las

Welcome all seeking refuge from low carb dogma!

Saturday, January 26, 2013

Will this be NuSI's first experiment?


Watch the first 5 minutes of this video.  In it:

  • Gary says there's 10% error in doubly labeled water measurements (I don't know if it is that high, but it is interesting that this is the level he puts it at)
  • Gary describes an experiment to be done in men (he has stated at other times this is because these diets tend to work better in men, what, insulin doesn't work the same in women?)
  • Gary pitched this to Pennington research center before.  
  • Overfeed by 20% of calories 
  • Describes ketogenic, Atkins diet, as steaks, chops, eggs and bacon.  Gee, I wonder how those misconceptions of the Atkins diet keep getting perpetuated, eh?
  • Gary predicts that energy expenditure will increase in keto group so that they will burn the excess calories.  
Now that Gary has the funding, have they commissioned this study?  If not, what are they waiting for?

134 comments:

Simon Carter said...

Glad to see that you are back to your first love. Gary is looking pretty good don't you think? What is he, 55 years old now?
Anyway, can you clear up the "misconceptions about the Atkins diet"? What do you mean by that?

Charles Grashow said...

http://livinlavidalowcarb.com/blog/atlcx-episode-36-paul-jaminet-all-things-hunger-satiety-101/17730

Gabriella Kadar said...

Simon, pick up a copy of the book and find out. Borrow it from the library. You will for sure realize that the diet is not about "steaks, chops, eggs and bacon". If you are actually interested in Evelyn's opinion which will be the same as the one you come up with all on your own.

Charles Grashow said...

Does this look like "steaks, chops, eggs and bacon?"

http://www.atkins.com/getattachment/Free-Tools/Phase-1---Made-Easy/FF-Induction-made-easy.pdf.aspx

http://www.atkins.com/Program/Phase-1/What-You-Can-Eat-in-this-Phase.aspx

Unknown said...

I'm about the same age and Taubes has always looked very soft to me, he doesn't seem to enjoy physical activity (which is true of virtually all long-term low-carbers).

coconutz said...

16:30 Taubes, It's not carb intake that explains why the SE asians have low obecity/metabolic syndrome, it's low sugar intake.

I thought his speel was all carbs/starch are bad, raise insulin production, drive fat storage ?

Charles Grashow said...

That's the only way he can rationalize the fact that don't get obese on a high carb, low fat diet.

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

I for one was shocked to learn he has been a life long athlete. Amateur boxer and I believe football in highschool. Doesn't look like an athlete to me.

BTW, nothing mobilizes fat from adipocytes like exercise (and lowers insulin levels)

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

That's his new schtick. It doesn't square with the old schtick.

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

He looks average for his age, and I have many friends in that age range, not much older than I am. He doesn't ooze energy though, and he is perpetually dehydrated. As appear to be most low carbers.

Diana said...

Look, it's clear Taubes doesn't understand the distinctions between fat equilbrium and fat oxidation. Between how we get fat and how we lean out - carbs essentially play a maintenance role; they neither make us fat, nor lean us out. It's fat that does the fattening, duh. And fat in combination with carbs is deadly (as SAD sadly proves).

SE Asians eat their carbs without high fat. And maybe they are genetically adapted to that. Perhaps Europeans and Africans should be eating more fat - I DON'T KNOW. I do know that SE Asians have a very low fat intake and eat carb-based diets. This makes perfect sense according to all we know about carbohydrate metabolism. It doesn't make you fat - but it may inhibit oxidation once you get fat by eating SADly.

I've seen Taubes on the street and I don't think he looks soft at all. He's a big athletic looking guy, rather hunky. I read he played college football and amateur boxed. I don't we should make this a finger-pointing exercise about looks. My father looked fantastic, lean and elegant as hell, until he died from emphysema - this proves what? I think I look pretty good for 57 - and I lost 20 pounds eating carbs. So what?

Sanjeev said...

> Does this look like "steaks, chops, eggs and bacon?"

all the above plus industrial FRANKENFOOD
plus fish
plus FRANKENFOOD
FRANKENFOOD
plus a couple of vegetables
FRANKENFOOD
FRANKENFOOD
...
are you seeing a pattern there?

RandoMan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
RandoMan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Kade Storm said...

^ This!

Diana said...

@Randoman,

I'm an American and you can believe anything I say about America. I have all the facts. I'm THE go-to source on all things American. Don't bother doing any research: just listen to me.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2788171/

Dietary pattern 1 (traditional) was heavily loaded with vegetables, fish and cereal. Dietary pattern 2 (Western) was loaded with fast foods, bread, meats and dairy products. Dietary pattern 3 (Drinker) was loaded with mostly pork, beer and soju (Korean liquor).

Etc.

eulerandothers said...

Whatever Gary Taubes eats publicly, whatever he scarfs down privately, is his own to report, or not. He could just be following the latest 'body builder's diet' (whey shakes, protein bars, pasta on alternate days, eye of newt, toe of frog). He could be following Suzanne Somers Somersizing Diet!

He doesn't owe anyone a food diary. He doesn't have a great body, just a not-fat body!

eulerandothers said...

That seems similar to the 2012 study about Korean diet:

'. Three evident dietary patterns were derived by cluster analysis: 'Traditional' (50.3% of total population), 'Meat and Alcohol, (15.8%) and 'Korean Healthy' (33.9%). The 'Traditional' group was characterised by high consumptions of rice and kimchi, while the 'Korean healthy' group ate a modified Korean-style diet with various foods such as noodles, bread, eggs and milk, and the 'Meat and Alcohol' group had high consumptions of processed meat and alcohol. Compared with the 'Traditional' pattern, the 'Meat and Alcohol' pattern was associated with a 33% increased risk of having elevated blood glucose, a 21% increased risk of having elevated serum triglycerides and a 21% increased risk of having elevated blood pressure. However, the 'Traditional' pattern showed a 23% increased risk of having low high density lipoprotein (HDL)-cholesterol compared with the other two patterns by logistics analysis.'

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21215606

RandoMan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
RandoMan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
RandoMan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Unknown said...

Well anytime Taubes is ready to prove his athletic prowess I'm ready to show him how it's done, boxing, MMA, you name it.

RandoMan said...

Not worth my time.

Sanjeev said...

> a Korean living in Korea,

I'm envious - Koreans in Canada are among the most physically attractive subcultures.

When I was a Punjabi living in Punjab I would not claim to know what the population ate except for the most blindingly obvious - at that time there was very little meat available to anyone (even for the rich it was rare). Beyond that, did I know how much vegetable oil various neighborhoods ate?

Now as a Canadian living in Canada I can't even say what's blindingly obvious or not. There's no possible way I could claim definitive knowledge of anyone's diet, other than my own, without official statistics.

Do I know what those folks @ McD's are eating? For the one meal I just saw, sure. Overall? No way.

> if that is enough to counter me?

Maybe she meant to counter your observations/arguments, and nothing personal about you.

> must read a paper to learn about the Korean diet?

maybe, yeah ...

Charles Grashow said...

http://nutritionfortheworld.wetpaint.com/page/The+Health+Benefits+and+Risks+of+the+Traditional+Korean+Diet

"The traditional Korean diet relies on carbohydrates to provide energy and vegetables to provide much of the nutrients that the body needs. Koreans traditionally only ate enough protein as their bodies needed. When compared to a western diet, Koreans eat much less fat and more complex carbohydrates and fiber. The ratio of vegetables to meat and fish in a traditional Korean diet is over 2 to 1"

http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/n_feature/2012/04/05/21/4901000000AEN20120405001700315F.HTML

"Koreans switching back to traditional meat-free diet"

Sanjeev said...

> ^ This!

Calling factory food Frankenfood is, in the common vernacular, true, in a deeper reading it's quite unfair.

Frankenstein's creation was a one-time, lovingly crafted labour of love.

Sanjeev said...

thanks for sharing.

That was "special"; ONE disagreement is all it takes? Why not leave the stuff up in case someone appreciates it later?

Sanjeev said...

> definitive knowledge of anyone's diet, other than my own

I may not even know my own some day as the current right wing gubmint plans to allow the food industry to self-regulate food labeling.

oy vey.

RandoMan said...

Although I think I'm not spending my time wisely, since you have taken time to reply to the messages I wrote and deleted, it would be only polite to reply to your comments.

1. I do believe I have a fair idea of how people eat in Korea. Korea is relatively compact place with a very homogeneous culture.

2. The so called traditional Korean diet is often a caricature as is the western diet. So if an obscure paper by an obscure individual claims to have administered a traditional diet, it's like Taube above claiming that whole meaty organic food diet is Atkins diet. You have to cast a critical eyes before presenting some obscure keyword searched paper as some sort of an authority in this matter.


3. In any case, I was referring to how Korean people eat presently. Just go to a freaking Korean restaurant in your lovely Korean subculture district in Canada and see the menu and how people freaking eat now a days.

4. To Diana, I wasn't disagreeing with your main point, but I think in a constructive discussion, you don't fly off and say I can't believe you. By the same token, why should I believe you if your personal experience tells that it's not carbs but calories. Have you written a paper about your self-experiment with impeccable scientific method so that I can read about it rather than hearing from your mouth?



RandoMan said...

It's not the disagreement, but the disagreeable ways you people put your disagreement. And I think you people don't appreciate my rather benign input but regard it as some sort of an attack to your dogma. Hence if the audience here don't appreciate my effort, why should I share?

RandoMan said...

See my reply to the wise-ass above

Sanjeev said...

special pleading on google

one of the hits off the google search, wiki

another:

Applying standards, principles, and/or rules to other people or circumstances, while making oneself or certain circumstances exempt from the same critical criteria, without providing adequate justification

Sanjeev said...

> seen Taubes on the street >

Did you get any on your shoes? Hard to get off I understand ...

Diana said...

"To Diana, I wasn't disagreeing with your main point, but I think in a constructive discussion, you don't fly off and say I can't believe you. "

Yeah whatever. Since the comments I responded to with a citation from a peer reviewed study were deleted, I consider this argument closed.

"By the same token, why should I believe you if your personal experience tells that it's not carbs but calories."

You don't have to.

" Have you written a paper about your self-experiment with impeccable scientific method so that I can read about it rather than hearing from your mouth?"

No, but the paper I cited was and you reject that, so it wouldn't matter.

RandoMan said...

Nothing further to add. Hope you age a bit more gracefully.

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

I agree. He's like a Fat Head though. Never really much overweight. Went LC and lost a few pounds in middle age. Looks profoundly NORMAL. It's just he's one of those "see it works" therefore his "science" must be true.

BigWhiskey said...

Kimchi AND stomach cancer....

http://www.zhion.com/kimchi_cancer.html

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

> seen Taubes on the street >

Did you get any on your shoes? Hard to get off I understand ...

THANKS for the laugh Sanjeev! I needed that :-)

Go Kaleo said...

I did an N=1 experiment sort of like this on myself a while back, I kept my calorie intake the same and changed my macro ratio to favor fat and protein rather than carbs. I ended up gaining about 7 pounds (of fat) over 4 weeks, mostly because I felt like crap and stopped moving.

Charles Grashow said...

One size does NOT fit all

paleotwopointoh said...

Funny, if I change my macro ratio to favor carbs, I feel like crap and get physically sick.

paleotwopointoh said...

Apparently some feel it does, that if you're female, you have to have almost entirely carbs or ELSE.

Or they feel you have to eat a stereotyped (yet not accurate to reality) 'asian diet' with almost no animal products, protein or fat.

Susanne said...

Why did you take all your posts down? How is anyone supposed to appreciate your argument if you take it down before they can see it?

Susanne said...

I tried this for about 7-8 weeks in the fall after I discovered that I had been inadvertently under Mark Sisson's magic 150gr carbs limit for a week. (Long story involving a large cheese plate left over after a party, but wanting to keep my calories the same.) I thought, let's stay like this and see if anything happens to the belly fat, har har. I ended up being weirdly miserable and depressed for the whole period of time, suffering muscle pains after every regular exercise session, even though I didn't increase my efforts, and actually having to ramp them back or skip them because I couldn't face them. After the third week of hardly having the energy to put one foot in front of the other on the flight of stairs to my apartment at the end of the day, it dawned on me that it was the carbs. (Did I mention it made me stupid too? I can't imagine what my students thought.) I walked down the road to a market and bought a bag of tortilla chips, the first instant carbs that caught my eye, ate half the bag the first evening, and the rest the next day.

The next morning I woke up and felt freaking BRILLIANT. I hit a new record in my C25K program that afternoon. Never again.


lian johnston said...

This is basically what will happen on an overfeeding study imo.

Some get the "new dieters high" and increase their expenditure to match their intake.

Some feel sluggish, expend less and gain weight.

And others feel the same and gain the amount expected one would gain eating at a 20% surplus.

Gys de Jongh said...

Taubes just wrote a Letter To The Editor in Nature (1). Imo he keeps changing his mind. The first time I red one of his comments he stated that calories from fat were not stored/used or calories in don't equal calories out. Then this changed to calories from carbohydrate increase insulin which causes storage of nutrients as fat. Or in this version calories in equal calories out (?). In this new version he states that we get fat because of a faulty endocrine regulation of energy homeostasis. Imo he still fails to understand that there are far more factors than just insulin. So he is getting close to the current view in Nutrition research. Below is a review from 2006 (2) !


(1)
Free *.pdf at :
Nature. 2012 Dec 13;492(7428):155. doi: 10.1038/492155a.
Treat obesity as physiology, not physics.
Taubes G.
Source
taubes@gmail.com
Comment in
Obesity: Multiple factors contribute. [Nature. 2013]
Obesity: Appetite hormone weighs in. [Nature. 2013]
PMID: 23235840

(2)
Nat Neurosci. 2006 Feb;9(2):227-33. Epub 2006 Jan 15.
Molecular disruption of hypothalamic nutrient sensing induces obesity.

The sensing of circulating nutrients within the mediobasal hypothalamus may be critical for energy homeostasis. To induce a sustained impairment in hypothalamic nutrient sensing, adeno-associated viruses (AAV) expressing malonyl-coenzyme A decarboxylase (MCD; an enzyme involved in the degradation of malonyl coenzyme A) were injected bilaterally into the mediobasal hypothalamus of rats. MCD overexpression led to decreased abundance of long-chain fatty acyl-coenzyme A in the mediobasal hypothalamus and blunted the hypothalamic responses to increased lipid availability. The enhanced expression of MCD within this hypothalamic region induced a rapid increase in food intake and progressive weight gain. Obesity was sustained for at least 4 months and occurred despite increased plasma concentrations of leptin and insulin. These findings indicate that nutritional modulation of the hypothalamic abundance of malonyl-coenzyme A is required to restrain food intake and that a primary impairment in this central nutrient-sensing pathway is sufficient to disrupt energy homeostasis and induce obesity.
PMID: 16415870

Susanne said...

Wow, that's very interesting you pointed that out. I have read about those people, and would never have put myself in that group 50 lb/5 years ago. Mostly because I don't think of myself as an enthusiastic exerciser, more of a "plugger". And I'm not a fidgeter at all, or particularly get the urge to exercise. But now that I track my calories/macros in maintenance, I can see that at a similar calorie level, while Mark's 150gr carbs is a recipe for misery in my case, and 200gr = normal functioning + 30 minutes dutiful plodding on the elliptical, approaching 220 grams does tend to result in HappyHappyJoyJoy Let's do the elliptical and then some squats I'm gonna put some more plates on the barbell and some running and maybe I'll do some pushups when I get home because this is fun and I have so much energy!!!

It's really kind of freaking me out, ya know? I have this lifelong ingrained image of myself as a dorky couch potato, and here I am at 45, some kind of hamster-on-carbs.

I also found that I am in rather a minority "maintenance personality" cluster in the National Weight Control Registry's new article, or a "Mark" in Arya Sharma's useful translation of it (http://www.drsharma.ca/why-are-some-people-successful-at-maintaining-weight-loss.html ) -- lost weight pretty steadily by watching calories, not having to either severely restrict or greatly ramp up my activity. So maybe these two things are connected.

Dave said...

"In this new version he states that we get fat because of a faulty endocrine regulation of energy homeostasis."

He's always maintained that obesity was due to faulty endocrine regulation of energy homeostasis. However he's always been wrong by saying that insulin is the key hormone in regulatin energy homeostasis, because there is an overwhelming body of evidence pointing to leptin being the key hormone. So besides all but ignoring the effects of leptin, he still goes on to say that obesity researchers think obesity is an eating disorder. I don't really understand his logic, other than to say his job is to sensationalize and being too honest doesn't lead to a good story.

Melissa Mcewen said...

What are you talking about paleotwopointoh? Have you invented your own strawman so you can stop being skeptical because all the people who question your heros must be teh ebil carb-pushing low-fat losers?

Kade Storm said...

To question one extremist is to unwittingly align oneself with the other extremist. Lovely.

Unknown said...

Imo all the sciency stuff is laughable because ELMM will solve the problem for 99% of the population.

It is primarily a psychological problem because people can't bring themselves to ELMM. And they invent all kinds of reasons why ELMM doesn't work for them.,

"I used to run 50 miles a week while only consuming a sprig of grass a day and I still managed to gain 40 pounds!"

Sure, I'm buying that.

NuSI is a fool's errand, the answer is in psychology, not nutritional science.

Something, whether it is Low-Carb or Paleo or Raw Foodism or 30BAD, gets a person over the psychological hurdle and gets them ELMM, the goal is to get people to buy into it. Once they believe in it they get results.

If you can get enough people to buy into drinking three glasses a day of your own urine, after a few months you will have some pretty remarkable before and after pics to show for your effort.

Never mind the people who didn't get results, they didn't buy into it.

Kindke said...

oooooowwwwwwww, stirring the pot much?

Id like to see CarbSane's response to this comment.

Charles Grashow said...

Unknown speaketh the truth (mostly)

Giuseppe said...

He wrote something about Koreans being slimmer than the Japanese because Koreans eat a lot more meat and less carbs than them, based on his personal observations. Or at least that's what I remember from reading it yesterday. I had even bothered to search for data on meat and fish consumption per capita - both countries still eat much less meat (and more fish) than western ones, apparently, and used to eat very little meat in decades past: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/datablog/2009/sep/02/meat-consumption-per-capita-climate-change

Sanjeev said...

Gary Taubes, the diet/health world's Vogon poet laureate

google

wiki

youtube

Sanjeev said...

bzzzzzttttt, sorry, no, wrong, it's all about the Mg & Mn.

Eat a 10% brown rice and 90% whole wheat diet (especially if your celiac's really, REALLY bad[0]), and you'll get laid more. And get more copper and less iron to boot (which will also get you laid more, as well as curing Parkinson's and Alzheimer's (especially if you don't have them))

[0] because with WHOLE wheat's minerals you SHOULD be able to digest it fine

T said...

Unknown, I require you to pledge your allegiance to Jack Kruse and his holy teachings.

Now.

Diana said...

@Unknown: As a certain someone says, "Yep."

""I used to run 50 miles a week while only consuming a sprig of grass a day and I still managed to gain 40 pounds!"

I challenged someone on Diet Doc, who claimed that she hardly ate a thing and gained weight, switched to Low Carb, ate many more calories than on low fat, and lost weight, to take her results to the best obesity experts in her country and have them use her in a study. Because if she could prove her claim she'd be the richest woman in the universe.

These people are like Uri Geller and the spoon. When The Amazing Randi challenged him he couldn't deliver.

I'm reading Bonnie Liebman's takedown of Taubes, and how he twisted what all these obesity researchers had to say about fat.

http://www.cspinet.org/nah/11_02/bigfatlies.pdf

It's an eye opener. It reminds me of how Taubes trashed Carlo Rubbio in his book Nobel Dreams. Maybe he's got a vendetta against scientists.

Dave said...

Sorry but ELMM is nonsense because the body's homeostatic system will almost always trump the ELMM behavioral intervention. How else can you explain at least 90% of dieters failing after a couple years?

The best we can do is aim to eat a diet that is healthy for our hearts as well as be physically active, but managing weight permanently is just a lost cause for most people who have severe weight problems. All the best researchers know this, that is why they are working towards solutions that involve hormone therapy.

Charles Grashow said...

http://carbsanity.blogspot.com/2012/04/neat-part-about-moving-more.html

Kade Storm said...

"bzzzzzttttt, sorry, no, wrong, it's all about the Mg & Mn.

Eat a 10% brown rice and 90% whole wheat diet (especially if your celiac's really, REALLY bad[0]), and you'll get laid more. And get more copper and less iron to boot (which will also get you laid more, as well as curing Parkinson's and Alzheimer's (especially if you don't have them))

[0] because with WHOLE wheat's minerals you SHOULD be able to digest it fine"

Lol! I see that you're still butting heads with Jane over that one.

Josh said...

Change in Body Stores = Energy In (corrected for digestion) - Resting/Basal Metabolic Rate - Thermic Effect of Food - Thermic Effect of Activity - Non Exercise Activity Thermogenesis

Conscious Brain can influence Energy In and Thermic Effect of Activity although the willpower required will depend on how much the homeostatic system wants to reverse the perceived calorie deficit by increasing energy intake and decreasing energy expenditure. The bigger the calorie deficit the stronger the homeostatic system will increase appetite and decrease energy expenditure to the point where walking 10m becomes a marathon effort and you are so hungry you would eat your own dog (happened on one episode of 'i shouldn't be alive') or children (happened recently in Korea). The homeostatic system can be temporarily thwarted by willpower over periods of days and weeks but bats at over .900 over periods of months and years unless you can convince the homeostatic system (and not just the bathroom scales) that you are overweight.

The only proven solution is the latest and greatest weight loss tool on the market - the Chuck Norris Hypothalmus(TM). Step 1 - Insert Microchip in base of skull. Step 2 - Select body fat set point on control module - 5%, 10%, 15% or 20%. Step 3 - Eat whatever you like and do whatever you want. The Chuck Norris Hypothalmus(TM) will keep you at your ideal body fat level and is guaranteed to never develop leptin or insulin resistance because when your dealing with Chuck Norris, resistance is futile.








Woodey said...

I also think the biggest mistake one can make is to look at one person and let it define a diet. People always look at Mark Sisson and use his body type as a way to promote the Paleo diet. If that is the case then look at Jimmy Moore or any of the other diet gurus who promote LC/Paleo that are obese and by the same rule of thumb applied to Mark, you would have to say it doesn't work.

If you go by looks alone than you will have an extreme amount of variances and have a difficult time trying make an accurate conclusion on something like diet.

There are three body types to deal with: endo, meso, ecto. All three are very distinct, not everyone is lucky to have a mesomorph body like Mark. That is the illusion that marketing creates when they have mesomorph fitness models promoting diets and exercise equipment. You get endomorphs trying to become that or ecto's as well, its just not going to happen.

To look at Gary and think he is all that therefore his diet is all that and a bag of LC beef jerky. I say look at one of his disciples, Jimmy Moore and tell me how successful it is.

Woodey said...

He's changing his tune a bit because he is doing a book on sugar. At least last I heard he was going to focus on sugar and get it on with a new book about it.

Woodey said...

I'm so glad it's nonsense. 60 lbs down and still counting, but of course it wont last, because it's nonsense. Lost more on that nonsense than the brilliant science of Taubes, Moore, Naughton, Wolfe, and a handful of other "scientists".

Woodey said...

@Josh Chuck Norris is so powerful that he can eat and eat and eat and his cells would squash the calories trying to make him fat. His entire body cells and all know Kung-Fu!!!

Go Kaleo said...

Who is this mythical 'they' to whom you refer, paleotwopointoh?

Go Kaleo said...

I think I'm a 'Mark' too, I didn't have to restrict anything to an extreme, not even calories, to lose weight, and I don't have to do epic amounts of exercise to maintain. I DO have to be consistent though, with both diet and exercise, and I believe that consistency is most people's biggest challenge.

Dr.Maas said...

What he wrote, (of course as I saw it), is how Korean people eat more meat and fat than how the western people portray it. Also he wrote that it might be more interesting to compare Koreans with Japanese with their similar genetics and figure out how the different macro nutrition contributes to different obesity rate rather comparing Asians with westerners. He exploded when Diana came up with some irrelevant paper (peer-reviewed of course!) and idiotically challenged him that he should read the paper to have a better idea of how Korean should eat (although the paper had to do with some hyper-tension study) when the guy was actually a Korean living in Korea. Funny how some people have no idea what the studies and peer-reviews really are about.

Sanjeev said...

> How else can you explain at least 90% of dieters

Almost ALL human habit & personality change fails.

Recidivism rates on wide swathes of the human project are atrocious.

Sanjeev said...

Not specifically, no.

I challenge a lot of stuff on a great many many fora, and in my personal life.

Have you not noted my citing of James Randi, Steve Novella, David Gorski et al?

My activities on some of the skeptical forums has declined (as it has waxed and waned here) but it will probably pick up someday soon, as various work-related death marches allow.

Sanjeev said...

uniquely might be a better fit, instead of specifically. hmmm... I can't decide on that one.

Sanjeev said...

In the past when I found an exercise I enjoyed I could eat whatever I wanted, in whatever quantity.

2 litres of ice cream per day when I was cycling 40 to 80k per day.

The rub was, when I had an accident that stopped me riding I put the fat I had before the cycling back on plus a bunch more.

Today I have activity I enjoy (gymnastics) but I am watching my diet carefully to prevent a repeat, prevent myself gaining bad habits that will royally do me in if I need to stop the gymnastics.

Sanjeev said...

> All the best researchers know this, that is why they are working towards solutions that involve hormone therapy.
______
I ain't seein that at all ... (not that I'm the bestest, wisestmostest seer)

the "best"(most promising) research IMHO is some combination of

reward (Stephan's cohort)

behavioural (Wansink's)

executive function (I don't know who the best representative popularizer/documenter of this ... Princeton's Sam Wang? ... Roy Baumeister?)

economics (this is an outside chance ... what would be the best incentives to induce food producers and consumers to produce, distribute and eat whole food[0][1])

[0] Just because the line between whole & industrial is hard to draw doesn't mean foods can't fall on either side;

[1] especially versus the highest reward industrial

Sanjeev said...

sleep deprived & my code's due but I can't keep away

> Who is this mythical 'they'

"they" are the ones to whom the "some" from the sentence before[0] will inflict the (accurate to reality) "or ELSE" upon, with almost no stereotyped animal products, protein or fat

[0] the some who feel

Susanne said...

Kaleo, from your blog I figured you were "fitness enthusiast Julie." Don't you do triathlons and things like that? Whereas my fitness goals are more in the line of "someday get past Week 5 on Couch to 5k." Yesterday one of the people in the gym I consider a "real runner" asked me how fast I run and I told her I put the treadmill on 9.5. "Pace or speed?" "Uh ... you know, 9.5." :)

Dave said...

Sanjeev don't be such a fool. You really think body fat is not regulated? Its just the result of our lifestyles?

Dave said...

@Woodey there are countless people who lose weight counting calories or counting carbs, but the end result is usually the same...regain of the weight.

The long-term homeostatic system is complicated. I know people who were fat and then started excercising and cutting calories and maintained it permanently. I also know quite a few more people who are always yo-yo dieting. The bottom line is that this approach is realy all there is, but it sucks and is largely ineffective.

The best researchers in this field do not preach ELMM because it is a temporary solution for most that doesn't solve the problems that are keeping the person obese. The best reason to attempt ELMM is for cardiovascular health. I don't know why people put their weight above their health, because you can improve your health by exercising and eating better foods even if you can't seem to lose the weight.

Kade Storm said...

Sure.

I myself get a bit too concerned about high iron levels, but outside of that, I do become resistant to the ideas by certain camps promoting their 'theory of everything'.

Diana said...

"t (although the paper had to do with some hyper-tension study) when the guy was actually a Korean living in Korea."

So what, the paper had to to with "some hyper-tension" study, big deal. The paper contained an unchallengeable, irrefutable reference to the traditional Korean diet, and how it is changing, and how this affects hypertension. And it's only one of many. Look up other stuff on Pubmed, or Google Scholar, or anywhere -- the traditional Korean diet is low in fat and meat compared to the modern Korean diet, or most trad. Western diets.

You are right about one thing: he exploded.

As to his expertise because he's a Korean living in Korea, again, so what?

I'm an American living in America. I happen to live in an area where obese people are quite rare, in fact, not one obese person do I see among the thousands of random encounters over the course of a month. That means what? It means nothing.

Pester someone else, Dr. Maas, you have now proven to be yet another screen name to put in the "ignore" file. I only answered you because it was easing batting practice.

Diana said...

"I think I'm a 'Mark' too, I didn't have to restrict anything to an extreme, not even calories, to lose weight,"

Lucky you, Kaleo, because I do.

The only thing that enables me to lose weight is extreme calorie restriction for three days (max) in the form of protein fasts; and IFing. I know that one of your issues is with women starving themselves long term on extreme low-calorie diets, but it's a fact that some of us do have to restrict rather brutally for fat loss. I'm not saying this is good - it's a short-term hack to solve a specific problem.

I do agree that long-term calorie deprivation in the pursuit of an absurd ideal is bad stuff. But some of us aren't 5'9" and heavily muscled by nature, and able to power lift. I am 5'5" and medium-slight, upper-middle range of female muscularity. It doesn't take a helluva lot to support that kind of frame. And for whatever reason, I tend to settle on a weight until I give it a jolt.

True, I could jolt it with LOTS of exercise, like maybe a manual labor job. But I don't want to -- been there, done that, hated it, and injured myself.

Diana said...

@Dave, " How else can you explain at least 90% of dieters failing after a couple years?"

This statistic is ridiculous, completely unreferenced and unsupported by any real data. I think someone made it up a few years ago and the media repeated it.

The reason why ELMM doesn't work is because people don't practice it. It reminds me of what Gandhi said about Western Civilization. Someone asked him what he thought of Western Civilization and he said, "I think it's a good idea."

OK, I think the same about Eastern Civilization, but it was a funny quip.

Jane said...

Sanjeev
So that's the best you can do? What a disappointment. The LC crowd won't like it. They can do much better: Jane says aliens and freemasons are stealing our manganese!

Woodey said...

@Dave It is true that on LC I gained my weight back, I blame a lot of that on the fact I felt deprived from the diet. So when I stopped the diet I began to eat foods that I hadn't had in a long while. An interesting note, my mom had to go to the hospital for heart issues and she asked the heart doctor about a good weight loss diet. She mentioned South Beach and the Dr. said, "that diet and Atkins has initial results, but people tend to regain the weight back and that it's not a good long-term diet".

For me I can be an emotional eater, It's not as bad as it used to be, but it's still there. The formula for disaster is Emotional eater + Food deprivation = Tubby. It is no wonder that LC/Paleo didn't work for me.

What I like about Weight Watchers is that I don't count calories (I have no idea how many calories I eat in a day)and it does a great job in helping my body adjust to learning how to eat less on a very gradual daily basis. I had always avoided WW thinking that it was a girly diet, boy was I wrong. There is a lot of flexibility in the diet and I can eat anything I want. WW is all about moderation, not deprivation. The first few weeks are tough because you do cut back, but then your body and mind start to adjust to that and you move on.

I think there is a big misconception that a diet is a cure all, and that once the weight is off it is off for good, if not then the diet failed. The diet works as long as you stick to it, like anything else once you stop and go back to old habits, old results are going to follow.

I agree with Diana about the 90% fail rate. I think it's a scare tactic that gets thrown around by a lot of diet gurus who want you to try their diet, because they have the magic way to lose and keep it off. I will only gain weight if I do not control what I eat and how much I eat. There is no magic force out there that is controlling me or some kind of physics law that says I will auto-gain by breathing. I am not powerless, I made myself fat and I will make myself un-fat. It is all in my power.

Diana said...

@Woodey,

"Scare tactic" - good way to put it. This is one of the many things in the diet industry that drives me up a wall. I read somewhere how this absurd non-fact became so widespread. I'll try to look it up - but briefly, post WWII, someone came up with it - and it just echo-chambered around. When you think of it, it's meaningless. How can anyone know how many people have tried to lose weight? No one ever asked me.

"What I like about Weight Watchers is that I don't count calories (I have no idea how many calories I eat in a day)and it does a great job in helping my body adjust to learning how to eat"

It's a simple thing called adaptation. Which is always difficult, particularly when you are asking people, who are accustomed to instant gratification, to restrain themselves.

I wish you continued success on your program. I did it on my own, but it was pretty much the same thing. When I binged on garbage, I was fat. I cut the binging, I lost weight. I settled on a weight that was much less than before but I still wasn't happy, so I dieted & exercised and lost more weight. Duh. Sorry this conflicts with Dave's belief system but it really happened: I weigh less 53 pounds less at 57 than I did at 16. Never give up. Never ever give up.

Nigel Kinbrum said...

Dave said...
"Sanjeev don't be such a fool. You really think body fat is not regulated? Its just the result of our lifestyles?"

Of course body fat is regulated. However, in certain countries, it's easy to override regulation by means of excessive food availability, excessive food variety, excessive food marketing, excessive food engineering etc.

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

> The LC crowd won't like it. They can do much better: Jane says aliens and freemasons are stealing our manganese
____
The same low carb crowd that fingers insulin, committing fallacy of composition? THAT low carb crowd?

Gee Jane, you've never done fallacy of composition have you?

Talk about disappointment. I was ready to hear (isolated biochemistry studies and 80 year old observational studies) how my lack of Mn & excess iron in the brain was causing my disagreeable attitude.

Sanjeev said...

Hey Jane, please tell me, how many grams per day of whole wheat (prepared any way you want) can celiac patients safely (verified by biopsy) eat?

grams per day

How much should they eat regularly?


> So that's the best you can do?

what, none of your standard stuff? No references to eighty to ninety year old observational studies?

No (more of your) isolated biochemistry studies to prove pet theories?

Here's a past case of your favourites Jane, observational[0] and isolated biochemistry studies used to push health advice:

Beta carotene and smokers

And when the ideas were tested in real people, controlled, blinded

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8127329

Keep pushing your biased, prejudiced agenda Jane. Keep telling Parkinson's patients to increase Mn, based on the same BS that's happened before.

Your advice will NEVER cause some deaths, heck no ... that's never happened before (except the case I just mentioned above)

[0] these are only 20 to 40 years old, so nowhere near as good as your 80 or 90 year old favourite.

Stuart McLaughlin said...

Dave, I can't understand why you don't think ELMM would work... the problem is getting people to do it indefinitely.
I have dropped well over 60lbs this past year with this approach (and counting calories) and I don't understand how you can say that if I eat at my new maintenance- my body will still continue to regain weight.
Am I missing something?

Go Kaleo said...

Why do so many people seem to believe that I think everyone should eat the same amount of food as I do? I am VERY clear, in multiple posts, that people should eat the amount of food that will support THEIR OWN SPECIFIC weight and activity level.

Susanne, I did a few sprint triathlons a few years ago, but I'm pretty clear that I exercise 20-45 minutes a day, 5 days a week. I do some cardio, some lifting, and some HIIT. Nothing excessive, and I don't compete in anything. Even when I was doing triathlons, I rarely exercise more than an hour at a time, sprint triathlons usually take around 60-90 minutes to complete.

Father Nature said...

"'That 95 percent figure has become clinical lore,' said Dr. Thomas Wadden, a professor of psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania. There is no basis for it, he said, 'but it's part of the mythology of obesity.'"
http://www.nytimes.com/1999/05/25/health/95-regain-lost-weight-or-do-they.html?src=pm

Princess Dieter aka Mir said...

Well, aside from the fact that I find Korean dudes hot, I'm a Japanophile. And I read a lot, watch dramas, watch youtubers who live in Japan. And one had an interesting thing where he interviewed various Japanese on how they ate. All were slim. Mostly young (20s and 30s). And they all virtually ate the SAME thing for breakfast and similar foods for other meals. A lot of rice and fish. Breakfast had miso soup along with the rice. There was definitely a pattern of high-carb (loads of rice) with some animal proteins, tofu, veggies of some sort. Not a whole lotta fruit to speak of. Breakfast nearly was universal: rice, miso soup, tea.

Skinny gorgeous folks eating high carb. I look at some handsome Korean, Chinese dudes here in town. (Yes, I love the Asian look.) They are chubby. A lot of them. Not huge, huge like American obesity, but there's that NOT uberlean look I'm used to seeing in crowd shots of Asian nations on Youtube, news, etc. For them, it ain't the carbs. They simply are not eating loads of calories. I've seen footage of folks eating out in traditional Japanese eateries, and really, I see a lot less food than what we get served in the US.

I was fascinated by one particular American-filmed youtube vid where he was taken to some really old and traditional eatery in some smaller sized town on a trip, and he panned the assorted dishes served to the customers. And in his estimation, the caloric count was about 400. I scanned it and thought maybe a bit more, but not more than or 500 or 600. HAH. Try finding a meal in a restaurant in Miami or NY or Calif that's 500 calories (other than some no-dressing salad or a grilled chicken and veggie dieter's kinda thing).

I do think Taubes is onto something about looking into why we eat so much. Is it just abundance? Is it, like Kessler and others speak of, the hyperpalatable foods? Is it toxins, infections, etc.

But, in the end, we're eating a lot. We're used to generous, crazy big servings....and that's one problem.

Princess Dieter aka Mir said...

Oh, I so loved that reference, and I did not have to google it. :D I do believe you're referencing Gary's "Elegy to a Deadly Speck of Carbs Found In My Belly Button One Morning"

Josh said...

Overall there is a feeling of pessimism regarding long-term weight loss success (18). This pessimism started with a study by Stunkard & McLaren-Hume (42), who followed 100 obese individuals referred to a nutritional weight loss program and found that 2 years after treatment, only 2% maintained a weight loss of at least 20 lb. This finding was instrumental in creating the perception, perpetuated in the popular media, that hardly anyone succeeds in long-term maintenance of weight loss. Recent studies of clinical programs are more positive. Every year for 4 years, Kramer et al (24) followed up on 114 men and 38 women who had participated in a behavioral weight loss program. Using a strict criterion of maintaining 100% of one’s weight loss, they found that only 0.9% of men and 5.3% of women were consistently successful (i.e. maintaining this criterion all of the 4 years). However, looking only at year 4, cross-sectional data showed that 2.6% of men and 28.9% of women had maintained 100% of their weight loss. Several studies have used 5 kg or greater weight loss as a criterion of success. With this criterion, 13% (51) to 22% (41) of participants are successful 5 years after treatment... We propose defining successful long-term weight loss maintenance as intentionally losing at least 10% of initial body weight and keeping it off for at least 1 year. According to this definition, the picture is much more optimistic, with perhaps greater than 20% of overweight/obese persons able to achieve success. - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11375440

So 20% is an optimistic estimate of losing 10% and maintaining for 1 year.

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

@Stuart -- Yes! It is difficult to permanently change behaviors. With LC, however, I see just as much "doomed to mediocrity" or even no significant progress/regain in those who commit to the "WOE" as those who achieve lasting success. That you do not see with ELMM. It's always "I stopped tracking" or "I stopped working out regularly" or somesuch. You just don't see the "I'm still doing everything right and regaining mysteriously" like we see with the LC crowd.

marksuave25 said...

I would have to disagree Evelyn. I know a lot of 55 year olds and none of them can do any pullups. Nor when I go to the local gym do I see any 55 year olds lifting any weights. I think that Gary looks good for his age. I'm 20 plus years younger and I know that it is hard as hell to do pullups, even after losing weight and putting on muscle. It isn't easy.

marksuave25 said...

I would have to disagree Evelyn. I know a lot of 55 year olds and none of them can do any pullups. Nor when I go to the local gym do I see any 55 year olds lifting any weights. I think that Gary looks good for his age. I'm 20 plus years younger and I know that it is hard as hell to do pullups, even after losing weight and putting on muscle. It isn't easy.

lian johnston said...

I think some are confused about ELMM. It doesn't mean eating half a cheese burger instead of a full one and going for a job afterwards. It's about contructing a satisfying diet that is lower in calories but satiating and decent enough that you can stick to, and/or getting more activity in any form.

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

@Dave: An open-minded person who watches to the entire (unabridged) 3 part + questions of this Cross Fit talk will learn a few things:
1. He says how science should and should not be done, then proceeds to do what should not be done.
2. He talks himself in circles and circles and circles over energy balance, etc. You see in his very first article and in GCBC he says the obese eat no more than the lean, he knows CICO must hold thus at some point the obese took more CI than CO expended. In WWGF he puts forth a scenario for how carbs make us overeat, and yet he has blogged that the very concept of overeating is inane and circles back to magical fat accumulation.

He is utterly disrespectful of Keith Frayn in this talk -- though taken out of context is doesn't come across nearly as badly as if you listen to all of the discussions on bad science and all that. I was hoping to clip them together, but opted to make this one first: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLBBYFKSLOw and ran out of spare time.

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

Is there some YouTube video of Gary Taubes doing pull-ups I'm not aware of? I don't know many women of any age who can lift a lot of the stuff I do with regular ease so I'm not sure strength is a predictable marker. In any case, he looks normal to me, good for his age vs the general population? He looks good here, most of the time he looks/acts mildly fatigued perhaps due to his chronic state of mild dehydration. This is where his "crowd" matters. Gary has been in a higher socioeconomic circles for a long time and is married to a woman at least a decade his junior. He looks normal to me for men in these circles. True many men (as do women) let themselves go, etc., but there are many men that look better IMO. That would include one very overweight collegue who is a couple years his senior. This man's face and how he carries himself, etc. would have you believing he's around 45 tops.

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

Have not yet decided if I'm going to address this one.

Stuart McLaughlin said...

Hi Evelyn!

I hope I am picking you up right, are you saying that the way I am doing it (ELMM, counting calories) is a positive way to go, and if I eat at my new maintenance I shouldn't just magically gain weight? (I am having a slow-day, sorry if I am coming across as a bit dim!)
I am not a low-carber (love my carbs!)
If I am picking you up right, then yes, I agree. If it were a case that your body would revert back to starting weight even with your new calorie intake and continuing to do what you were doing to lose that weight in the first place- I'm sure there would be an uproar/ people finding that very hard to believe.
That's why I think it's just a case that people don't maintain their diet/ eat at their new calorie level (taking RMR slowdown into account)

I hope I picked you up right!

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

I think you're picking me up just about right! When one looks at the National Weight Control Registry, the single thread running through all is a maintenance of habit changes = maintenance of weight. Which is not to say that if you currently maintain at 2500 cal/day you will always maintain at that. Metabolism unfortunately tends to slow. Most of the successful long term low carbers I have seen on the net (and there's only a few verifiable ones) have had to address the caloric intake issue and/or exercise in what would be poo pooed as "chronic cardio" fashion (e.g. become distance runners and such).

Your body is not going to revert back to start weight BUT it will PROBABLY work against you (for a while) to get you to EMML so that it can. If you are not starving yourself or forcing yourself to do hours of non-enjoyable activity, you're probably going to "fall off the wagon".

If I have advice to offer from my experience it would be this:
(1) Do not go VLC for too long at a clip. This sets up a metabolic milieu that your body senses as starvation and it will probably adapt accordingly -- favor fat storage, lower basal metabolic rate. The low carbers erroneously equate feeling hunger with starvation and presume they cannot be starving since they are never hungry. <- I think there's a blog post right there!
(2) Don't overly restrict any food or total intake for any length of time w/o a break. There was a study a while back where a calorie restricted VLC group -- 2 days a week 500 cal VLC -- lost as much weight as the sustained Mediterranean 1500 cal/day group. This is probably due to both adherence (it's relatively easy to restrict, even severely, 2 days a week w/o binging in response since you get to eat "normally" the other 5) and that metabolic rate is likely sustained (met rate goes up the first day of a fast and adaptation doesn't set in until day 3 if memory serves).

It is supremely demoralizing to lose large amounts of weight and regain it. I think these stats and personal past experiences keep folks from trying again.

marksuave25 said...

No there aren't any videos of him doing pullups. In his first appearance on the UW podcast. He said "I'm a jock, I'm what's left of a jock, I'm amazed atthe number of pullups that I can do...". That is were I got that from. Average means a lot of things to a lot of people. I agree with you on his socioeconomic status and men of that class.

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

BTW in one of his more recent interviews, Gary expressed some concern that he would not be able to respond in an emergency if it required running a mile. He says he basically does some slow burn here and there. Fitness and form are not always equivalent, and form and function neither. If whatever he is doing has him looking normal or good for his age, that's great. But by his own admission he worries about it having him function well for his age when called to action.

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

Ahh I see ... comment at 9:58 written before reading yours of 9:29.

I was a jock and around jocks and such ... I don't doubt that he was/is, and perhaps I need to be Diana and having seen him in the flesh to see what I'm missing? I just wouldn't have in a million years guessed he was a jock and a boxer at that. He just doesn't carry himself that way which is something difficult to describe in words. I know guys my age who were jocks in their youths, some of whom haven't done anything athletic in years. Some look like former athletes, some athletes still. It's just an observation anyway. Meaningless in the end and ultimately irrelevant.

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

Correction: 2nd paragraph should read that if you're not doing extreme stuff you probably WON'T fall off the wagon.

marksuave25 said...

Do you think that NUSI will come out with any good science? And if it does, will it change your opinion? If it comes out with conclusions that are contrary to Gary's conclusion, do you think he will change? I think that if the science is good then our stances must change. I've change my stances on calories, cholesterol and saturated fat after going to PubMed for myself and looking. That is why I'm concerned for Jimmy and his skyhigh cholesterol.

Princess Dieter aka Mir said...

I'm ready to place my order. Plug that baby into my brain and let's roll!

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

I don't think so, and I blogged on this here: http://carbsanity.blogspot.com/2012/09/nusi-again-bar-too-high-occams-razor.html
Basically, when you look at their summary of all the "bad science" and shortcomings, NuSI seems ill equipped to do anything. Most of the studies HAVE been done, it's just unfortunate that the met ward studies are smaller and shorter for pragmatic reasons. The "excuse" that LC diets have not been low carb enough fails as they have all been consistently lower in carbs than the Western diet is/was long before the obesity epidemic. We're really talking about at most a 10% swing in macro content, more realistically 5%.

Gary is talking big in the subject of this post, and that's what they will have to fund. I made a suggestion here: http://carbsanity.blogspot.com/2012/09/nusi-or-just-do-it.html .

Does NuSI have anything in the works yet? A study they are commissioning, or some evidence of sorting through proposals and allocating the funds?

Diana said...

@Stuart,

And here is my very non-scientific explanation of weight gain.

After a weight loss the body equilibrates (if there is such a word) and settles on a new weight. Not a set point but a settling point.

LCers are fond of talking about the unique satiety quality of protein. Secret: protein is naturally satisfying -- for protein only. It is very difficult for most people to overeat protein.

It's easy to overeat carbs, or fat, or carbs/fat combos.

Eating pure carbs will not make you fat (no matter what the LCers say) but it won't allow you to lose the fat you have. So if you want to main, make your diet high carb and low fat.

Eating a high fat diet will tend to put the pounds on. They are not, for me, self-limiting.

Eating lots of carbs/fat/protein = (IMO) fat bombs. Cheeseburgers, pizza, etc. are the worst foods to eat for weight gain.

If you want to lose fat, watch your carb/fat intake, both together (which is in reality how they are usually eaten) or singly.

Lower your fat intake, control your carb intake, don't worry about protein.

Weight gain happens because after the settling point, people tend to overdo the food rewardy carb/fat combos.

Also: move as much as you can, in a challenging but non-punishing fashion.

Get used to eating on an empty stomach only.

Don't snack.

JMO - this works for me. N=1. But I'm doing better than Jimmy Moore and I'm 17 years older than he.

Diana said...

" So if you want to main,"

should be "maintain"

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

Forgot to answer the second part of your question as to whether or not it would change my opinion. If they fund a metabolic ward study that does exceed the limitations they themselves outline and the results are published in prominent peer review journals, it will change my opinion only if the results of those studies change anything on the level of the scientific hypotheses.

Unknown said...

I would like to see them do a study establishing the optimal frequency for clipping one's toenails, it is something that I have struggled with for many years.

Stuart McLaughlin said...

Thanks Evelyn, much appreciated! :)

Stuart McLaughlin said...

Thanks Diana. I have lost over 50lb over the past 1 year and 1/2 and it's actually been quite easy TBH as my diet was so appalling before, so it wasn't that hard to eat/ drink better.
This thread is actually quite reassuring... some would have you believe that maintaining a weight loss is impossible and it is a one-way street, so happy to hear that some don't think this is the case.
I would say my diet is moderate carb/ moderate fat. I do a fast a couple of times a week to keep calories under control as well... and it is something I can certainly continue to do indefinitely!!

Thanks for the help!

Sanjeev said...

I would get it but Norris is a creationist.

My existing Hitch[0] chip would hitch slap the Norris chip into the stone age (or no more tha 6k years according to Norris).


[0] Christopher Hitchens, for those who don't know.

Diana said...

"as my diet was so appalling before, so it wasn't that hard to eat/ drink better."

LOL. Same here. In high school/college I was a huge sweets binger. Simply stopping that resulted in a lost of about 35 pounds.

leaning out is a different matter....

However it's true what you say - if we as a whole just stopped doing the crazier things, the OE would be a thing of the past.

Diana said...

I've seen several dozen professional athletes (when I worked for a sports agent) and in my neighborhood I see current dancers, and some former dancers. It's true they come in all shapes, sizes & colors -- some ex-ballerinas get fat, which is always a shock to me, and some stay in great shape.

All I can say is I saw Taubes briefly in Greenwich Village, and no, I didn't say to myself, "ex-jock!" I said to myself, "Gary Taubes." Later on I read that he played football at Harvard and briefly took up amateur boxing. I wasn't surprised at the football thing. He's big - easily 6'2" or 6'3" or so and mesomorph, IMO.

Regarding the boxing, there was a brief vogue for people to take up amateur boxing back a few years ago, which sputtered out when people realized how difficult it is, and how you can get nose split in two if you "walk into a bad punch" as the boxers say. Boxing is a nowhere sport nowadays, but a brief scan of images of the greats past shows that they also came in all shapes. One thing they all had in common was extremely low body fat. You just can't lug around fat in the ring. And in the old days boxers were less muscular, due to less "juice."

Joe Frazier took up boxing to lose weight, because he was fat and poor, and in the late 50s a poor man couldn't buy cheap clothes for fat people easily, and of course he couldn't afford tailoring.

How times have changed!!!

paleotwopointoh said...

Sigh, I don't have 'heros', Melissa. There's a strawman. I have not, to my recollection in commenting here defended the carnivory brigade. I just eat fewer carbs (less than 80% of my diet) than many women in the real-foodosphere find acceptable. There is clearly a male/female divide where women who aren't majority starch (specifically grains and/or rice) who are healthy (able to be physically active without chronic aches/pains, maintaining fat losses, etc.) are told their diet choices are unhealthy and damaging. I get to hear about how it's fertility damaging (there was a whole thread about that a few weeks ago here) among other things.

I'm no zero carber, I just rely on tubers as my main carb source and for this i get to hear that i'm some shill for all-meat allatime paleo. w/e.

paleotwopointoh said...

It's a redux of the meat=male stuff that is so incredibly silly and yet it keeps cropping up. As a rural, distributist Calvinist black woman, I already hear plenty how my experiences aren't real and my inability to live on bread alone is just another piece of that tired puzzle.

I eat a lot of meat and veg and tubers. This makes my body happy and allows me to be as physically active as I wish to be. I do not thrive on a diet white women seem to thrive on, which tends to be heavy on the grains and often beans too.

I eat dairy comfortably too, though I tend to get raw and/or local dairy. I grew up thinking I was lactose intolerant, but it's really just holstein intolerance. I do great with milk from other kinds of cows, or goat milk.

As I've already commented, I am not threatened by the notion that grains might have been consumed earlier than expected. I do object to the premise that they were always for all paleo peoples everywhere a primary food source, which is all too often the spin as more information is gathered about ancient diets.

Jane said...

@Sanjeev
'Hey Jane, please tell me, how many grams per day of whole wheat (prepared any way you want) can celiac patients safely (verified by biopsy) eat?'

You are a puzzle to me. When have I ever said coeliac patients should eat wheat?

'Here's a past case of your favourites Jane, observational[0] and isolated biochemistry studies used to push health advice: beta carotene and smokers...'

Sanjeev, I have never said anything about beta carotene and smokers. Much less is this 'one of my favourites'. You are confusing me with someone else.

I certainly did say things about Mn and Cu and Parkinson's/Alzheimer's. I was reporting results from reputable scientists publishing in reputable journals. The work is not in dispute. In one case (Cu and Alzheimer's) the results appear to be at variance with the title of the paper, and I emailed the author who confirmed the results were correct. I explained all of this.

Diana said...

"And when the ideas were tested in real people, controlled, blinded"

Sanjeev. That sounds just awful.

Sanjeev said...

No, you did not write that celiac patients SHOULD eat whole wheat

I DID NOT CLAIM THAT YOU DID

I asked you to explicate your position with specificity because in the past you have danced around the question, IMHO trying to "have your cake and eat it too". You still are - you did NOT write "celiacs should eat zero wheat of any kind" or "100 grams per day".

Here's some of the past dancing - a pattern of behaviour that continues (you still didn't answer the queston)

sound familiar? (from an exchange that you "won") Jane: how likely it is that whole grains would cause coeliac disease. From this exchange

http://anthonycolpo.com/the-whole-grain-scam/

> Jane Karlsson writes:
>
> Dear Mr Colpo,
>

> If you think Loren Cordain is wrong, as I do, why do you
> eat white rice? Whole grains contain enough minerals to
> activate enzymes that deal with the so-called toxins. Look
> up ‘The activation of intestinal peptidases by manganese’,
> and ask yourself how likely it is that whole grains would
> cause coeliac disease. White flour has had nearly all its
> manganese removed. White rice, over half.

and another

> Jaane Karlsson replies:
...
> Coeliac disease is thought to be caused by failure of ‘oral
> tolerance’, in which the immune system is instructed not to
> react to food proteins. See this paper for the role of
> regulatory T cells in coeliacs.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18975083

> Immune cells use a lot of glutamine for fuel, like gut
> cells do. Glutamine is made by glutamine synthetase, which
> is activated by magnesium and manganese. Therefore,
> deficiencies of Mg and Mn are expected to cause problems
> with the immune system and gut. These two metals also
> activate intestinal peptidases.

Minerals digesting wheat proteins ... Dancing around the issue ... taking the reader's attention off the subject at hand by dwelling on trivia - (you still are: the question remains unanswered, how many grams per day?)

I asked how much wheat to stop you dancing around the issue, changing the subject, dwelling on trivia to distract from the question - again, I did NOT claim you've ever written specifically celiacs should eat wheat.

I bet that even if it's true you never will write, without lots of qualification, lots of trivia about minerals, clearly and unabiguously "some populations should not even breathe the air that blows across a wheat field".

> Sanjeev, I have never said anything about beta carotene and smokers

I never claimed that you ever said/wrote anything about beta carotene and smokers.
Here's what I wrote:

"Here's a past case of your favourites Jane ..."

A PAST CASE of when people followed the same type of procedure/analysis I've read from you many times

I thought it was clear but if you REALLY (seriously, you really didn't get it?) - The beta carotene and smokers case is an EXAMPLE FROM THE PAST where people extrapolated "science[0]" (in that case observational/correlational plus micro-mechanistic isolated (not whole-organism) biochem[2]) and made CR*P health recommendations. (beta carotene sales skyrocketed around this time) and when the recommendations were actually tested, turned out if smokers had used the purchased beta carotene they probably had caused themselves excess cases of cancer.

> "certainly did say things about Mn and Cu and
> Parkinson's/Alzheimer's. I was reporting results from
> reputable scientists publishing in reputable journals. "

http://carbsanity.blogspot.ca/2012/11/gary-debunks-taubes-ii-its-frucose.html

Sanjeev said...

Jane December 2, 2012 at 9:33 AM

> Kade, the thing about meat iron is that meat is very low in
> manganese. Plants are much higher: wheat for instance has
> an iron-manganese ratio of 1, and in beef muscle, it's
> around 100. Yes, 100. Manganese protects mitochondria and
> much else from iron-induced damage. There is a favourite
> paper of mine showing that iron-induced parkinsonism in
> rats can be completely prevented by manganese. I sent this
> paper to a friend who works on Alzheimer's and he couldn't
> believe it. It means, copper deficiency + manganese
> deficiency = Alzheimer's/Parkinson's. The drug giants have
> recently given up the search for an Alzheimer drug. They've
> wasted billions.

Drug companies, Alzheimer's drugs ... this was "I was reporting results from"

Copper, diet, manganese, all in connection with Alzheimer's drugs this was "I was reporting results from"

... I don't see any way that exchange __in context__ could have been read SOLELY as reporting but included propaganda.

So, Jane ... it really SOUNDED like you were about to write "celiacs should eat ZERO wheat, whole or otherwise".

But you still have NOT written that. You've AGAIN dodged the question. [3]

I'm still genuinely curious and I still do NOT know your stance.

Want to state your position now? Unambiguously, WITH SPECIFICITY (grams per day of whole wheat for celiac patients, status verified by biopsy and symptoms) ?

Or would you prefer to reiterate (do you want to leave the impression intact) that you believe celiac patients can eat wheat proteins - that when whole grains are fed, grain proteins "should be broken down with no difficulty"?


> Jane Karlsson replies:
...
> I repeat, nearly all the so-called antinutrients of grains
> are proteins, and should be broken down with no difficulty.
> Tell me about other antinutrients, and I will tell you why
> they are not a problem

I note that there is no qualification here: no "most people" or "... except for sensitive or intolerant people ..."

> Tell me about other antinutrients, and
> I will tell you why they are not a
> problem

PS - I disagree with Colpo often. In all the above I believe I have not agteed with one thing Colpo ever wrote. Please don't assume I have anything in common with AC (I believe you once asked or suggested I eat only white rice - no, I have no food intolerances or allergies that I know of and I avoid no food because some small percent of the population has a problem iwith it. I've given my reasons for avoiding KFC and Tim Horton's)

[0] that may have been intrinsically great science but was CR*P for application/extrapolation to humans - IMHO the only people who should have extrapolated were scientists looking to do the next level of research based on initial results.

[2] IOW, "your favourites" - isolated (non-whole-organism) biochem mechanisms, observational/correlational studies; IMHO you've read these words from me enough to know this is my position


[3] colour me SHOCKED[4] by the way - I'm just curious has anyone else hereabouts read that Colpo exchange BEFORE reading my question to Jane and then when her non-responsive answer, aka "pretend to answer but with a complete lack of any answering at all" - is it all of one piece? All of one biased, prejudiced piece? A piece that's taken "a lifetime" or "30 years".

[4] facetiously perhaps, but SHOCKED nonetheless

Sanjeev said...

Well, you don't need to control the usual subjects, university undergrads - they're already like sheep anyway (to the peer group), and that was when rendering undergrads blind was ethical[0] ; ) so no problem there.

Sadly, times have changed. (re: blinding, not control)

[0] the 3 Stooges was a documentary on how to do research.

Jane said...

@Sanjeev
I am still just as puzzled. I have already linked the papers I referred to in my comment to Kade. Do you want them again? As for 'the drug companies have wasted billions' see this article
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/drug-giants-give-up-on-alzheimers-cure-8153606.html

I am disappointed that you have not succeeded in coming up with any evidence against me. I like a good argument, and you are not giving me one. Colpo didn't either.

Sanjeev said...

You've left this on the table with no explicit answer Jane, and no qualification such as

"except for celiacs"
or
"except for those who are intolerant"

> Jane Karlsson:
> I repeat, nearly all the so-called antinutrients of grains
> are proteins, and should be broken down with no difficulty.
> Tell me about other antinutrients, and I will tell you why
> they are not a problem

and

> Jane Karlsson:
> activate enzymes that deal with the so-called toxins. Look
> up ‘The activation of intestinal peptidases by manganese’,
> and ask yourself how likely it is that whole grains would
> cause coeliac disease.

Sanjeev said...

> already linked the papers

It wasn't about the papers and I believe you know that.

But forget about that for now - please
1. feign misunderstanding of the above comment about what you left on the table -

or
2 work out some way to ignore
3 distract
4 change the subject

Sanjeev said...

> I like a good argument

some of the GREAT arguments you've introduced me to ...

"Do I detect biochemistry phobia Sanjeev?"
"I can see connections you cannot"

distraction
change the topic
ignore the question
non-responsive answer
feigned misunderstanding

... And now this "puzzled" thing

if you're puzzled, you canNOT know the arguments are bad
If you know the arguments are bad, you canNOT be puzzled.

> I like a good argument

!!!

Jane said...

OK, let me reword it.

Obviously coeliac patients cannot eat wheat. But we don't know whether people who have never eaten refined wheat would get coeliac. We do know that there are people with a genetic predisposition for coeliac who don't get symptoms.

In coeliac, there is failure of 'oral tolerance' which is indicative of a poorly functioning immune system. This might be due to nutritional deficiencies caused by lifelong consumption of refined wheat.

Gluten is a protein, and most people have no problem breaking it down. Humans like other animals have enzymes in their gut which break down proteins. Some of them require metals for activation, and these metals get removed from refined wheat.

Sanjeev said...

NuSi - trying to answer the all important scientific question,

"can 15 more years of yaoi[0] stretch out Gary Taubes' speaking enagements?"

[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yaoi or click

Yama nashi, ochi nashi, imi nashi (山[場]なし、落ちなし、意味なし?)[1]


[1] OK fine, if you don't want to click through,
"No peak (climax), no fall (punch line/denouement), no meaning". This phrase was first used as a "euphemism for the content"

Sanjeev said...

the "no fall" only applies to a limited audience.

But then again, Japanese moe / yaoi also works for a limited audience ... it's more apt than I initially thought !

Post a Comment

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

Found something helpful today? Please consider a small donation. Thank you!

Where to now?

align="middle" align="middle"

align="middle" align="middle" align="middle"