las

Welcome all seeking refuge from low carb dogma!

“To kill an error is as good a service as, and sometimes even better than, the establishing of a new truth or fact”
~ Charles Darwin (it's evolutionary baybeee!)

Tuesday, January 8, 2013

Calorie Counting isn't Paleo, it is an Eating Disorder!

Such are the short pronouncements of one Swedish Diet Doctor, Andreas Eenfeldt.  Who, by the way, will be on hand to snap pictures of all of the obese low carbers in the audience for the third (or fourth?) year in a row of Jimmy Moore's KKKetanic.  

He posted two short quips recently.  So short, in fact, that I'll quote them in full here.
The recent trend towards calorie counting in Paleo land is baffling. Some people need a reality check. There’s nothing less Paleo than counting calories.
Needing to count calories means something is wrong (the appetite regulation is disturbed) or the body weight goal is unnatural. We should try to fix what’s wrong and try to have healthy goals, if possible. Then there will be no need to starve.
Calorie counting is an eating disorder.
As to the first, as at least one commenter pointed out, let's look at a list of other reality checks as to what is more or less "Paleo", shall we?  
  • Any "added fats" which includes cream, butter, and oils, especially coconut.
  • Any processed food which includes coconut oil and chocolate just to name two PAF's (Paleo Approved Favorites) 
  • Meals
  • Recipes
  • Passing up on nutrition
  • Fat on veggies
  • Obesity
  • Bacon
  • Showers
  • Mattresses
  • Toothbrushes
  • Toilet paper
  • Toilets
  • Do I need to go on?
The fact of the matter is that just "going Paleo" or "going LC", as the diet doc believes are somehow equivalent, doesn't "fix" obesity, or even those few extra pounds for many people.  Indeed for some, the switch can lead to weight gain.  This is not all that surprising as many LC and paleo foods can be quite satisfying and delicious, not to mention including formerly "forbidden" foods such as bacon.  You're given carte blanche to eat as much as you want, told it's healthy for you, and heck, you get to flip "the man" your middle finger while you're at it.  

I know there's some repetition with my previous post (especially comments) and this one, but sometimes the things that need fixing are habits and focus, not even the types of foods one eats.  If there really was some easy switch to flip, the success rates, especially for long term maintenance, would not be so dismal.  I find Eenfeldt's attitude utterly callous and, frankly, obnoxious.

As for eating disorders, let's define that shall we?  In actuality such a concept can be difficult to define except to say that most know ED when we see them.  If we go by Andreas' definition that somehow counting calories qualifies as an ED because our innate homeostasis is broken, then the overweight and certainly all obese would qualify.  But I do not believe most obese are eating disordered most of the time.  I managed to get obese without binging, massive overeating or anything of the sort.  Indeed in some ways obesity was what ultimately resulted from having overcome ED.  I don't have the numbers, but many "almost" anorexics end up obese later in life.  It is rare for a "successful" one to become significantly overweight, but the "almost", who fail to cross that line to true anorexia nervosa, that is another story.

It's a dirty little secret just how many of the "role models" in the health and fitness field are ED, some quite severely.  Bulimia leaves few outward clues except for those they live with one, and even that can be cleverly concealed -- and it takes more forms than physically purging  Behaviors, I might add, that are often touted as "hacks", epic and otherwise by paleos.  Just how many posts were there in recent weeks for ways to undo all the damage you've wrought by straying from paleopurity a time or two these past couple of months?  There are clearly a number of eating disordered people offering up advice and counsel in this community.  It takes a special hubris to engage in such.  All I can say about that to the audience here is that if you're seeking help for ED, don't look on the internet.  Find a real life, face-to-face, qualified professional to work with and if they start with a list of foods you should avoid, run.  Run fast and run far and ... just run.  If you are going to look on the internet, seek those who focus on healing your relationship with food, not by getting you to first break down and tearfully admit to an addiction before you can heal.

In the mean time, for those of you struggling with weight, calorie counting that leads to obsessive behavior can certainly be a route to an eating disorder.  But so many here have moved on from low carb dogma to practical approaches to doing so and succeeded where LC was failing for months or even years.   In a way calorie counting can be very freeing from the confines of carb counting and this notion that one bite of this or that is going to kill you (genuine allergy/disease excluded of course), or at least shorten your lifespan -- ahem Rosedale & Gedgaudas.    The low carb community is full of examples of eating disordered people -- ahem too many to list -- and those who still have to resort to drastic measures -- ahem Dana Carpender, Jimmy Moore ... eff it, too many to list there too.

I fail to see how eating potatoes -- and don't give me the nonsense that paleo tubers were nothing like the modern Idaho spud -- is considered glycemic suicide in Eenfeldt's world while he chows down on a fatty side of a modern cow, grassfed or otherwise.  I can think of nothing more harmful to legitimate nutritional discussion than to equate carbs with rat poison, claim that carbohydrates kill people and bastardize biochemistry and neurology to the point of equating fructose to alcohol, and table sugar to heroine.    Oh, and when giving up carbs fails you, you can't even have that blueberry you fructose addict you, and get used to those cold hands, that's what you want!  Perhaps you only really need to eat 6 days a week, and what on earth are you thinking eating twice a day anyway.  Oh and don't dare do cardio, but carbs are only for those who do.  THAT is sadistic.

I care not speculate over the motivations of low carb advocates in denying the role of CICO in altering body weight.  Clearly just cutting carbohydrates does not magically restore things and it is not because your metabolism is broken.  However there is substantial evidence that extreme and chronic carbohydrate restriction can have lasting long term effects on one's metabolism.  You may not be hungry, but your body thinks it is starving and more likely than not this will depress your metabolic rate.  In the end, they seem cruelly happy to ensnare as many as possible into the trap of long term low carbing and, "There there pumpkin, you weren't meant to be thin and this is probably the best you can ever hope for because you fell and broke your metabolism on the USDA Pyramid ride.  Buck up though, you can eat a stick of butter while I make fun of other Americans who aren't even as fat as you and you won't mind because I'm only making fun of their low fat frozen yogurt asses."

Sorry for the rant.  Nah.  I'm not.   They just want to help you.  They care, remember?  

116 comments:

gunther gatherer said...

"In actuality such a concept can be difficult to define except to say that most know ED when we see them."

Like here: http://itsthewooo.blogspot.fr/

Sanjeev said...

So Eenfeldt's a paleo doc now huh?

I wonder if "being paleo" as a doc means

1 shamanism
2 witch doctor
3 bleeding
4 leaches
5 WRITTEN patient records
6 EDUCATION

....
need I go on?

I wonder how Eenfeldt graduated Med School - skewering the severed heads of exam proctors on spear shafts driven into the ground?

"Doing a Conan" during rounds when he was doing his redidency?

I'd think twice before asking Eenfeldt to do a prostate exam ...

MM said...

Great rant!

Stephen Ferguson said...

Ummmm, but calorie counting isn't "Paleo" though is it?

Atwater only calculated the calorific values of different macronutrients at the end of the 19th century. Calorie counting as a method of weight control was only really invented in the 1920s. We've only been labelling the calorie content of food since the 1990s.

So calorie counting has been around for less than 100 years (the last 30 years of which have been the worst obesity epidemic in the history of the mamallian species). For at least the the 220 million years before that, we were using our appetite to regulate our calorie intake, and there was little (if any) obesity.

Like Kurt Harris says: "Calories do count, but why bother counting?".

Charles Grashow said...

http://www.livinlowcarbmealplan.com/recipe/chicken-soup/

Chicken, yam and chard soup WITH NO YAM

http://www.livinlowcarbmealplan.com/recipe/fruit-smoothie/

This is low carb??

George said...

For most of our history, appetite wasn't the primary regulator of calorie intake. Poverty, food availability, and manual labor was.

In the modern world if you are already obese or overweight calorie counting is an extremely effective way to lose weight. It's not necessary sure, but it's effective.

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

Amen!

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

Above Amen is for George. To you Stephen, I refer you to Sue's comments on Andreas' site. They are not all that unlike how I responded to him years ago about this whole "it's a useless tautology" crap. There are many here who have achieved good and lasting results, often post LC/paleo/adlib plans, once they addressed food quantity in some manner. The truth of the matter is that food quality can be perfect and it still doesn't magically fix things. So the question is to mock people because it hasn't and have them hopelessly wait around for the magic to kick in, or support them in their efforts when they do.

Stephen Ferguson said...

"In the modern world if you are already obese or overweight calorie counting is an extremely effective way to lose weight. It's not necessary sure, but it's effective."

That's true George, but I think that addressing food quality (rather than just quantity) is an equally useful approach.

Kindke said...

No-one has a problem counting calories.

The problem occurs when you experience that thing called hunger.

Unknown said...

"Calories do count, but why bother counting?"

This ties into the "effortless" meme, if it is not "effortless" then is it worthwhile? Why should you bother?

I count pretty much everything that matters to me.

For example I know what is in my checking account, because it matters, I know what is in my brokerage account, because it matters, I know what is in my IRA, because it matters.

On any given day I do not know how many calories I have consumed, but before I go to bed I have a rough idea. It is not 500 and it is not 6,500. It may be 2400 or it may be 2800, who can know for sure?

But it is not 5,600.

The idea that you should not BOTHER keeping track of something that will have a meaningful impact on your quality of life as you age is so lazy, so negligent, so slothful that I can't comprehend the mindset of the person who proposes it. In other aspects of your life do decide not to BOTHER? How would you hold a job? There is no job description that reads "Looking for someone who doesn't bother."

Life is BOTHERING, when you cease to bother you will be in your grave.



paleotwopointoh said...

As someone has already pointed out, humans got along even during a time of high food access (20th century) without calorie counting or gross obesity. Thus, this wonderful bludgeon that you must count calories or you somehow don't care about your health is silly. People can care about their health and live a life closer to the one that required a lot more physical effort but not the constant spazzy mental effort of obsessing over known-unreliable calorie figures. Wanting to get the benefits of a pre-internet lifestyle (frequent, regular physical activity, often with a side of heavy lifting) with the side effect of not counting calories but still maintaining one's weight shouldn't be considered so poorly. What's wrong with wanting to be physically active enough that the food works itself out and your weight stays stable?

Stephen Ferguson said...

Yeah - Kurt Harris is the epitome of "lazy, negligent, and slothful".

Not.

I don't count calories - I used to count carbs till I decided just to cut most of them out. Firstly, every nutrition study that relies on self-reporting demonstrates that almost everyone significantly underestimates their calorific intake. Secondly, the number of calories you eat is pretty meaningless unless you can estimate your energy expenditure to a the same degree of resolution. As Taubes says, the daily excess calorie consumption needed to promote obesity is about 20kcals. Good luck with that.

Thirdly, I hold down a very good job (and do a couple of charity jobs on the side). I'd probably lose all of them if I spent all day counting things.

Sue Staltari said...

Stephen most people address food quality and quantity at the same time.

Sue Staltari said...

Stephen, calorie counting is an estimation!! If I am estimating my calories and losing fat my estimating must be pretty good.
Get onto my fitness pal makes estimating your calories very easy and not time consuming. Still have time for everything else in my life.

Sue Staltari said...

Read all the other comments not just the ones you agree with or further your point of view.

Sue Staltari said...

Stephen how come you chose to address only George's second sentence in comment but not his first?

Diana said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Diana said...

"For at least the the 220 million years before that, we were using our appetite to regulate our calorie intake, and there was little (if any) obesity."

Good grief.

That is one of the stupidest sentences I have ever read.

Nigel Kinbrum said...

Stephen Ferguson said...
"As Taubes says, the daily excess calorie consumption needed to promote obesity is about 20kcals. Good luck with that."

Taubes' maths sucks. He took a weight increase in lb, multiplied it by 3,500kcals then divided it by the number of days taken to obtain that weight increase to get the 20kcals figure. He didn't take into account the fact that energy expenditure increases as weight increases. Somebody with an average metabolic rate (15kcals/lb bodyweight) would have to eat an extra 300kcals a day to asymptote to a weight 20lb higher.

Diana said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Diana said...

@Evelyn: "In the mean time, for those of you struggling with weight, calorie counting that leads to obsessive behavior can certainly be a route to an eating disorder."

No more so than obsessing over carb counts and living on fat bombs. After you exclude all visible carbs, you become paranoid about hidden ones. Every time you eat something, even a green vegetable, you drown in guilt about eating carbs.

I found calorie counting to be quite easy and after a while it became instinctive. I basically do portions now. Not classic calorie counting but portion vigilance. And I exclude empty calories. It's the opposite of an eating disorder. It's eating order.

Diana said...

Nigel,

Taubes' inanity is mind-boggling. He absolutely doesn't understand how people get fat. He doesn't understand the very real phenomenon of bingeing and how people regularly underestimate the amount of calories they eat.

"Stephen how come you chose to address only George's second sentence in comment but not his first?"

To paraphrase President Clinton, because he couldn't.

Stephen Ferguson said...

@Diana

Oh dear? Really? A lying troll.

I've been (very) low-carbing for about 20 months (since I was diagnosed with T2 diabetes) and I'm down from 310lbs at diagnosis to 240lbs now. That photo was taken at my wedding in August last year, when I was about 20lbs heavier. In the same period my HbA1c is down from 10.2% to 4.9%.

Personally, I think that's really good. It helped me to complete two half marathons last year, fifty 5km races. I reckon I've got about another 30lbs to lose to meet my athletic goals.

And on Taubes on the 20kcal a day thing: he says it here. You might make a bit more sense if you bothered to actually read what GT writes before spending your whole life trying to flame him.





Nigel Kinbrum said...

To asymptote to a weight 40lb higher requires an excess of 600kcals a day for a person of average metabolic rate (15kcals/lb bodyweight).

Stephen Ferguson said...

@Diana @George

"For most of our history, appetite wasn't the primary regulator of calorie intake. Poverty, food availability, and manual labor was."

Two points - my comment was on obesity in mammals in general (220 million years). How often do you see obesity in wild animals? The answer is almost never. Even when they have the opportunity to overeat, wild animals don't, because they evolved an appetite to control their calorie intake.

Secondly, it's simply not true that food availibility is the primary regulator of calorie intake. For sure there have been periods of scarcity, but there have also been periods of plentiful abundance. Widespread obesity is a modern phenomena, and it occurs in some of the world's poorest societies.

Thirdly. As a species we're 2 million years old. Our historical data goes back 6000 years. How can you possibly make statements like "for most of our history"? The foods available to evolving hominids varied widely according to the paleontological period, geographical location, and seasonal conditions.

Stephen Ferguson said...

Jesus. Obsessing about green vegetables? That says more about you than it does low-carbing.

I'm in ketosis most of the time (so <25g a day) and for that I could eat more spinach and brocolli than I could possibly stomach:

25g of carbohydrate
= 640g of brocoli
= 360g of cauliflower
= 1.7kg of spinach
= 1.4kg of lettuce

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

Stephen, have you read WWGF or any of the many blogs by low carbers who do indeed obsess over the carbs in green veggies? You have no clue what you are talking about if you haven't. My first round of LC was by the original Atkins and measuring leafy greens is THE most idiotic and obsessive thing.

@Diana, I think that most people tend to try the "traditional" calorie restrictive approach first. And if cutting from 2000 to 1500 gets a pound a week, well, then 1000 gets you there in half the time. And then you start to obsess over the 100 cal yogurt vs. the 80 cal yogurt and all that jazz.

However I've now met way too many folks through this blogging gig for whom a RETURN to calorie counting has been most freeing. Maybe it's because decent food scales are so cheap, tracking online or with a phone is so easy, or all the various ways to go about it, or just being able to eat a piece of effing toast with an egg without "blowing" your whole diet, I totally see your point.

So folks, just don't let the calories be obsessive ... I think that's easier than carbs.

Stephen Ferguson said...

Nope. I'm a diabetic. Never heard of WWGF. I read Bernstein, not Atkins. I associate with successful diabetics and not dieters. We have more obvious risks if we fail, and therefore more discipline. As I said, I can eat as much green veg as I like and stay in ketosis. Even Jaminet says don't bother counting the veg.

Stephen Ferguson said...

@Diana

Why did you delete your "lying fat troll" comment?

Stephen

Diana said...

Because I never made it. I never called you a "fat lying troll." I call you a "lying troll" and removed it because I thought it was uncalled for, even for you.

Learn to quote your insults exactly.

Diana said...

" You might make a bit more sense if you bothered to actually read what GT writes before spending your whole life trying to flame him."

This is what I mean by troll talk.

Notice that Stephen can't deal with what Nigel is pointing out.

Taubes gets a lot wrong. He completely distorted the history of the Pima Indians. He gets elementary arithmetic wrong. He discounts metabolic ward studies. He doesn't understand how we get fat. Researchers whom he has interviewed have complained that he distorted what they said. He's a joke. No one takes him seriously.

I am happy that a formerly obese diabetic has lost weight due to caloric deficit by excluding junk calories. I have posted here that some people's genomes are more suited to low carb than others, not gonna do it again. I have nothing against LC.

My suggestion to anyone who thinks that they lost weight on a calorie surplus is to get in touch with the top obesity researchers in their country and offer themselves up as a test subject. If you can prove that you ate MORE than you expended, and lost weight, you'd be very rich, and very famous.

Diana said...

"Jesus. Obsessing about green vegetables? That says more about you than it does low-carbing."

I never obsessed about green vegetables. That's an observation about other low-carbers.

I read about that in the low-carb forums and was horrified. I also read about the fat bombs - the binges on macadamia nuts and cream cheese, etc. That horrified me more. After I saw the madness in the LC forums, I left the roach motel.

Diana said...

"Two points - my comment was on obesity in mammals in general (220 million years). How often do you see obesity in wild animals? The answer is almost never. Even when they have the opportunity to overeat,"

Name one opportunity where a wild animal gets the opportunity to overeat.

"Secondly, it's simply not true that food availibility is the primary regulator of calorie intake. For sure there have been periods of scarcity, but there have also been periods of plentiful abundance."

Name them. I mean, widespread abundance, 24/7 food court bacchanal, not just occasional good eating. And please name me a period in human history where people could obtain all the calories they wanted, and hardly had to move their asses.

Diana said...

http://sciencenordic.com/can-wild-animals-become-overweight

"Elephants live on a bare minimum. They are really slim! They have big stomachs because they eat loads of food that is almost indigestible,” says Bøckman.

This is a challenge for all animals that live on food that is plentiful, like grass or leaves. Such fare lacks nutrition. You have to stuff yourself with huge amounts to get sufficient energy.

“It’s a little like eating a packet of instant soup mixed into a whole bathtub of water....."

Some do get stout

According to the zoologist, the only opportunities animals have to get fat are when they happen upon large amounts of nutritious food. This can almost only happen with rodents like mice and rats.

In addition any mountain of food can only be available in an unexpected circumstance, for a short while. Otherwise a whole bunch of different animals would be there competing for the food. Even in such situations you rarely see obese little animals.

“Because what do rodents, who usually live on the verge of starvation, do when they suddenly get a big surplus? They start to produce offspring straight away! Such small animals need only a month to get a whole new generation up and running. So fairly soon you get a large number of trim mice instead of a handful of fatties,” says Bøckman.

*****

So it turns out that wild animals DO get the opportunity to overeat - and guess what, when they do, they do. Which makes total sense: when the food's there, you eat it. The idea that an animal has the ability to plan is ridiculous.

Diana said...

More about wild animals and obesity:

"’d long assumed that wild animals stayed effortlessly lean and healthy. I’d always thought that wild animals ate until they were full and then prudently stopped. But in fact, given the chance, many wild fish, reptiles, birds and mammals overindulge. Sometimes spectacularly so. Abundance plus access — the twin downfalls of many a human dieter — can challenge wild animals, too.

Although we may think of food in the wild as hard to come by, at certain times of the year and under certain conditions, the supply may be unlimited. Many gorge, stopping only when their digestive tracts literally cannot take any more. Tamarin monkeys have been seen to eat so many berries in one sitting that their intestines are overwhelmed and they soon excrete the same whole fruits they recently gobbled down.

Mark Edwards, an animal nutrition expert, told me, “We’re all hard-wired to consume resources in excess of daily requirements. I can’t think of a species that doesn’t.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/10/opinion/sunday/our-animal-natures.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

ThisisBetty said...

@Diana You say you don't eat empty calories, doesn't that mean that you are low carb as well as a cal counter?

Stephen Ferguson said...


"This is what I mean by troll talk.

Notice that Stephen can't deal with what Nigel is pointing out."

I'll post the link so that you can read it:
http://garytaubes.com/2010/12/inanity-of-overeating/

Taubes simply says that if you overeat your DAILY energy expenditure by 20kcals a day, then you'll accumulate weight at a rate of 2lbs a year (or 20lbs over a decade). This is mathematically and scientifically correct.

He's explicitly NOT talking about 20kcal per day over some arbitrary baseline (that would be stupid). The increased metabolic rate is included in the DAILY energy expenditure.

For the avoidance of doubt: "not getting fatter year in and year out means literally matching energy in to energy expended without error for years on end"

I'm sorry that you think me pointing out key concepts makes me a troll. Any more ad hominem attacks, or can we just stick with the facts?

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

Spazzy mental effort?

That's the problem with how most view calorie counting. I noticed you used the word bludgeon as well -- as if anyone is saying everyone needs to or must count calories. Who said that?

I cannot count the number of people on Jimmy's forum during the 2.5 yrs I was there that were stalled and finally achieved weight loss again once they figured out they were still eating too much.

I remember a post by Eades about a woman who was eating like 3000 cal/day and wondering why she wasn't losing. Now of course since she wasn't gaining this was the beginning of the metabolic advantage crap (well at least you won't get fatter), but at least he acknowledged calories at the time.

Why the need for diet doctors to bash people who find a tool that works for them? I acknowledged that calorie counting CAN lead to the kind of obsessiveness that qualifies as an eating disorder, but merely doing something deliberate to control intake?

OT a bit. Eenfeldt advises women to avoid fruit and men to avoid beer in order to lose weight. That's paleo for ya!

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

I wonder what Eenfeldt thought of this woman at last year's NMS Conference.

http://www.ketogenic-diet-resource.com/my-story.html

Stephen Ferguson said...

On appetite regulation of obesity in mammals:
"A stable body weight over time requires that caloric intake closely match energy expenditure. When excess calories are taken in, a state of positive energy balance occurs, resulting in weight gain. Tightly controlled food intake is a crucial component of energy homeostasis. This is demonstrated experimentally in rats submitted to overfeeding either by direct gastric loading (1,2) or by systemic infusion of glucose (3–5). In both situations, animals spontaneously reduce their food intake to avoid a drift in total caloric intake."

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v395/n6704/full/395763a0.html
http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/content/52/2/277.long
http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/cgi/ijlink?linkType=ABST&journalCode=ajpregu&resid=271/3/R819
http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/cgi/ijlink?linkType=ABST&journalCode=jneuro&resid=19/6/2362
http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/cgi/ijlink?linkType=ABST&journalCode=ajpendo&resid=273/1/E1

etc,etc,etc

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

Stephen, are you a wild animal? Do you spend 24/7/365 in the natural environment that is the temperature/humidity/etc. that it is? Do you need to forage/hunt for your survival? Didn't think so.

You are way late to the Taubes party here. Check out the Gary Taubes fact check label. See ya in a couple of months!

Stephen Ferguson said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Stephen Ferguson said...

I'm wild enough. I was merely illustrating that calorie counting is nt "Paleo". For all but the past 100years of our 220 million history, mammals have been regulating their energy eating through leptin driven appetite control and not calorie counting.

I'm well aware of the holes in Taubes' argument (I think his Carbohydrate Hypothesis is wrong, or at best a secondary cause of obesity). You'll note that the links that I posted are for LEPTIN regulation.

The 20kcal a day thing is not one of those holes.

It's fun here. You just have to say the word "Taubes" and everyone gets their panties in a wad. Not everything he writes is correct (he's pretty upfront about it being an "alternative hypothesis". It's also pretty retarded to suggest that everything that he writes is automatically wrong.

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

Based on his track record, however, it is reasonable to presume everything he writes is wrong until proven otherwise. THAT poor is his record. Go email Jimmy back now ;-)

Diana said...

Lab rats aren't wild animals.

But in any case, wild animals do "overeat". They eat what's there. Of course, this is almost duh stupid. What animal knows enough to plan?

(Yes, there are wild rodents which store nuts for future use. That is instinct, not planning. And I do remember one of the phrases that popped out at me from GCBC is that some wild rodents get fat as "cans of Crisco.")

So much for the argument that "our appetites regulated our intake for 220 million years."

Nope. Mammals eat opportunistically.

Diana said...

""A stable body weight over time requires that caloric intake closely match energy expenditure. When excess calories are taken in, a state of positive energy balance occurs, resulting in weight gain."

You betcha. Couldn't agree more. BTW, that's exactly the opposite of LC dogma.

Stephen hasn't disproved what Nigel pointed out, but so what? The "extra 20 calories argument" is proof that calorie monitoring is essential for weight balance.

Gained weight last week? Eat one half less slice of bread. Walk up a flight of stairs. Result: 20 calories expended, weight loss accomplished.

Diana said...

Just for effect:

"For all but the past 100years of our 220 million history, mammals have been regulating their energy eating through leptin driven appetite control and not calorie counting."

(Oy, such a strawman. As if a bison could count calories.)

Many gorge, stopping only when their digestive tracts literally cannot take any more. Tamarin monkeys have been seen to eat so many berries in one sitting that their intestines are overwhelmed and they soon excrete the same whole fruits they recently gobbled down.

Mark Edwards, an animal nutrition expert, told me, “We’re all hard-wired to consume resources in excess of daily requirements. I can’t think of a species that doesn’t.”

Stephen, you ARE a troll. You don't point out key concepts, you just make shit up. You came here swinging, dismissing the fact that your guru, who has a history of (a) wild weight swings and (b) lying, consorted with a neo-Nazi and then blew it off. You attributed this to the "fact" that hey, in the US, who isn't a Nazi racist? You can't walk around without bumping into one of them.

You've lost weight because you eat less than you did when you weighed over 300 pounds, as the articles you've cited say will happen. Bravo. No one here disagrees that LC can be good for people when it works for them in terms of satiety. It didn't work for me, but if it works for you, cool.

It's YOUR panties that are in a twist, because we point out that your guru Jimmy Moore is a shady character and that he did something appalling, and never apologized for it. Tough.

I think YOU are fun. Did you read what I found on wild animals? If you were a tamarin monkey, would you stuff your face?

Diana said...

No, it does NOT mean that I am low carb because carbs aren't empty calories. Empty calories (my definition) are foods that are mostly sugar, or sugar/fat and not much else: sodas, cakes, candies, cookies, ice cream. Etc.

Yesterday, frex, I ate most of a large tamale pie, which has a corn meal base (horrors!), corn, tomatoes, chicken, onions. In the afternoon I ate a gigantic apple - candy from a tree, also a low-carb nightmare. In the evening, a salad with a lot of chickpeas. Even worse.

When I was a dogmatic LCer, I had convinced myself that an apple was forbidden, not to mention most of the rest of what I ate.

This morning the scale said I'd lost half a pound.

Stephen Ferguson said...

@Diana

That's exactly my point. Calorie counting isn't Paleo. Duh.

Of course I lost weight by consuming fewer calories. The First Law says that MUST be true. I didn't need to count those calories, I let my appetite regulate my intake.

Jimmy Moore isn't my guru. Neither is Taubes (although like Kurt Harris GCBC was the thing that put me on the right track). I'm more of a Jaminet/Harris kinda guy, with some Phinney/Volek/Feinman thrown in.

I read what you copied and pasted on wild animals, and posted the literature on appetite suppression of over eating in mammals. I give you peer reviewed journal articles, you give me a quote from a NY Times articles. Obviously Mark Edwards (whoever he is) doesn't understand Leptin signalling either. I strongly recommend Guyenet's blog as good place to start with that.

The science is clear. I'm not the one that's "making stuff up".

Stephen Ferguson said...

"A stable body weight over time requires that caloric intake closely match energy expenditure. When excess calories are taken in, a state of positive energy balance occurs, resulting in weight gain."

You betcha. Couldn't agree more. BTW, that's exactly the opposite of LC dogma.
----------------------
You couldn't make this shit up. That's exactly what "High Priest" GT says:
"I believe that calories are a useful measure of the energy contained in the foods we consume and a useful measure of the energy our bodies expend. (Just as I believe miles are a useful measure of how far I have to travel to get, say, from Oakland to Los Angeles.) Yes, I believe in the laws of thermodynamics and I believe, as I say in both my books, they always hold true. That’s why we call them laws."

Why don't you just read his book? Then your criticism might be slightly more coherent.

Stephen Ferguson said...

"Go email Jimmy back now ;-)"

Sorry - I had a question for Guyenet. Does that make me a bad man? Maybe I'm a Neo-Nazi too? ;)

Stephen Ferguson said...

"Stephen hasn't disproved what Nigel pointed out, but so what? The "extra 20 calories argument" is proof that calorie monitoring is essential for weight balance."

Yes I did - it's impossible to monitor both your intake and expenditure to that degree of fidelity. A small degree of systematic error and you'd subject yourself to massive weight gain, or massive weight loss.

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

To comment one above: No ... just obvious.

To comment two: That is the bullshit that Taubes likes to spread. Umm ... the jeans get tight and you cut back. The jeans get loose and you eat a bit more. "Massive" -- The 20 cal/day argument is ridiculous. Jimmy Moore would have taken 95 years to get to 410 lbs !!

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

This is someone else's meal plan with Jimmy's brand slapped on. If it originated with the Paleoplan folks -- Neely Quinn connection -- they should think about how this looks to people outside their echo chamber.

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

Betty: Why do you consider carbs empty calories?

Princess Dieter aka Mir said...

Since a wealth of nutrients are packed in vegetables and fruits, I don't see freggies as empty calories. They are powerhouses of nutrition. I won't do any diet that tells me I can't have fruit, and I would look askance at any diet that seriously limits veggies. Our issue in this nation, if anything, is we don't eat enough colorful veggies for all those vitamins and minerals and antioxidants. :D I lost most of my weight eating tons of fruit. I still eat half a papaya and some berries with breakfast, every day (unless I'm out, then I sub oranges or apples or pears or melon).

Princess Dieter aka Mir said...

I will add that for diabetics, I understand controlling sugar-raising foods. I understand they may wanna limit fruits. I did limit fruits to 3 a day when I was doing 1200 calories a day. I was prediabetic, and I would test my blood sugar, and even with fruits, I was fine as long as it was with a meal with fat and protein. It was cherries, for some reason, that made my blood sugar really go high. Shrug.

Stephen Ferguson said...


210lbs = 100kcal a day for 20 years = an apple a day over more than your calorie expenditure.

An apple a day turns you into a big fat bastard. Apparently.

François Létourneau said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Frank said...

Hi Evelyn. I wanted to contact you over email but could not find one. I was wondering if you had seen the latest videos serie of Plant Positive, in which 15 videos are about the non-sense of Taubes? He really shows what kind of man Taubes really is. GCBC really is just a big lie.

Here's the first one. I'd recommend watching all of his videos to anyone who has the time to do so actually. Highly informative.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QImWYirF0es&list=PLv3QDzdxan_JkGX47Rpboyh2oYyAFZDBA

Unknown said...

There is no such thing as an "empty calorie," anyone who uses that term does not understand the meaning of the word "calorie."

It is literally impossible for a calorie to be empty. Some substances are empty of calories, such as water. However the moment you add a single fraction of a calorie to the glass of water, for example through the addition of 1/100th of a gram of sucrose, the substance is no longer empty.

Diana said...

@PD - One of the things that I most missed while LCing was fruit. Long story short I'd been convinced by a Very Big LC Guru that eating even as much as an apple would send my metabolism into shock and awe so don't do it.

Fast forward to now. Eating an apple, a pear, or a banana hits that sweet spot and keeps me satisfied for hours. I noticed this esp. the more I've excluded sugar from my diet. I don't know whether it's my brain, and I don't know or care about studies - I do know that as I've weaned myself off the sugar, fruits taste much more delicious. Fruit is not a substitute for protein, or fats. Each have their place. Each is satisfying under different circumstances.

LeonRover said...

Hey Frank - " He really shows what kind of man Taubes really is. GCBC really is just a big lie"



Do you really believe that Evelyn ascribes to the notion that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" ?

Diana said...

@Leon, speaking only for myself, do not subscribe to that notion, but that doesn't invalidate PP's criticisms of Taubes.I listened to the second video (the Eisenhower Paradox) and I thought it was devastating. I look forward to seeing how PP treats Taubes' account of the Pima.

Diana said...

Yeah, it helped me get from 156 to 136 in 4 months. I'm enormous.

Where in GCBC is that Taubes quote from? I thought you said you didn't read his books.

Diana said...

""Jesus. Obsessing about green vegetables? That says more about you than it does low-carbing."

That's not very nice. May I ask, did you get to be a fat bastard by eating apples? Or did you binge eat really bad food, and drink, consistently for years?

Diana said...

"it" meaning an apple.

@Evelyn: "To comment two: That is the bullshit that Taubes likes to spread. Umm ... the jeans get tight and you cut back. The jeans get loose and you eat a bit more. "Massive" -- The 20 cal/day argument is ridiculous. Jimmy Moore would have taken 95 years to get to 410 lbs !!"

That's exactly how people maintain their weight. Can we please keep in mind that even in our society some people do keep a normal weight?

I had six aunts and four uncles on both sides of the family, plus two parents. Not one was overweight, or became so as they aged (and of the 12, eight lived to past age 90.) Their way of maintaining weight stability was to cut back after they ate a lot. Some of them were also religious and fasted ritually. It worked for them. I don't see what about this is such a mystery, except maybe if you are obsessed with food as a reward. You can lose the weight and keep the mentality that food is your reward and that overeating is your birthright.

OnePointFive said...

Stephen:
I really can't imagine how you've missed some people agonising about veg. Veggies ruining their weight loss or increasing their blood glucose levels.
If they believe Bernstein, he suggests that there are 6g carbs per US cup raw and 6g per 3/4 cup cooked of (accepted) veg He therefore permits a max 2 cups per main meal.Besides which he claims if you eat large quantities the 'Chinese restaurant effect' takes place and glucose levels rise. The Atkins diabetes revolution (Vernon and Eberstein) gives similar amounts(using volume) and warns to measure things like spinach in it's raw state.


{By the by, I've found a truly paleo way of avoiding obesity, it also applies to wild animals ]
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130108112451.htm

Re eating disorders. I don't agree with diet docs blanket claim about calorie counting since I think that most people are very unaware of how much they are actually eating. I think that a reality check on portion sizes is a good thing in these days of big plates and big portions.
On the other hand, I also think that becoming over obsessed with any aspect of eating whether it's counting calories, carbs, ketones, daily (hourly) weight etc) can lead, in some people to eating disorders.
(and think about the proscriptions we read in the various 'blogs', no grain, no dairy(or only A1 raw dairy, no starchy carbs, no soy, few carbs, calculated protein, no farmed fish,no animals that have eaten grain,only eggs that are pastured (what's that mean? my neighbour's very free range hens like pecking the gravel from the road!)

What of those of us who have to pay close attention to our food?
T1 women are 2.5 times as likely to develop an eating disorder as other women . Bulimia (and diabulimia where insulin is ommitted) are the mot common disorders. One of the reasons is thought to be the necessity to count, measure and test at every meal. Good (non scientific) description of how it occurs here.
(and yes, I can see the attraction of omitting insulin, eating what I like and getting back to my super skinny, pre diagnosis self)
http://lazypancreas.wordpress.com/2012/08/10/diabulimia-awareness/

But T2s are also documented as having more eating disorders than other people. In many cases, the disorder may precede T2 diagnosis ( often binge eating disorder) These are the people who when they admit to overeating (at Christmas perhaps) are told to get back on the bandwagon, cut the poisonous carbs, avoid this and this and this! (yes I've read that) Helpful in the long run, I doubt it (sorry rant!)

ThisisBetty said...

@Diana I think that a lot of people do have to count calls .. or do something to restrict food .. IF, etc .. on low carb, if not at first then eventually. Personally my appetite is radically reduced by mostly eliminating corn and wheat as I'm already not a sweet tooth. I think there is a variety of things that work for people and being fat sucks AND if we find something, or some 'world view' that works for us, we .. at least some people can get pretty 'religious' about it. Even if you are eating some cornmeal, fruit etc.. don't you think it's possible that you are also eating a lot less carbs, especially junk carbs than you were before trying and then moving on from strict LC?

ThisisBetty said...

@evelyn The only food I can think of that doesn't involve carb that could be considered completely void of nutrition would be the 'bad fats' .. trans, processed corn oil etc. I think this term does mean low quality carbs with or without added fat.

from the 'empty cal' wiki:

'The following foods are often considered[by whom?] to contain mostly empty calories and may lead to weight gain:
Cake, cookies, sweets, candy, ice cream, soft drinks, fruit-flavored beverages and jello and other foods containing added sugar
Refined grains, such as white bread or white rice
Margarine or shortening
Beer, wine, and other alcoholic beverages'

I do note the 'by whom' in there, good ol' wikipedia. A lot of people consider themselves hardcore LC but include some fruit, a bit of bread, some wine, etc.

I think there are people who lose eating low carb, and lose because of a cal deficit, and that there are people counting cals that are actually low carbing … and maybe this is part or, or most of their success.

Diana said...

Betty, the majority of my intake nowadays is carbohydrates. Not junk, carbohydrates. About 60%. I agree with you that there is such a thing as empty calories & we should not eat this. But there's also evidence that eating too much protein & fats is bad.

Galina L. said...

The DietDoctor trays to sound provocative on purpose in order to cause heated reactions, according to his admission made some time ago. It looks like he managed this time too.
When I was counting calories, it was an interesting experiment.One of results of my counting - the easiest way to eat the diet high in fat is eating a lot of not nutrient-dense vegetables with some fat, not necessary swimming in fat. The unintended result of IF - big reduction in a vegetable intake because it is just not possible to put everything in one single normal meal. Which makes eating high quality things more affordable.

paleotwopointoh said...

If 30-40% protein is wrong, I don't wanna be right. But it's clear it isn't wrong. It's also clear flailing about 'too much protein' is a smokescreen for anti-meat propaganda (although most people worried about too much protein are not aware of this, but the advocacy that protein intake be reduced never suggests people back off on oat or quinoa consumption, only ever animal sources of protein which are easier to absorb and have more micronutrition.)

Unknown said...

"Broscience" is pretty well understood

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Broscience

What is the female equivalent of Broscience, Galscience? Chickscience?

The nutritional value of a food item is entirely circumstantial, in the right situation a 20 ounce bottle of Coca Cola is without question the best of all possible food choices.

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

Coconut oil, lard, tallow = empty calories

Of course calorie counting reduces carbs, but it's not low carb.

Hiit Mama said...

Babescience, Femscience, Grrrlscience.

ThisisBetty said...

@diana @evelyn Thanks for the responses. We probably disagree on much, but it never hurts to look for a bit of common ground. It's much less entertaining than the 'flame wars' (which I admit I often enjoy) but it's just so easy for all of us to become rigid in our thinking and approach. Junk, cheap, crappy carbs and yes some fats are clearly no bueno. For some people a quality-foods-low-carb mindset works great where everything has failed (me) .. for some quality-foods-counting-cals works better it would appear.

ThisisBetty said...

I think that would Sis-science .. Surely an improvement. hahaha

Sue Staltari said...

Amy Dungan:
"Diet – So one of the things I’m changing is my diet strategy. I’m still working with some experts on my thyroid and adrenal issues, but I’ve done some personal experiments that have been enlightening. I’ve always felt that quality of the food you eat is more important than the quantity. I still believe quality is important, but I’m also learning that if you eat the correct foods, you have less appetite, which leads to eating less - essentially fewer calories. When I consume a higher-fat (more satiating), lower-carb meal, I find I don’t need near as much food AND I stay fuller longer. So increasing my fat has helped me need less food to carry me through the day. I’m not purposely restricting my calories, but it’s turning out that way. And when I do this, I notice the weight loss is a bit easier. So for this girl, calories certainly seem to play a role. I realize some gals my size and eat a lot of low-carb food and still lose. They obviously have a better metabolism than I do. Or maybe they aren’t hypothyroid and struggle with high cortisol. I can’t claim to know all the answers for anyone. All I can do is say “here’s what seems to work for me” and then go about my day. So I’m going to start watching where my calories land, while sticking to a high-fat, low-carb diet, and will report in when I can. I’ve also got a new exercise plan in place that is realistic and fits into my crazy schedule. Pair these changes with my medications and supplements, and I expect to see changes for the better."
http://healthylowcarbliving.com/low-carb/changes-in-2013/

Diana said...

@Betty - Yes indeed. We should all be in agreement that THE starting point for long term weight loss is getting rid of the foods you simply do not need. (I am speaking not of true metabolic disorders but simple weight loss.) Make every calorie nutritious.

Diana said...

@Evelyn:

""I believe that calories are a useful measure of the energy contained in the foods we consume and a useful measure of the energy our bodies expend. (Just as I believe miles are a useful measure of how far I have to travel to get, say, from Oakland to Los Angeles.) Yes, I believe in the laws of thermodynamics and I believe, as I say in both my books, they always hold true. That’s why we call them laws."

Such a nice quotation. Unfortunately none of this has any relevance as to whether Taubes believes that creating a caloric deficit results in weight lost. And of course he believes in the laws of thermodynamics. He just doesn't think they are relevant to weight loss.

In any case he didn't say the above in his books. I don't keep up with his numerous public appearances. (Which I suspect will be fewer and fewer in 2013 as the recession grinds on and as his novelty value wears off.)

Peter Attia, Taubes' collaborator:

"Obesity is a growth disorder just like any other growth disorder. Specifically, obesity is a disorder of excess fat accumulation. Fat accumulation is determined not by the balance of calories consumed and expended but by the effect of specific nutrients on the hormonal regulation of fat metabolism. Obesity is a condition where the body prioritizes the storage of fat rather than the utilization of fat."

http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/do-calories-matter

Karen said...

Oh for crying out loud!! Seems one can't believe anyone! Total confusion!

Kade Storm said...

Or we could believe, but with the entire salt-shaker in hand. This doesn't just apply to Taubes.

Diana said...

@Evelyn, Like you - I have limited time, and I must ration it. I've been spending too much time on LC cult insanity. I do not have time to go back to GCBC to check every shoddy reference, and every quote the cult members cherrypick. I challenged Razzwell lite to cite where in Taubes' books he says the above. Still waiting. This morning I received notification of a comment on Diet Doc's blog, where I learned where the above quote comes from: it is from Taubes' blog, which I do not read, and will not. Taubes has proven himself a dozen times over not worth listening to. It's like listening to a 12th century astronomer explain how the sun revolves around the earth.

But, just for yucks, I also learned that Razzwell lite didn't quote the entire passage. Here is how (as I suspected) Taubes ended the above paragraph.

"But, no, I do not believe that we can learn anything useful about why people get fat or why they get the diseases that associate with getting fat, by focusing on the calories they consume and expend. It’s not about the calories."

If leaving the last sentence out of a quotation, which disproves your point (that Taubes DOES take calories into account), isn't troll behavior, what is?

Like sticks to like.

Diana said...

PS to above, I learned about the entire quote because I am subscribed to the comments on the "Paleo and Calories" thread on Diet Doc's site. Someone there quoted the entire paragraph, honestly.

Selective quotation to score a point is truly beyond the pale. We have to edit for concision, but this was an obviously dishonest tactic. It is lying, pure and simple.

Diana said...

@Betty - I don't eat those foods - what's your question. Carbs are not all refined grains, sugar-filled, processed, etc. Carbs come in all forms.

Diana said...

Ah....so the truth slowly dawns. Sounds to me like we have a little kernel of dissent forming. I cannot believe that in the years ahead, which will be very economically uncertain, that people will have time to waste their money on another failed weight loss fad.

I think that in 10 years, with more knowledge about genes and diet, and genuinely broken metabolisms, that LC will take its place as a treatment modality for some kinds of blood sugar disorders. For some people. For others, go vegan.

But as a magic bullet for weight loss - forget it. It's a gimmick, it's a trick, and everyone involved in the LC/Paleo marketing world is a salesman. Buyer beware.

Michael Foer said...

I'm not a big fan of Matt Stone, but unfortunately it seems like his high everything diet seems dead on in these cases. I think some people have yo-yo'd for so much time that there body is out of wack and maybe mixing "whole foods", regardless of how palatable they may come out to be is necessary, as is eating them ad libitum until your natural hormonal milieu is returned. Then you can tweak the foods you eat while eating to satiation instead of thinking you ate to satiation because you "had enough calories". It's crazy how pervasive eating disorder talk is in your mind, even when you think you've conquered it.

François Létourneau said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Frank said...

(damn Google that keeps connecting with my full name)

Not really but I don't see the point of what you said? Why would not she appreciates his devastating blows to Taubes work?

Frank said...

I don't understand your reply? Science is not about beliefs. It's about objective evidences and critical thinking skills.

Frank said...

''it's clear it isn't wrong?''

What about BCAA's role in activating aging-relating pathways? What about the relation between high protein diet and high circulating level of IGF-1 and it's possible role in cancer promotion? What about all of the epidemiological evidence linking animal protein with chronic diseases and mortality? That's a pretty big statement for something that has so many conflictual evidences with.

What would be the benefits of a high-protein diet anyway? Why would one seek for this? Beside better satiety, but this can be easily achieved with a heavy fiber (50g+ daily) diet too.

Galina L. said...

Franak, the diet high in fat and low in carbohydrates is not necessary the high protein diet, or the diet high in calories, or no plants diet.Actually, some people who gained weight on LCHF diet had to cut their protein (and the total amount of food)in order to start loosing fat again. I appreciate a lot the higher satiety property of high-fat diet (in %), it allows to eat less without feeling starved.

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

To Stephen,

You may have noticed that I've responded to only a few select posts of yours. Ones I feel are relevant to the topic at hand. Which, is not Gary Taubes and his theories.

This is because I've blogged on his books and lectures and blog posts enough. Go check out the Gary Taubes Fact Check label. The 20 cal/day and other nonsensical non-arguments he puts forth have been discussed before and I see discussing them a waste of time. I have no problem if folks want to discuss them, but I'll pass, thanks.

However Diana has been around these parts long enough to know both what has been discussed, and my general views, etc. She has, IMO, correctly identified you as a troll. Trolling behavior is easy to spot, and if you don't think you are one, then I would suggest reconsidering your behavior here against various websites that define trolling and such and correct it. Engaging people in circular arguments, changing the subject, etc., is classic and all it does is aggravate people and waste their time. For example when I offer up that at 20 cal/day it would take 95 years to get to massive results, you say 20 years for 200 lbs. Not biting.

Please do not feed the troll folks, or rather, feed at your own risk! :-)

Diana said...

@Evelyn,

I'm certainly done with him. But I did learn two things

1. Wild animals can and do overeat. So much for their exquisitely tuned appetites.

2. A troll will stoop to anything to bait an opponent, including leaving out the part of a paragraph the troll quotes which invalidates his point.

François Létourneau said...

Hi Galina.

My response was to paleotwopointoh who said that he wants a high-protein diet to be the ideal human diet regardless of the evidences and if he's shown wrong, and that the supposed danger of a high-protein diet are a smokescreen for anti-meat propaganda. I just realised he wrote that people could also cut back on quinoa and oat but would he be aware of the litterature, only animal protein positively correlate with diseases whereas vegetable protein usually negatively correlate with diseases.

Galina, out of curiousity, have you every tried a whole food, plant based diet (i'm not saying vegan here, but it does not leave much place for fiber-free calories) (which would provide around 50-60g of fiber daily) and see how that fares? It's not easily achieved. That would ask for around 10 serving of vegetble a day, some fruits, lots of legumes and whole grains (quinoa, barley, oats, etc). People usually say that high-carb diet are not doing them any good, but I've yet to meet someone who truely eats a whole-food, high carb plant based diet. I've spent the last two years trying to tweak my diet to reach a daily amount of 60g of fibers and it is just starting to become easier to do. It takes tons of vegetables and lots of legumes.

Most people blame high-carb diet but 99.99% of people never truly did a whole food, high carb diet, grams of fibers being the best marker for the quality of a diet.

This is one of the biggest shortcoming of most LC studies : they compare LC diet to another poor diet, usually around 15g of fiber daily, usually lower than that. 15g of fiber daily is not good nutrition in my book. That mean that the usual ''low-fat group'' which never is low-fat anyway, ate a lot of processed food.

Diana said...

Frank -

And not everyone achieves satiety on high protein diets. They brag all the time about it, and then they admit that high protein isn't satisfying because now the fad is "fat bombs." And if "fat bombs" were satisfying why would they have to eat so much of them?

Lowcarb team member said...

Lets get one thing straight on here. There is no easy answer to reducing weight. Us diabetics have an extra incentive. Blindness, kidney failure, and amputation keeps us focused. But anyone who says they have some sort of easy option is talking shit. There is no easy answer and it require hard work and discipline to reduce weight, and keep it off. If anyone can tell me otherwise, I await with bated breath.

Eddie

Sue Staltari said...

I hope Amy has success after taking her blinkers off.

Diana said...

I hope so too. And if so, I hope she is honest about how she finally loses the weight. The metabolic advantage certainly didn't enable magic weight loss.

Stephen Ferguson said...

Hiya Phoenix, miss you! (not even being sarcastic - I really do).

On the green veg thing, as I said above, you can eat 2kg of spinach for 30g of carbohydrates. Do you think you could eat 2kg of spinach?.

I'm sure some people do obsess over green vegetables, but to do so would be completely irrational. Like Jaminet says, don't even bother counting the carbs in green veg.

I think calorie counting is useful for some people (probably as useful as any other method), but I disagree strongly that "counting kcals" is a necessary condition for weight loss. We've been doing it for less than 100 years (and in practical terms less than 30).

I'm sorry that some people have eating disorders, but that shouldn't stop the rest of us from trying to optimise our health. The quality of your diet is a key determinent of your future health. I don't think that healthy eating constitutes an eating disorder.

Anyone that says "carbs are poisonous" is a fool.





Stephen Ferguson said...

I'm well aware of all the criticism of Taubes. I was just saying that even he doesn't disagree with "calories in vs calories out".

Taubes believes that creating a calorific deficit creates a weight loss. I believe creating a calorific deficit creates a weight loss. To suggest anything else is absurd.

It tells us HOW people accumulate weight, it doesn't tell us WHY.

I agree completely with Gary's post here:
"But, no, I do not believe that we can learn anything useful about why people get fat or why they get the diseases that associate with getting fat, by focusing on the calories they consume and expend. It’s not about the calories."

I explain it better here.




log said...

I'm a big fan of calorie counting, to me it's the easiest and most straight forward way of losing weight, much easier than say going paleo or low carb. It gives you an appreciation of the energy density of different types of foods, and if you want to have pizza or ice cream or whatever it's not a big deal, just count the calories. Honestly, I think a lot of people don't realize how much they can eat and still lose weight. I think some people try to go too low, where if they were counting they could actually eat more.
It worked for me, but of course I'm not suggesting that it's a magic bullet that will always work for everyone all the time.

Anyway, there's a book called "Chubster" that's probably the best diet book I ever read. It's simple, readable, and advocates calorie counting. Some may not like the hipster angle its written from, but it appealed to the nerd in me.

http://www.amazon.com/Chubster-Hipsters-Losing-Weight-Staying/dp/0547559348

Blind Doggie said...

@OnePointFive

In my opinion the concept of a T2 thinking that "carbs are poisonous" is quite easy to understand if you are one and wish to follow a diet only approach. Once you understand that you will probably need to reduce carbohydrate to obtains good blood glucose control then using a psychological trick of thinking that carbohydrates are bad can be a powerful weapon to help you gain the discipline to control the condition. I freely admit I did something very much like that when first diagnosed T2. Unlike yourself OnePointFive we can't inject insulin to cover any lapses in our discipline and we have to suffer the long term consequences of the spikes those lapses will cause.

Is thinking "carbs are poisonous" any different to someone who is giving up smoking thinking to themselves "this cigarette maybe the one that kills me" every time they get tempted? Once you get control then those initial thoughts can fade just as the desire to smoke fades if you give it up.

Many perfectly normal weight people who over indulge over the Christmas period come out the other side determined to diet and lose a few pounds and I'm sure a good number who successfully achieve it temporarily go into a state of thinking "fat is bad" or even "food is bad" to help them lose weight. Do they have eating disorders too?

Perhaps you should consider those kind of things before making assumptions that I and other T2's like me who want to control our condition have an eating disorder. I do not.

@SF I'm surprised you also think any T2 who thinks that "is a fool"

P2ZR said...

The 'only food quality matters' crowd (including but not limited to LC, paleo, WAPF) has this visceral vehement reaction to calorie counting because they presume that being told that 'calories count' means that *they* should count them. Getting all up in arms and purposely construing reasonable advice as odiously unreasonable is nothing more than an EXCUSE for inaction.

If your appetite is in sync with your expenditure levels, by all means--don't count calories. Hell, even if not, just be *aware* of them--no one is saying that everyone should track every kcal to 3 significant figures (because obviously, 0.001kcal leads to 2.857e-7 lb. weight gain!!!...NOT).

Using the above analogy of balancing finances, some people are more prone to overspending, and so only take cash with them when out shopping. Makes purchases easier to keep track of, and harder to overdo. Some can just swipe their card everywhere without much thought because they don't have a tendency to make impulsive or expensive purchases.

Part of this is brain chemistry. Part is other biology. Part is habit. All of these things interact with each other.

Saying, 'caloric awareness may be helpful for some people' does NOT imply that the people who may be helped are gluttons; misinterpreting it as such says so much more about the misinterpreter than it does about the one suggesting it.

And yes, enforcing some level of caloric awareness at first IS tremendously helpful for most people who would like to lose some, as it is so easy to underestimate one's intake. Blame it in part on processed foods--the recommended 'serving size' for crisps or various sweets is indeed pitifully small.

It's not carbs or non-paleo foods (whatever the f*** those are, anyway) that are evil and cause insidious and invidious fat gain; it's the obstinate unwillingness to be measured and rational in the habitual consumption of them. Hint: no national government ever suggested that the road to good health was paved with fat-free cakes.

Stephen Ferguson said...

But carbs aren't poisonous per se. I agree with Guyenet when he says "when glucose is poison, you're better off eating fat", but like Paracelsus says "the dose makes the poison".

The dose just depends on how broken your pancreas is.

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

Has the source of that quote been posted? Please do, and please repeat if I missed it. I think a case can be made for insulin usage to supplement a deficient pancreas, just as is done for thyroid and other hormonal deficiencies.

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

PS: I would note that many of your "empty calorie" foods are sugar/carbs PLUS fat. Most cakes and certainly cookies are more fat than carb, as is ice cream.

Kade Storm said...

I'd like to know how much percentage of those foods is fat.

http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/baked-products/5028/2

So that's bad because it's high-carbohydrate? Eh. I probably shouldn't straw man the argument like that but some of these 'empty calorie' foods seem high fat.


Let's have a look at the sweet potato, a real low-fat item and dietary staple of certain modern cultures that boast good health and longevity.

http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/vegetables-and-vegetable-products/2667/2

Well, so much for it being empty calories.

Galina L. said...

@François Létourneau,
I always ate whole foods and did exercises, and my story is opposite to Diane's. I ate especially big amounts of fiber when I followed Dr.Weill's diet (before LCarbing)because I was hungry all the time and snacked a lot on fruits and veggies. I didn't count grams of fiber, but had bowl movements three times a day. If you want to add fiber in your diet, try vegetable smoothies - mix in a blender celery, carrots, tomatoes, red peppers, herbs, garlic, salt and drink it with your lunch.

R A Z Z said...

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

Your old blog was removed for content. If you spam me again, I will pursue further action against you. Capice?

Diana said...

@log/P2ZR: The Paleo cult thing is that we have a natural appetite, which has been destroyed by evil civilization. That's why the troll above mentioned wild animals, 220M years ago, etc.

I think it's totally wrong, and I further think that we get taught what to eat, and how much to eat. Eating is a social activity.

What we can learn from French, the Japanese, is to eat less. They eat all the crap we do, just less. (WAY less.)

If this country only cut its portion size in half, as a population, we'd kick the obesity epidemic. I know that's not gonna happen. But it would if we did.

P2ZR said...

I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing to aspire to a more-or-less self-regulating appetite, one that is roughly in sync with our energy expenditure. That's the way it works for naturally lean people--myself included, aside from a pre-AN weight gain, AN, and then the long road back.

That this isn't the case for everyone isn't the fault of 'civilization'. No more than the fact that Pippa Middleton doesn't look 'as pretty as' Kate is the fault of their mother eating more grains between pregnancies. (I think Cate Shanahan would have us believe that maternal 'malnutrition' is responsible for all differences in facial features between closely-aged siblings.)

From the goings-on in the LC-/paleo-sphere, I'm struck by the idea that these people don't actually want self-regulating appetites; they want to continue to eat large amounts of foods, at high levels of palatability, and have expenditure somehow elevated in order to match or exceed intake (the fat-burning fix to the broken metabolism).

Guess what--there ARE 'hacks' to approaching an appetite level that's in line with your expenditure. 1) Eat food that satisfies your taste buds, but that does not over-titillate them (avoid food porn-worthy foods--food is sustenance, not sex). 2) Eat a balance of macronutrients (the marginal addition of fat is extremely satiating on a very LF diet; the marginal addition of carb is extremely satiating on VLC), and higher-volume foods. 2a) Avoid junk.

But it seems like the LC/paleo crowd would not be thrilled with the upshot of my proposed 'hacks' (and hence Paleohacks, etc. is always on the quest for the holy grail hack). I can't help thinking that Jimmy Moore's eating issues are 'merely' the extreme of a lot of LC/paleo people's--they WANT to enjoy very tasty food ad libitum...and if they can't, it's that their appetites or metabolisms are *physiologically* out of whack (corrupted by civilizaton and/or carbs), and not that they've been conditioned by years of portion distortion (and hyper-rewarding foods) and subsequent overeating.

People would call me naturally lean because I don't diet and eat to appetite. But I also don't keep coconut fudge on my desk so that I can graze when I'm trying to solve a problem, and I also don't hold it to be my birthright to demolish a 1-lb. steak every night.

OnePointFive said...

SF
quite agree that you are able to eat a lot of veg without eating high numbers of carbs, my point is that Bernstein and Atkins both put limits on them so some people can and do start counting and obsessing over to high amounts (look at the diet plans in the Diabetes revolution) and as you don't seem to have noticed check out references to the famous Chinese restaurant effect where too much lettuce allegedly made glucose rise.
which leads me to
BD
When people obsess, it can, in some people, not all, lead to or exacerbate an existing eating disorders.
Very few are likely to tell you outright they have an ED. I'm not saying you have an eating disorder, nor that the people who cut back after Christmas all have one. (if you didn't notice I said that for many people a reality check on portion sizes/calories is a good thing.)
However, since the subject of this post is diet doc's assertion that calorie counting is an ED. I'll restate that I think that counting anything food wise may be a contributing factor. Since counting is a necessary evil in controlling diabetes; and yes I do it too , it is something to be aware off The combination of diabetes and an ED is very dangerous.
( By the way I rarely take a correction dose of insulin and even if I did it isn't relevant to the subject, why personalise things?)
Just a few bits of reading matter.
General info
http://www.diabetes.org/living-with-diabetes/women/eating-disorders.html
This second link has comments from people with D and EDs
http://www.diabetesselfmanagement.com/Blog/Amy-Campbell/binge_eating_disorder_and_diabetes_part_1/
study about prevalence in T2
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10800015
mainly about T1
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100311123618.htm

Post a Comment

Moderation is currently on. Thanks in advance for your patience.