Scientific Battlegrounds in Diets 765
There's an interesting article currently carried by the NYTimes (free reg. yada yada) that talks about the world of dieting, National Institutes of Health, Atkins as well as low-carb vs low-fat. The interesting thing, from a scientific perspective, is the sheer lack of study - and the reticence from the scientific community to question the party line.
Re:Atkins does work... (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the truth is that there are different diets that work for different people. A one size fits all approach probably won't be the answer here. until we do more good science on the subject, I'm skeptical of anyone who says there is one true way.
Re:Moderation (Score:5, Insightful)
"Diets" don't work. By definition they are temporary and restrictive. Instead, just eat GOOD food. It's pretty simple what's GOOD food. That extra large pizza with extra cheese? Not good. That orange and apple over there? Good. Those vegetables? Good.
Don't eat too many potatoes or excessively high carb foods, but don't eat nothing but steak either. Thus, eat everything in moderation, mostly good food, but don't deny yourself bad food either. Besides, most 'healthy' food that isn't processed and stamped with the 99% fat free label, is pretty good tasting. You don't hear many people saying "Boy, that orange sure was disgusting," unless it was a rotten one.
And exercise too, but do something fun. I don't know how people can ride stationary bikes or run on treadmills for an hour every day. The boredom kills me. I play racquetball and other active sports.
In summary, it's pretty much the same stuff you've been hearing all along: eat good food, and exercise. What qualifies as 'good food' is pretty easy to figure out.
Re:The studies have been done.. by interested part (Score:2, Insightful)
The Atkins diet goes over well in North America because the standard North American diet just happens to be rich on fat, rich on protein, and short on carbs : Going on the Atkins diet is basically saying "Eat what you eat, just be cognizant of it". For "fatty", such a food awareness is a good approach because it's less likely to be perceived as "all or nothing": You haven't given up if you have a Big Mac or a steak. Yet at the same time there are countless very active, very healthy (probably in much better cardiac shape than the average Atkins diet fan) people living on zero saturated fat.
BTW: The saddest thing about the whole diet fad is that the lazy, gas pedal public perceives health as being merely about food. How far from the truth that is. Gaining some muscle mass not only makes you more capable of handling yourself, but it also raises your basal metabolic rate (muscles consume energy just to exist). If people just got off their sorry, lazy asses and DID SOMETHING their would be far less obesity among the sedentary population. I have no doubt that there are people who have hormone imbalances, but for every one of them there are about 4 who, between stuffing back a Big Mac and Super Monster Large Fries is crying about their poor genetics DAMNIT GET ME A BEER! Apart from the extreme outliers with physical handicaps, anyone who doesn't exercise at least 30 minutes every other day, and who eats with disregard, should realize that they are making their own bed.
shhh magic secret (Score:2, Insightful)
I dunno why people assume that instantly dropping 20lbs in a week is a sign of being "healthier". I'd say picking up more energy, stamina, better moods, better social interactions is also ideal.
Little known fact but being healthier normally reduces stress on the body even before you lose your first pound [or gain muscle].
People gotta stop looking at the scale and just eat reasonable portions of food.
Duh....
Tom
Re:The studies have been done.. by interested part (Score:5, Insightful)
Since diets are for humans, and not for iron-willed Nietzschean super-heros who heed not the plaints of crude appetite, nor the pangs of hunger, a diet that doesn't work for the averagely-will-powered person is a pretty bad diet. (This logic is also useful for other domains.)
The fact that the dieting population has been getting poor advice for the past several years could also have something to do with the obesity problem, ya think? Naaawww, it's far better for you to be a judgemental jerk.
You know, your attitude betrays a fascinating, yet increasingly common, combination of ignorance and arrogance, that I'm struggling to come up with a new term for it. It's a combination of asshole and moron. Are you an assron or a mohole?
What else is new? Of course we don't know yet... (Score:2, Insightful)
Wow. Sounds just like evolution. What a coincidence. (Seriously, this isn't a troll (although I fear it will be moderated as one), but rather a sober observation that science is not often interested in investigating things that don't fit with the current body of popular opinion. Regardless of one's opinions on diets or evolution, there is clearly much more real science needing to be done before anyone should run around claiming an exclusive on the facts. In general that hardest thing for scientists to admit is that we simply don't know, even when that's the honest answer...)
Re:The studies have been done.. by interested part (Score:3, Insightful)
Since diets are for humans, and not for iron-willed Nietzschean super-heros who heed not the plaints of crude appetite, nor the pangs of hunger, a diet that doesn't work for the averagely-will-powered person is a pretty bad diet.
And my point was that "diets", in the traditional sense (meaning "instant consumption behaviour changes"), are almost always doomed to failure because of willpower cannot hold up to such a sharp change in personal habits (note that kids who are brought up eating healthy foods often persist in that habit, and continue to eat healthy foods. In essence if you have bad habits, blame your parents). The only likely to be successful approach is to become gradually aware of what you're eating (and substitute where possible), increase physical activity, and just get on with it. In a nutshell: Eat healthy and be active.
You know, your attitude betrays a fascinating, yet increasingly common, combination of ignorance and arrogance, that I'm struggling to come up with a new term for it. It's a combination of asshole and moron. Are you an assron or a mohole?
The irony, of course, is that my "you are in charge of your own destiny" attitude is far LESS common nowadays (coincidentally coupled with a ballooning Western public with obeisity rates bordering on an epidemic). Instead we live in a "oh, it's not your fault!" society that gives everyone an out. Again, I'll reiterate: There are people with thyroid disorders or other health problems that make it especially hard (there are people who exercise every day and eat reasonably, yet they still can't lose the weight), but on the other hand there are countless zero-activity gluttons who try to put themselves in the same league: It's absurd, and it's an offense and affront to people who truly are trying and aren't making headway. Obesity brings along with it such an unbelievable array of health problems, as well as professional problems (I believe I read that an obese professional is 28x less likely to get a promotion) that it is something that people need to get a grasp on.
BTW: A wise piece of advice I heard once went as such - "If you avoid it once at the grocery store, you won't have to avoid it dozens of times at home". The advice deals with things like chips, ice cream, etc: If you have the willpower to say no at the grocery store, then you won't have to muster up the willpower several times a day when you open the fridge, etc.
Re:Diet gurus? (Score:2, Insightful)
Maybe there's something to it?
Re:The studies have been done.. by interested part (Score:2, Insightful)
Also, low-fat diets don't work that well. Cut out the crap food, ESPECIALLY the sugary, processed foods (that includes white breads, not just Snickers), eat a balanced meal, and exercise 30 minutes every other day. It ain't that hard if you know what to do and what to expect: instant weight loss isn't true fat loss (grapefruit diets, for example, just dehydrate you - you only lose water weight), but if you stick to your guns, the loss will come.
Common sense would do as well... (Score:5, Insightful)
So, let me get this straight:
Gosh, maybe we should be eating - gasp - a balanced diet?
Now you're talking crazy, man!
The problem is everyone wants a "magic bullet" and few are willing to do the work unless they can find a "drastic" and flashy diet to throw themselves into.
Eat a balanced diet (complex carbs, some fat and some protein) and exercise and you'll do fine. Stay off the sugar bombs. Eat less than you burn to lose weight. Buy a sports nutrition book to figure out your requirements, because those are the people who are practiced at this math. And don't expect to lose 10 years of fat in a few months.
And like your mother always said, eat your peas.
Re:shhh magic secret (Score:5, Insightful)
"I'd say picking up more energy, stamina, better moods, better social interactions is also ideal."
You are spot on, not too many people seem to pick up on this either. When you are in good physical shape, your mental conditioning is better over all as well (at least in my views it is). The reason for this is because less fatigue, better sleep (that's right, folks, you sleep better when physically tired) and a better diet all help your mental conditioning. This is not news.
Also, another no-brainer, when you feel good about yourself (and you will, it's amazing) you're outlook on life will change, causing better, more positive social interaction. (I guarantee it!)
theoretical question time:
I haven't exercized in years, and am significantly larger/over-weight/out of shape than I used to be. How do I start exercising without feeling like I just ran a marathon and got kicked down the stairs?
Answer:
Start slowly. (DUH) Just like you can't expect to lose weight and keep it off if you binge diet, you won't be worth a damn if you try and do the crash course to exercise. Moderation, moderation, moderation. First off, when you start, find something you like to do. If you were a good swimmer, go jump in the local pool, do laps, tread water, whatever you do is better for you than sitting on your butt.
If you need more motivation, go to a gym and sign up during one of their specials. Usually they will give you a free instructor to help you out.
If you are in pretty bad shape, try walking. It's wonderful for getting you started.
Keep it up, and find other like-wise minded geeks/friends/what-have-you to help you. Going to the gym by yourself isn't as good (IMO) as having a good partner with you to help you through the struggles, and periods of laziness.
Please try this folks, it will change your life...and for the better.
Re:The studies have been done.. by interested part (Score:3, Insightful)
Anonymous Coward.
Re:Factor Analysis (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The studies have been done.. by interested part (Score:2, Insightful)
Body temp is 98.6 - to a first approximation this sets energy consumption by the body (exercise and you... anyone? anyone? get hot). 2000 calories/day. 1lb of human fat = 3500 Calories.
Now here's the simple bit: energy in = energy out + energy retained.
Put in 3500 calories eating a pound of butter--or 2.5 pounds of pasta--and it will either come out as heat (eg run 35 miles if you weigh 150 lbs to burn it off, or wait 2 days without eating anything else...)
OR it will stay on your body (=1 lb of fat)
OR it will come out your anus (eg anal leakage from olestra.).
THERE IS NO OTHER OPTION.
There is no magic diet. Zone, Atkins, it's all a bunch of crap... well almost. The real deal is that the difference between a "zone" diet and a NIH diet is relatively trivial. Perhaps a bit too much fat for most hearts, but not really that big a deal. Eating a little more fat and a little less carbohydrate comes out a wash... which is to say the argument is a bunch of crap, the diets don't matter that much.
One good bit of advice from Atkins et al - avoid sugar. If we all skipped the soda at the PC, and the junk food (oooohhh carboyhdrates.... NAW! just 200 calories a can, 400 for a soda and candy bar = 1/8 of a pound of fat you gain that day).
Now, as for the carbodhydrate diets: asians eat some of the most carbohydrate rich diets in the world, and have the lowest obesity and heart disease. They come to the US and they get fat. The ratio of fat goes up, which may be significant for heart disease, but the amount of refined sugar explodes, as does the fat... and everything else. Mmmmm BK double and a giant size coke!
Eat a well balanced diet, get plenty of exercise and forget the Nietzschean crap. Skip the soda, take a walk.
Healthy Eskimo != Healthy African (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I've read The Zone, and Body For Life (Score:3, Insightful)
Many plants internally produce pesticides of more toxicity than commercial pesticides.
Meat may have small amounts of antibiotic, but is hardly "stuffed with it." The comment about meat industry and pollution says a lot about your biases and nothing about what is healthy food.
There was a recent study correlating lifelong use of Soy (in particular, Tofu) with earlier onset of Alzheimers.
Aflatoxin is an extremely carcinogenic chemical, produced naturally by mold that grows on peanuts, wheat, etc.
While many advocate getting vitamins from natural sources, vitamin supplements are also good sources for many. Of course, these days there are so many vague links that it is a toss-up as to whether many different substances do you good or harm. Dietary anti-oxidants are one example.
Studies attempting to correlate specific substances (such as Vitamin E) found in natural foods are very unlikely to be significant, simply because they are going to be retrospective studies and separating out the vitamin E intake from other factors is essentially impossible. It may be statistically possible, but that is only if you ignore the fact that the data itself is of poor quality. This is true of way too many health studies that show a benefit or harm from this or that substance or habit. It is especially true of dietary studies because long term studies rely on accurate reporting, by the patients of their dietary habits... usually long after the fact.
So, don't read too much into these studies. If you want eternal life, get religion (hey, at least it offers a possibility
Re:The evidence is all around... (Score:2, Insightful)
>Ever see a skinny cow? (Not counting desert-like
>lack of food conditions).
>Carbs are what food eats...
>(Okay, I'm slightly kidding. Humans
>are
Ever see a cow have to sprint and then tackle it's food to the ground? Ever see a carniove's prey stand patiently as it munches on it.
Herbivores are fat cause they don't move.
Eat what you like and excercise.
Re:Atkins does work... (Score:2, Insightful)
The key is to increase your distance gradually.
Re:The evidence is all around... (Score:3, Insightful)
Bad example. Cattle in this country and other developed ones are bred to point of being almost genetically engineered to be, well, beefy. Look at healthy cattle in places like Africa, they're a lot leaner. The same goes with deer and other wild critters. The only fat deer and elk I've seen have been at wildlife shelters. A better comparison would be wild vs domestic animals. You will almost never see an obese wild animal, except maybe Univ. of Michigan squirrels, and animals stocking up for winter. Now, how many of us have a cat or dog that needs a serious diet plan? Quite a few I bet. The scary thing is that analogy may carry over into humans as well. I wonder if our obesity results from the fact that we have tamed ourselves and our environment to the point where we have to creat artifical physical stress to keep us healthy.
Re:I've read The Zone, and Body For Life (Score:2, Insightful)
As for cancer-in-the-thirties, if you look at breast cancer rates in the US, you'll find that breast cancer is consistently highest in the mid point between two nuclear reactors. And it's a cancer that can strike in the 30's.
Knowing nothing about breast cancer (other than that more women get it than do men :) ), but a fair amount about nuclear power, I offer this:
Assuming nuclear power plants are a source of radiation and radioactive contamination (which they are), and assuming more or less random distribution of nuclear power plants (which they aren't), then "mid point between two nuclear power plants" is a higher breast cancer risk only if breast cancer risk is lowered in the presence of low-level readioactivity/contamination. By any objective measure, levels of radioactivity/contamination from nuclear power plants are higher near one power plant than (relatively) far from two power plants. Midpoint between two power plants is about as safe as it gets, unless your definition of "mid point between" is "between two reactor vessels at the same site".
Re:Factor Analysis (Score:3, Insightful)
If exercising in the gym isn't helping you, you may be a person who responds better to aerobic exercise. Try rollerblading or bicycling. The bad news is that, at least for me, it takes real dedication to make a dent in my standard body pattern - I have to do ~1h of aerobics almost every day to lose weight. Some people might not be willing or able to dedicate that much time to the process (I find that I can't generally find the time, frankly).
So the point is, if you want to do it, try some other patterns and see if they work better for you. If you're satisfied with what you've got going now, don't worry about it - it sounds like you're getting a pretty healthy result.