A Potentially Useful Weight Loss Tool?

Hat-tip to Sanjeev for finding this.  It might be helpful for those trying to lose weight in a more structured manner.    

Any time I see Hall's name, I can't help but be reminded of my good buddy Taubes.  He is one of those "smart young biophysicists at NIH" who kept trying to set Gary Taubes straight.  See Conservation of Energy -- Biophysicist Style , Gary Taubes Names Names.  In my opinion, Taubes deliberately misleads his audience on the works of Kevin Hall (and Carson Chow) when he claims that these two still agreed with him that insulin so fundamentally regulates fat mass the whole G3P thing is ultimately irrelevant.  For starters, the "can't store fat w/o carbs" used to be a key part of his hypothesis.  For another, Taubes is left with scrambled eggs all over his face (cue Frasier episode ending theme) about the G3P issue.  This is something when supposedly answering his critics, Taubes preferred ad hominem attacks on yours truly (I'm so confused!) than to address his Newsholme & Start problem.  

Taubes insists it's still all about the insulin though, and others will have you think you're at the mercy of your cortisol, leptin, thyroid, etc.  A problem here is that no doubt there are those who are legitimately genetically predisposed towards obesity in the mix of those afflicted in the course of this epidemic.  For these relatively few, their hormonal milieu is such that their basal metabolisms are unusually slow and their substrate oxidation rates and preferences dysfunctional, etc.   This can lead to increased energy intake due to an insatiable appetite or unconquerable fatigue. In this vein, the whole Eat Less Move More, ELMM, prescription may seem cruel (and ineffective) for this small proportion of the obese.  But, it does not invalidate the "tautology". And, frankly, it does not speak to those who have become obese (including myself) as part of the wave of the epidemic.   

I note that nowhere in this program is there a place to enter one's hormonal status.  This model is based on predictions obviously calculated from "average" data.  Do hormones come into play?  Sure.  And metabolic adaptations (reductions in RMR) are highly variable, but no doubt the simulator takes observed averages of this into account as well.   Still, basically *if* one can consistently control intake and deliberately maintain a degree of activity, the result will be reduced weight for good.  


Kindke said…
"Still, basically *if* one can consistently control intake and deliberately maintain a degree of activity, the result will be reduced weight for good."

National statistics put people who qualify for the *if* part at something like 5%? Maybe less.

According to that program I need 2800 calories to maintain my weight, my daily caloric consumption is more like 2200 currently, but I am currently weight stable, im not currently *loosing* as per the CICO theory. Actually anyday I eat higher on carbs than usual I quickly notice my waist feeling puffy and bloated and my trousers fitting tighter.

Im not doing any particular diet at the moment, just eating whatever I feel like (which im sad to say is significant junk food)

According to the program I would need to eat 1500 calories for 180 days to get to my proper weight. and my baseline caloric intake at my goal weight of 165lbs if 2450! lol! I eat less than that now and am weight stable.

And doing 1500 calories for 6 months would be a struggle except maybe on a ketogenic diet, with significant protein.

I always liken calorie restriction to holding your breath. At rest, you breath at a normal, calm rate, unconsciously I might add.

Can you hold your breath for 60 seconds? Yeh sure, I would bet most people can do that no problem. OK, so what happens at the end of the 60 seconds?

Does your breathing RESUME at its normal, calm pace afterwards? NO! Instead you find yourself puffing and panting furiously, and theres no *willpower* involved here, your body forces these actions upon you.
Anonymous said…
'And doing 1500 calories for 6 months would be a struggle except maybe on a ketogenic diet, with significant protein.

I always liken calorie restriction to holding your breath. At rest, you breath at a normal, calm rate, unconsciously I might add.'

Since this is a n=1 report, and I'm as much an n as anybody: the ketogenic diet, for me, like holding your breath. A true ketogenic diet, the kind used for treatment of epilepsy, for example, is extremely difficult.

If you don't believe calorie restriction will fix you right up, have some medical supervision or SOME kind of supervision, for that restriction. Go to Durham, NC, and sign on for Duke University's Rice Diet! Phase I is nothing but rice. Phase 2, MORE carbs are added and you get to eat fish once a week.

Will you lose weight? Sure. You will be eating fewer calories. Or maybe the key is that you are stuffed to the gills with carbs and THAT is what makes you lose a lot of weight.

Duffy Pratt said…
If you are eating a bunch of junk food, then why not stop eating junk food. You could eliminate that alone to restrict your calories further.

Also, going off low carb temporarily will cause bloating because the diuretic effect of low carb disappears. That extra weight you feel in your belly is there, but its just water. Go back to low carb and it will disappear just as quickly.
Galina L. said…
Yes , I remember practicing the rice diet before some events for a weight-loss emergency. During that happy time I didn't have too much to loose - around 10 -12 lb. It never lasted, of course. My doctor doesn't believe that any weight-loss may last. Period. He formed his opinion by practicing medicine and by reading some medical research.

It makes me understand better how it is difficult for us, people who don't want to give up on our body shapes, to deal with unwonted pounds. Probably, the answer is in the changing strategy from time to time. Probably, for people who can loose by starving themselves,it is a working approach to alternate it with VLC diet or even a short fat fast. It happens all the time that things useful for others don't work for you, and you is the only person who can find the way around it. I am truly grateful to all internet gurus for sharing their ideas, but it is all they can do for you.
Tonus said…
Calorie restriction works when you find the right amount, which is the amount that allows you to maintain an ideal weight without keeping you hungry or miserable. Many people still see "diet" as a temporary and severe restriction of calories that gets you down to a target weight, at which point you stop the diet. The results of "dieting" are predictable- once you stop, your weight will rebound when you return to your old eating habits.

I think that the people who successfully 'control intake and maintain a level of activity' are the ones who turn it into a lifestyle and not just an interlude. In doing so, they do not restrict calories to a level that they cannot maintain. I can eat a lot more food than I need to when I am not controlling my intake (even when I am eating mostly protein and fat). I can eat only as much as I need to when I do. Neither of those scenarios leaves me hungry or causes me to eventually require a greater intake. But the latter scenario means that I can maintain at a lower weight.

I've lost 30 pounds since February, and have stabilized at around 198-200 lbs since June. While I have not lost weight, I have continued to lose fat and become slimmer. Once or twice a month I have a cheat meal, though I find those less and less necessary these days. I manage my calories relatively carefully, but I eat if I am hungry. The biggest difference maker for me has been my approach and my mindset. Seeing these changes as permanent helps me to avoid doing things (like skipping meals or eating too little, or exercising too much) that will eventually lead me off the rails.

And I think that's the key. Focus on a permanent goal with some markers along the way, instead of treating a specific weight target as a finish line. When you reach a finish line, you stop running because the race is over. That approach doesn't work for maintaining a specific weight.
Diana said…
According to that app (unless I am doing something wrong), I should be eating over 2000 calories a day! Sorry, that ain't gonna happen unless I up my exercise levels considerably.

Re; 1500 calories a day, I dunno, I think that's quite reasonable. That's kind of my maintenance calorie allowance. Perhaps it will go up as I exercise more and my thyroid meds adjust to my lower weight.

"I think that the people who successfully 'control intake and maintain a level of activity' are the ones who turn it into a lifestyle and not just an interlude."


I think that the way I've lost 21 pounds is by losing it in little bursts here and there, by radically restricting caloric intake or radically increasing energy output (that is, working my ass off) and not gaining it back. I'm not a "1200 calories a day for 6 months" type. I'd die that way. I'd rather protein fast for 3 days or IF, or go on a brutal hike (1000 calories worked off!), and maintain those losses than lose a teeny bit every day.

Everyone is different, but the principle remains the same: calories count.
@ Tonus "I can eat a lot more food than I need to when I am not controlling my intake (even when I am eating mostly protein and fat). I can eat only as much as I need to when I do." Same here. My internal "you're full, stop eating" gauge just doesn't seem to work probably of its own accord, however my brain does so I use it to restrict my calories. You're right about finding the right balance so you can make it a permanent WOE rather than just a temporary diet. For me, that's been the whole "real food" thing, a la Robb Wolf or even Sisson (although I'm no longer buying his 150g "danger" limit for carb intake, but his overall recommendations seem solid, especially the fact he's pro "bigass" salads & other greenery). And yes, exercise. Not just weights, but the dreaded cardio, too - I try and workout at least 5-6 days a week b/c it's really worked for me in keeping the weight off.

@ evelyn - about the post with the booze calories & weight. when I lost my weight, I still drank - in my case, snooty biodynamic red wine which I pretty much had some every evening - and following a caloric -restricted plan, and the weight kept coming off. So when I read New Atkins & their "metabolic bully" stuff on alcohol, it didn't vibe with my own personal experience with actually losing weight, so I was glad you posted about that - at least now I know I'm not (that) nuts.
cwaiand said…
i think the main reason elmm is not serving people well is,the maintainence calorie setting is too high.my sister went to her diabetic doc ,they told her that her maintain calorie level was around 2400 a day.this is a completely sedentary 50 year old 5'6" women.they have her eating 1900 calories a day.couple that with not really knowing how many calories your taking in=failure.

i,m 6'1" and if i sit at the desk all day and do no activity,well my maintain amount is around 1800 calories.if i move and exercise it goes up a fair bit as i,m fairly muscular and burn alot moving about.i,ve found the differnce between moving and sitting also doesn,t jive with what i,ve read.

Galina L. said…
@ cwaiand
In my case, after many years of dieting often and exercising too much, ELEM just stooped working after I turned 45 years old. Sport injuries also started to happens more often.It is possible to speculate why it happened, but it looked like the perfect trap - with aging you have to move more and more in order to get your result, it follows to injury and reliance on the diet alone. I am so glad at that point LC allowed me to escape the trap and seriously cut my exercise routine to 3 hours or less of cardio a week. Just to be clear, I don't conciser a walking to be an exercise - it is a normal human activity. However, if I had to loose more fat, it wouldn't be enough. I hate when people are saying-"O, it is so easy, just eat less,exercise more ", or even- "just eat LC". It is never simple for most folks.
Muata said…
Tonus said, "The biggest difference maker for me has been my approach and my mindset."

I think if more folks realized that the major change is to the muscle in between their ears, they'd be farther along their way.

@Galina - Hey, walking is definitely a great exercise depending on how it's done. Strap on a 20lb vest and get a good pair of walking poles (www.walkingpoles.com), find a nice incline, and get to work. I can guarantee you that you'll never view walking as simply a "human activity" again ;)
Galina L. said…
I try to walk as much as I can because it is a natural human activity, I just reject the idea that some stroll around the block is considered as exercising.I think it is wrong to be either sedentary or exercising, and the importance of the walking in not being sedentary, but it is not an exercise that should be counted as such. My exercise version of walking exists and I practice it regularly when the weather is not hot in Florida. It is called hiking and performed at fast speed with heart rate monitor on inclined uneven surface.In past I was fullish enough to run. No ankle weights or heavy vests for most people after 45 especially if they did a lot of physical activity in their past - joint problems. I think people should be more concern about detrimental effect of exercise on their bodies and act accordingly. No weighted vests!!.
Kindke said…
Walking does nada, I work in a data centre that has computer rooms the size of football fields, a mandatory part of my job is huge amounts of walking every day, easily 5 miles +, but it makes jack all difference to my weight compared to the times im at home like when im off shift or on holidays.

for exercise to be worthwhile I truely believe that it needs to be intense enough to produce significant heart rate increase and breathing increase, and/or glycogen depleting.

For what its worth, in physics you see that the work done for a force that is perpendicular to the objects direction of travel is zero.

When your walking on a flat surface your movement is essentially perpendicular to the force acting on you ( the weight of your body being pulled down by gravity ) so in this sense work done is very very small. Its no wonder walking is one of the most efficient means of travel known.
Sanjeev said…
How could it possibly tell you how much you "should" eat - it's built on averages and theories.

I think It's meant to give a very general idea of how loss proceeds over time on average, and to lay the 3500 calories per pound idea to rest so people can have more realistic expectations.

Where are people getting the idea that it's a tool for NIH to get specific, prescriptive eating recommendations out there, rather than a bit of mythbusting
Muata said…
@Galina - I guess I should qualify my weighted vest suggestion. Of course this is something that you work up to, as with any progressive exercise. I wouldn't suggest that a morbidly obese person, or someone with joint issues, run out and buy a vest.

No, but I would suggest that as they lose weight, they consider replacing some of those pounds with a vest whose weight can be adjusted in 1lb increments. Even those with previous joint issues can slowly work into wearing a weighted vest as long as they add the 1lb weights slowly. I've been walking with a weighted vest for close to 5 years now, and I just started walking with a 30 lb one. Fortunately, taking my time has helped my 40 year-old joints make the transition easier.

Also, I'm not referring to hiking with the poles, but "exerstriding" (I know the name sounds corny but it was coined over 20 years ago) which is a modified version of Nordic Walking (think cross-country skiing). I would suggest that any obese person pick up a pair because it causes them to use their upper-body muscles as well as their lower, which burns more calories and is easier on the joints since one pole strikes at the same time as your foot causing the shock to be spread out over the body. An added benefit is that you can walk longer (distance or time) without feeling as exhausted than if you were walking without them.

@Kindke - I'd have to respectfully disagree with you. When I was taking HUGE swigs from the stevia sweetened LC Kool-Aid (at the start of my journey in 2003 weighing 300+ pounds), I lost @60 lbs. in 6 months with walking 3 miles a day (I lived on a pretty large block) 5-6 days a week. And, this accounted for 90% of the MM part of the ELMM dictum for me. In the beginning, all I could do was one mile before having to head back home.

Honestly, I think that walking, which Kindke pointed out is the most efficient means of travel for our species, gets a bad rap in the weight loss and maintenance circles. I've heard folks say that walking (or exercise for that matter) is good for maintaining losses but not for losing weight. Huh?

If the basics is ELMM, why couldn't walking fit the MM bill? Just as you would do with any exercise, you can manipulate how often, how long, and how intense you go at it. I just think that walking gets written off because most folks wanting to lose weight are so focused on "how intense" the exercise is without considering manipulating the duration and frequency.
Diana said…
@Muata, re: walking. It gets a bad rap because it ain't macho and almost anyone can do it. Walking is my main mode of exercise. Walking helped me lose 21 pounds. Sure, as you get fitter, you want more but walking is my standby. If I could hike every day, I would, but I can't.

Also, I can't run because my left ankle doesn't like it. Since I listen to my body, I don't run. So I walk briskly, and try to find as many hills as I can. Now I try to walk with hand weights, even if it looks a little infomercial-ish.

LOL, anything preceded by the prefix "exer" - reminds of a 1980s infomercial. I think of big hair and people doing really funny things.
Diana said…
"Walking does nada, I work in a data centre that has computer rooms the size of football fields, a mandatory part of my job is huge amounts of walking every day, easily 5 miles +, but it makes jack all difference to my weight compared to the times im at home like when im off shift or on holidays."

I suspect that when you are home and not walking 5+ miles per day, you are eating less.
Muata said…
@Diana - I hear you and couldn't agree more. And, I also think it gets a bad rap because it's slow and steady cardio, which is antithetical to the HIIT routines that's all the rage nowadays ... lol!

I can't run either, thanks to all my years of playing tennis when I was the size of a sumo wrestler. So, for my "cardio", walking is my best friend. Oh, and I do another very "un-manly" exercise almost everyday -- jumping jacks! Please don't tell the fellas, or they might revoke my "man card" .... ;)
Diana said…
Wow I didn't know jumping Jacks are thought of as wuss. Broscience is so unbelievably bizarre. This kind of reminds of the movie TITANIC, which became successful as a result of repeated teenage boy viewing. Then it got a rep as a chick flick and suddenly the movie had cooties.

Jacks are tuff and effective. Jumping jacks used to be a staple of good old Jack LaLanne. Anything Jack did is cool. US military training back in the day featured jacks. We stormed the beaches at Normandy and Iwo on jumping jack trained guys. And what about jumping rope? Jumping rope is for little girls - and boxers.
Galina L. said…
Walking is very important,the key to living more natural live-style, but it is not a cardio exercise. I had a very positive experience with 5 - 6 hours walking a day while spending 2 months in Moscow during summer. I felt more alive and very energetic.
CarbSane said…
@Galina: A "cardio exercise" is anything that gets your heart rate elevated for a sustained period of time. Walking at a certain pace, up hills, with weighted vest, etc. certainly can qualify.
CarbSane said…
@cwaiand: Excellent point. Also in LC circles, a 1500 cal/day diet is frequently mocked as "starvation" when it is not, and is actually maintenance calories for many.
@ evelyn "a 1500 cal/day diet is frequently mocked as "starvation" - funny, they have that in common with Durianrider from 30 Bananas. He mocks people for exactly the same reason.
Diana said…
1500 cals a day is maintenance for me, except when my mysterious metabolism decides to take the lemons of 2000 cals & turn it into the lemonade of weight loss, or sometimes 1000 calories into weight gain - (scratches head) -

Can someone answer a question that has been bugging me since I first read about the supposed distinction between aerobic and anaerobic exercise? This must have been about 25 years ago and I've been vainly trying to get an answer since.

When the aerobics crazy hit, every article I read disdainfully described anaerobic exercise as useless for weight loss so the hell with it. Nowadays, the rage is for HIIT. Forget about that. My question is, when you get to the anaerobic state, you are going through a period of aerobic exercise, non? and the period of recovery is aerobic, si?

My mental image is that of a runner, or a swimmer, who accomplishes a burst of speed and then slows down. The period before and just after the burst is aerobic. Got to be.

Also, I question whether a human body (or a cheetah body)is even capable of true anaerobic exercise. There is a scientific definition of anaerobic metabolism: when the lungs cannot put enough oxygen into the bloodstream to keep up with the muscle's energy demands. (I stole this from a website). From another website, this recruits fast twitch muscle fibers....etc.

Can ANY mammal really do this? Aren't the lungs always pumping oxygen into the bloodstream, more -- or less?

My question is, can human beings do true anaerobic exercise?

If the answer is no, then the whole distinction is another weight-loss fake job.

If the answer is yes, then isn't it true that we go through a sustained period of anaerobic exercise before and after the brief pinnacle of anaerobic has been reached?

If so, then there is a distinction between the two scientifically, but in practice, it really is mostly aerobic, and we've identified another weight loss fake job.

That's 2 questions.
Galina L. said…
Evelin, technically you are right, if some movement is rising your heart rate ,it is a cardio exercise. My objection to it that in order for walking to be effective enough (raising your heart rate to at least 75% from max), you have to be creative - add polls, weight, find an incline surface, probably add very short running intervals, so turning walking into something else. Regular normal walking shouldn't be counted as an exercise.

I think the relying on a physical activity as a weight-loss tool is problematic for several reasons, mostly because it is very easy to underestimate your body's ability to get very efficient in what it is doing regularly , also people have a tendency to feel that after some physical activity they earn the right to be more relax about their food. Thouse ,who are disciplined enough to count calories, can count every bit of their food, but it is impossible to count how your body spends and saves energy.

From my experience I can tell that a diet is at least 90% of a weight-loss success. People should be moving their bodies for various health reasons, but not to count on it to compensate their diet indulgences. It is safer to act and think like the weight-loss effect of physical exercise just doesn't exist, but exercise anyway. Exercising helps, but the food part is much more important. I found out the mindset matters. What I consider more important affects small everyday decisions.
Quarrel said…

I think you're basically right about aerobic exercise bookending anaerobic exercise, but I assume the point is the amount of exercise you get out of it..

Certainly in my own case, as someone relatively new to resistance training (6 months), it definitely raises my heartrate and gets me gasping for breath at times. I've certainly felt lots fitter since doing it!

(I started on the back of losing 20kg of weight LCing)

Muata said…
Galina said "I think the relying on a physical activity as a weight-loss tool is problematic for several reasons, mostly because it is very easy to underestimate your body's ability to get very efficient in what it is doing regularly , also people have a tendency to feel that after some physical activity they earn the right to be more relax about their food. Thouse ,who are disciplined enough to count calories, can count every bit of their food, but it is impossible to count how your body spends and saves energy."

This is the type of thinking that I don't get. If the weight loss dictum is to Eat Less and Move More, why wouldn't physical activity play a role? I'm sorry, but I've maintained my weight for too many years to believe that physical activity hasn't played a major role in my transformation (whether to lose weight of maintain it), and when I read comments like this one, it makes me shake my head. Honestly, I feel it's a defeatist attitude and a gross generalization.
Galina L. said…
We just have a very different personal experiences. I, probably, relayed too much on physical activity, got burned out ,injured and manage to loose weight only I made my diet the priority. Before I came into my seances, I did at least 1.5 hour of cardio 6 days a week and some other anaerobic things, yoga ets..Probably, our gender difference plays a role. I lost my ability to control my weight with an exercise and generally healthy eating after I turned 45. Hormones should played some role. Our difference is not the huge one. Some people claim you would be fine if you just avoid manufactured food. I didn't tell- don't exercise, I said - don't rely on it.
CarbSane said…
@Diana, You are right that technically there's no such thing as pure "anaerobic exercise". There is always some aerobic glucose metabolism going on. The anaerobic pathway produces less ATP so this might be a slight "metabolic advantage" -- however we recycle the products of this pathway so it's probably a wash from an overall energy standpoint.
Muata said…
Galina, I think that our experiences are more similar than you may think. I believe it's safe to say that anyone who has lost a significant amount of weight as "over-trained" or went overboard on cardio. I went through my HIIT phase, and my knees would rather forget about all the plyo jumps I did in a chair.

My main point is one of the reasons I love ELMM as the basics because throughout one's journey, there is going to be a balancing act between the two. This is when individuality comes in as to how much focus is on diet and how much is on exercise, which will change the longer your on your journey. Just as I disagree with the "all you gotta do is exercise" crowd, I think the "don't rely on exercise" advice is just as misguided.

If we can agree that our bodies are designed to move, and not be as sedentary as we are nowadays, then how can moving ever be relegated to a minor role in not just losing (or maintaining) weight but being strong and healthy? IMO, it simply can't.

I just started reading SuppVersity's blog (thanks Lerner), and one of the first posts I read, Dr. Andro said that exercise is the "main" body transformation tool that we have at our disposal. I couldn't agree with him more ...
Galina L. said…
I absolutely agree with you, Muatu, our bodies are design to move. Also we should move much more than one hour a day.I hate to see how my husband rides his bicycle 3 times a week until he is half-dead, and then sits behind computer or sleeps the rest of the time.He is not overweight, btw, and could eat bowls of pasta without any problem. Out of two of us I am the one who should watch my weight. His conclusion - you could eat anything you want if you are riding bicycle at the speed around 25 miles/hour 40 - 50 miles a day regularly. Works for him.

My main idea was to put more emphasis on the part "consistently control intake" because it is what we can control, and stop being overoptimistic about the possible results of "deliberately maintain a degree of activity" for a weight loss because we don't know how our body spends energy, and there are a lot of things we can't control like hormones, subconscious suppression of desire to move, reaching for some extra blanket. Exercise is a wonderful thing, but got overrated for a weight loss. Somehow when I say it people think I am against exercising, and it is not so.I shouldn't complain much because being physically active for years did me a lot of good. Putting some injuries aside, I am in a very good state of health in cardiovascular sense, look quite toned, really flexible, but have to care more about joints health nowdays.I plan to start that famous "slow burn" as soon as I can force myself. I hope it happens sooner than the New Year resolutions are due.
Muata said…
OK Galina, I see where you're coming from now. And, I think that there needs to be a separation between structured physical activity (read: exercise) and moving more. The emphasis on exercise that's put on weight loss is to keep the billion dollar fitness industry in business. To lose weight, one never needs to have a structured plan or to do "exercise", but they will have to "move more" to not only aid in the losing phase but to prepare yourself to keep it off. Exercise is not needed to lose weight since it's only one way to tip the scale toward a deficit (and it pales in comparison to eating less).

I think the "there are a lot of things we can't control like hormones ..." argument has been a bit inflated. We don't need to have control of our hormones because our dietary and physical behavior, which we have control over, influences them.

For instance, progressive resistance is simply exposing stress to a muscle, letting it rest, giving it the proper nutrients, then repeating the process. If this is done in a consistent, intelligent, and progressive manner, over time the muscle will grow stronger. Personally, I could care less about the hormonal changes that are happening in my body as long as I get the desired result from my training.

I don't see why weight loss/maintenance should be any different. If one is inclined, like the readers of this blog, to know how all the moving parts of weight loss work, that's fine. But, it's not necessary. And while our hormones do change as we age, and for a number of other factors, they can't fully override ELMM.

Since we were designed to move, I just think there should be more of an embracing of MM, as it's really our only full-proof tool against the sedentary society we live in.

Oh, and before spending money on slow burn, why not do a youtube search for old episodes of Jack Lalanne's TV show; you'd get better information and for free ...
Galina L. said…
@ Muatu,
Don't worry,I would never spend my money on any program. My sport club fees of $32 and some basic appropriate clothes are all my sport-related expenses. I thought the slow burn program was described in Dr. Eades last book. I didn't read it yet because somebody told me his advice included meal-substituting shakes, and I am not into it. There is something should be on Dr. Mercola's web-page. I am still making my mind. I will check Jack's videos, thank you.
I am not so sure of human's ability of mastering hormones as you. The example of rats with surgically removed ovaries in the G. Taubes's book WWGF is terrifying, I also saw people getting fat as a result of corticosteroids treatment. It could be too tough.
In my case I finally lost weight by counting the amount of carbohydrates, but the initial reason for my diet and motivation was migraine control. So, it is a little bit different. Evelin knows my story, I repeat some facts for you.
I believe the exercise (as not sedentary behavior) is essential for keeping body in harmony and health. It may not work as a weight-loss tool.
CarbSane said…
@Galina: Fred Hahn and Eades book is an older one. I suppose it's better than no resistance training, but SB strikes me as another "exercise as little as possible and reap all the benefits" nonsense. (Not to mention that Fred is not the brightest bulb. Put it this way ... the Eades' last book 6 Week Cure gave a nod to SB but all the while discussed how Mary Dan was struggling with her weight and belly fat.

I think Muata is talking managing hormones through diet -- the examples you are giving are surgical and exogenous interventions. Every time I read what diet is supposed to do to my hormones according to these gurus and I go investigate, I find that it generally does nothing or the opposite.

I think we need to eliminate the distinction between "exercise" and activity. This is difficult for some -- lift weights one can quantify and gauge progress by #sets, #reps, weight. My wood workouts? Well, I just toss, wheel, toss, stack, repeat. How many pounds in the wheelbarrow? How many logs? How fast? etc.? So I guess that's not really exercise b/c we use the wood to burn and stay warm in the winter.

I'm also very bothered by this notion that exercise causes us to laze around more the rest of the day. This does not seem to be the case when studied.
Tsimblist said…
@Evelyn: I like your wood workouts. It reminded me of this article - "Simple and safe strength training for bones and muscles" ( http://philmaffetone.com/strengthtrainingpart1.cfm ).

There was a time when mowing the lawn interferred with my triathlon workouts. Then I finally had change in mindset. I now have my lawn mowing workouts. I dress in my gym clothes and get a nice aerobic workout chasing the self propelled mower around the yard. I pay attention to pacing and hydration just like any other workout.
Galina L. said…
I always hated the standard weight-lifting and I feel guilty I am not doing it - so, you are right, the minimal amount of work it was what attracted my to the slow burn.I have not done my homework on it yet. Unfortunately, we have very limited opportunity to do smth like your woodworking workout regularly. I am for as much of physical activity as possible, and I think the standard cardio exercise should be the small part of it, because too little gets you out of shape, too much leds to an injury.My husband thinks differently.Probably because what he is doing works for him.It happens all the time, people are bias toward particular things that work for them.
Diana said…
I was going to put this in the leptin entry (above) but I think it has relevance to the discussion about "which is better EL or MM"?

Traveling in Turkey I saw this. Turkey is what you might call a "2nd world" society. There are folks as rich & sophisticated as any in Paris in most of the cities in the Western part of the country. This is a minority.

Rest of the country is poor but not starving poor like parts of Africa. Turkey has a rich, excellent cuisine and the gov't doesn't interfere with their food creation. It's not like Communist USSR where I assume Galina grew up, where food supply was rigidly controlled. This is a developing country where folks still raise a lot of their own food - and that's a good thing.

Kids are stuffed lovingly and many are plump little butterballs. They lean out by age 8 or 9. (Turks clearly have never heard about not encouraging fat cell creation. They'd look at you as if you were crazy if you said that. A child is meant to be fed, and fat.)

All, not most, Turkish kids after age 8 or 9 I saw were lean to normal. All young men were notably lean. They looked like "NYC, 1960" where I grew up. Saw one fat young woman. I never saw a morbidly obese Turk. Saw a few portly middle-aged men but not many.

I remember one incredibly handsome guy who ran a dried-fruits food-stall along a road. He had a gut. Maybe he indulged in a few too many dried apricots, but he wasn't really fat, just had a gut.

Only stout group was 50+ poor women, who were stout as a group. Here's the thing: they exercise. In most parts of the country there are small farms everywhere and everywhere you see an older 50+ woman tilling the soil by hand with a grandchild. The older guys are sitting in a local taverna smoking and drinking. They have guts but are not usually fat.

Before I believed in ELMM I wondered how these old gals got stout, tilling the soil for hours a day. Now I know that it's food. They probably eat a lot and don't care about being youthfully thin. I'm not saying they should care, just offering this as an example of how genes & environment interact.

We saw one town where the running water meant "run and get it." That job was performed by girls, 10-14 - you never saw a leaner bunch of chicks, skinny as dancers. So much for exercise not having an effect on body type.

So, upshot is, ELMM are both crucial, and of course metabolism plays a part. A 60 year old woman who has had 8 kids is hormonally different from her 12 year old grand-daughter.

And the 12 year old Turkish girl who runs and fetches water, is thinner than she would be if she was raised on the SAD cafeteria ocean cruise what-have-you diet, and sat on her ass all day.

After all the shouting, doesn't it seem that the fundamental rules apply? (As time goes by....)

The dilemma is, who chooses more exercise and restricted caloric intake? The people I am referring to don't choose it, it is their life. And when choice is offered, mostly they choose exactly what we do: less exercise and more eating.
Sanjeev said…
I was doing my regular troll for updates to interesting sites and this was updated I don't know when.

I originally asked folks if they could get their hands on the source code, and that's not been done ... the math has been posted

it's linked to from the same page

or click here

or here's the link to the PDF describing the models


or click here

If you're averse to the greek-alphabet mixed with english (especially d and t) averse, don't bother ; )

they list the data sets they validated against (references 17-19)