) operation ('as-designed'). Would that it were so easy in the real world!

Anonymous Avalanche July 26, 2017 12:17 PM  

#150 "Insulin is not a barrier to fat loss when in a caloric deficit. "

Oh and you must have missed the studies (granted, with rats, not people) where rats bred to lay on fat even when fed "caloric deficit" amounts actually starved to DEATH while still obese. OOPS.

Granted, also, in humans it would be an (insane) outlier who was that non-reactive to starvation (or even just caloric deficit). But, it's never as easy for folks with problems (Gary Taubes describes (and provides refs for) reports where obese mothers would bring in their actually starving children: it was NOT 'lazy glutton' mothers who were grabbing food out of the mouths of their babes in order to be fat.)

So, your statement is either incomplete, or applies to only a subsection of the human population to whom you do not address your ... understandings...

Anonymous kfg July 26, 2017 1:10 PM  

@Bruce:

Sure, energy is the master control of weight. That people are overeating isn't in question. The question is why are they overeating?

Something to think about: forced feeding is one of the ancient, traditional forms of torture.

In a smoothly running metabolism there comes a point where food is viewed with extreme revulsion, yet today large numbers of the population have suddenly started eating with apparent insatiability.

It isn't normal. Something has gone wrong. What?

Anonymous Bruce July 26, 2017 3:31 PM  

Kfg,
I have always assumed it is simply wealth/decadence/because-they-can. Cheap, highly caloric, highly palatable food. E.g. peanut M&Ms taste great and they’re cheap.

Anonymous Ominous Cowherd July 27, 2017 12:51 AM  

johnc wrote:The process of taking excess carbs and storing them as fat is called de novo lipogenesis and is very, very, very rare in humans. You need a real wacko, extreme diet to make that happen to any significant degree. It just doesn't happen.

So, if I get the mamority of my calories from protein and carbs, and eat just enough to prevent intense cravings, I'll never get fat? Bullshit.

You seem to be assuming that the body treats all calories the same. Again, bullshit. Bogus assumption means bogus results. Others have given details about how wrong you are, so I'll only add one thing to sum up your mistakes: bullshit.

Anonymous Mr. Rational July 27, 2017 3:06 AM  

fop wrote:when .gov offers you advice on how to live a happy healthy life, (eat low fat, go solar, buy a Chevy Volt, eat less beef, carpool to work, use less electricity, use less toilet paper, don't water your lawn) do the exact opposite.
Using less TP keeps your pipes cleaner.  Buying a Volt (or equivalent) damages Wahhabists.  Saving on electricity (or natural gas) saves you money; it's likely that you can do it without sacrificing benefits.  Evaluate these things on their own merits, not ideology.

Blogger Duke Norfolk July 27, 2017 8:31 AM  

I'm Not a Fascist. But My Sons Are. wrote:muh rotator cuff.

No, seriously, muh rotator cuff.


Yep, me too. Age 54.

Blogger Duke Norfolk July 27, 2017 8:56 AM  

I'll just leave this here.

https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/complete-guide-fasting-now-available/

Fasting. Look into it.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts