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.
Dieting and eating contests (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Dieting and eating contests (Score:2, Funny)
yeah, the less we eat, the more we can eat! how are we gonna do that?!
Re:Dieting and eating contests (Score:3, Informative)
I am just guessing here, but the skinny Japanese guy might have some sort of 'training program' which involves drinking a lot of fluids or eating sugar-free jello to keep the stomach expanded while not gaining any weight.
Re:Dieting and eating contests (Score:4, Funny)
Even being a glutton has been "Samurized" now?
"I shall be not just a pig, but an honorable pig that my ancestors will be proud of. They will belch from the afterlife in thunderous approval as my enemies puke in pain after glorious defeat. For I have the stomach of a bear and the mouth of a tiger!"
Can't wait for the asian entries in the farting contests. "The Eastern Wind shall blow such that there will be no denial...."
Re:Dieting and eating contests (Score:2)
being a native New Yorker I love the Nathan's contest, but I'd like to see Bob Kratchie the Maspeth Monster make a comback one of these years.
And yeah, it IS a samuraized sport in Japan now. *sigh*
Direct link to article (Score:5, Interesting)
yeah. (Score:3, Informative)
personally i'm a little overweight have been interested in the idea the eating bacon w/ butter as a main food could make me loose weight, the down side a lot of people on the adkins diet have dangerously high cholesterol counts. Then again, all research in the field seems to be highly biased, the only nugget of consistent truth i can find is eating less works, typically on a high far or low fat diet you'll end up consuming less calories, which seems to always work.
There was something about a low calorie diet on Scientific Frontiers [pbs.org] a while back, you can view it here [pbs.org] if you like
-Jon
Re:The diet works, but you suffer (Score:2)
Just use the bun to hold the meat but don't eat it -- just another part of the wrapper.
Yes, the induction phase of the diet gets boring quickly, but you get to add stuff later. Meanwhile, with a bit of effort there are lots of variations and alternatives. Umpteen cuts of beef, pork, chicken, fish, etc. Different kinds of cheese (imagine the Monty Python "Cheese Shop" sketch here), sugar-free jello, sugar-free jello whipped together with cream, etc.
The really hard part is cutting out caffeine (apparently because it affects insulin levels). It worked for me without doing that, but I really had to cut the carbs down to zero in the induction phase to get ketosis to kick in without eliminating caffeine.
Re:The diet works, but you suffer (Score:3, Informative)
Years ago I'd go through eight to ten cups of coffee a day weekdays (a couple at home, the rest at work) and go into near withdrawal on the weekends, end up with a splitting headache on Sundays.
Now I limit it to one or two cups of coffee and one or two cans of Diet Coke. I can drop it completely with no side effect beyond needing more sleep.
Don't believe the hype (Score:3, Interesting)
In general, these "scientific battleground" stories are more hype than reality.
Re:Don't believe the hype (Score:3, Interesting)
So, yes, it's true that they weren't particularly supportive of Atkins' theories. They weren't supportive of anybody's theories. They were calling for actual scientific studies of the question.
I suspect that one of the things that triggered this sudden debate was the recent Consumers Report article on weight-loss diets. They actually described some controlled studies that they did, comparing several kinds of diets. Their results? The ones that followed the Atkins diet were the only ones who lost weight and didn't regain it after stopping the diet. And they commented on the lack of real scientific studies of the issue.
Of course, few research agencies are likely to lower themselves by paying attention to a commercial consumer-oriented publication. So maybe we should ask them why they aren't doing the research themselves.
From a scientific viewpoint, it's kinda embarrassing to listen to a debate among people who can't be bothered to do a proper study
Whats there to study? (Score:2)
To lose weight you simply take in less calories than your maintnance.
If you need 2000 calories to support your 190lbs, you go down to 1900 calories, then 2 weeks later go down to 1800 and stay around there for about 4-5 months. Occassionally to keep your metabolism fast you do a 3000-4000 calorie day once a week.
The low carb thing is healthy but it wont make you lose weight for long because you cant stay in ketosis for 6 months or so which is about how long it will take to lose about 50lbs
Re:Whats there to study? (Score:2)
I really irks me when people talk about "weight loss" rather than fitness and health. "Weight loss" is usually about vanity, "fitness" is about self care.
Walking a few kilometers a day is all it takes and is enjoyable in all but the worst weather.
Re:Whats there to study? (Score:2)
Walking a few miles a day wont make you lose weight, it only burns maybe 100 calories, you need to burn 3000 to lose a pound.
You are right losing weight wont make you look any better, you have to lift weights to change that.
Cardio is good for your endurance.
Re:Not that easy. (Score:2)
lifting weights and building muscle is the only real way to increase metabolism.
Running mostly burns carbs and sugar for the first 45 minutes and most people unless they are marathon type athletes cant run for hours, not to mention you'll only burn a few hundred calories when its all over.
Its easier to just not eat those calories.
Re:Whats there to study? (Score:2)
not 20lbs of fat.
Its impossible, yes 100 percent impossible to lose 20lbs of pure fat in such a short amount of time UNLESS you lose mostly water and muscle along with it.
You lost 20lbs of weight, but chances are you lost alot of muscle and water, not fat. Even when in ketosis unless you have a super fast metabolism the body only burns as much fuel as it needs per day, so if you need 3000 calories per day (thats a pound of fat) if you burn pure fat for a week its still only 7lbs.
Re:No, it doesn't work like that (Score:2)
Stop buying junkfood, only buy healthy food, eat the same exact 3 meals every single day in the same exact portions at the same exact time, think of food as fuel and not as something which is supposed to taste good.
You'll be ripped in a few months.
Get your facts straight (Score:3, Funny)
I particularly remember a comment that the most unhealthy diet in Europe was found in Scotland, where the only widely comsumed leafy vegetable was tobacco.
Re:Get your facts straight (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, that's a tautology. If it's poisonous, it isn't food.
OTOH, there are plenty of things that can get mistaken for food that will do really nasty things to you.
Rhubarb leaves, for example. High in oxalic acid. Oxalic acid, in the presence of calcium ions (such as within the cells of your body), forms needle-like insoluble crystals of calcium oxalate. Ouch.
Or Amanita mushrooms. Pretty. Might even taste good sauteed in a little butter. But you'll feel really sick for a day or so, then seem to get better. And totally collapse a day or two after that because the toxin has destroyed your liver.
Then there's natural contaminants of things that really are foods. The aflatoxin in those slightly moldy peanuts is a really potent carcinogen...
Not the case... (Score:5, Informative)
1. It's lopsided journalism (surprised?). There's no *honest* attempt at balance, which is precisely what the author accuses the researchers of doing.
2. The acknowledgement of the validity of the alternative position is buried in the middle of the article on page 4: "Few experts now deny that the low-fat message is radically oversimplified." The author seems to return to it, but never really does.
3. Atkins's program, as with other low-carb programs, work well initially but are extremely difficult to maintain. (The same is true of low-fat diets, incidentally.) This is acknowledged by the research community.
4. Some of the substantiations, such as that claiming that one's body sees all carbohydrates as sugars (page 5), is imprecise.
5. An "Atkins diet without excess fat" (page 7) is a low-fat diet. Someone needs to get over himself.
6. This quote is especially choice: "...the public-health authorities may indeed have a problem on their hands. Once they took their leap of faith and settled on the low-fat dietary dogma 25 years ago, they left little room for contradictory evidence or a change of opinion, should such a change be necessary to keep up with the science" (page 7). It only seems like "contradictory evidence or a change of opinion" if you're outside the research community. This is one research community that is not monolithic.
Do more investigation before taking this article as gospel.
Re:Not the case... (Score:4, Informative)
True. However, how much lopsided journalism and research has the low-fat diet seen over the past 25 years? The NIH hasn't even sanctioned a research project on anything else until now!
3. Atkins's program, as with other low-carb programs, work well initially but are extremely difficult to maintain. (The same is true of low-fat diets, incidentally.) This is acknowledgedby the research community.
I won't say untrue, however I do disagree. I've been on it in "maintanence mode" for the past year, without issue. People think that the Atkins diet is just a "cold-turkey" kind of deal. It's only that way for the first couple of weeks. After that you slowly ramp up your carb intake to something more inline with your fat and protein intake, still avoiding processed and bleached carbs (white bread, potatoes, etc.)
4. Some of the substantiations, such as that claiming that one's body sees all carbohydrates as sugars (page 5), is imprecise.
I think you're misinterpretting here. He's talking about simple/processed/bleached carbs, which indeed your body turns almost immediately into sugars.
5. An "Atkins diet without excess fat" (page 7) is a low-fat diet. Someone needs to get over himself.
Does without excess food mean a low food diet? No, it means food in moderation, just as "without excess fat" means fat in moderation. That does not mean a low-fat diet.
It only seems like "contradictory evidence or a change of opinion" if you're outside the research community. This is one research community that is not monolithic.
I will bow to your experience/background on that comment, however, so called legitimate research has never been done or released to the general public on anything but low-fat diets. In fact, not to long ago the "food pyramid" replaced the "four food groups" advocating an even starchier diet! The old "four food groups" diet was a much saner plan, and in reality is much closer to the "revolutionary" Atkins diet than you might think.
Remember, the Atkins diet is a crash diet only in the beginning. It's designed to get people who are overweight into ketosis so they can "eat themselves" and start losing weight right away. Once they get to a healthy weight it goes into maintanence mode, which is damn close to the old four food groups doctrine.
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: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.
Factor Analysis (Score:5, Interesting)
My own results have been mixed. I got pretty lean late last year when I had time to do things right, and my strength and endurance were quite good, but I didn't gain as much muscle mass as I wanted. I was probably overtraining, lifting four days a week an hour at a time, all out.
This dude [owensfitness.com] is hardcore -- he's probably the top male fitness model out there right now. The only modification I've made is that I lift more and play basketball and do less cardio, and try to eat big after a workout to replenish my muscles.
What's worked for Slashdotters?
Re:Factor Analysis (Score:3, Insightful)
- Hitting the gym -- I work out for about an hour, three times a week, to build muscle mass and increase my metabolism.
- Jogging -- I go jogging every day for about 20 minutes (3 miles)
- Hiking/Biking -- About once a week I go on a long hike or mountain bike ride.
- Nothing else
Sure, I could probably have it work a lot faster if I didn't go out for beers with the guys, if I cut down on the bad-for-you foods, like big tasty steaks, or if I ate more vegetables, but my goal was a painless, sustainable change of lifestyle, not something that'd make me insane after six months and have me just abandon the whole thing.Re:Factor Analysis (Score:3)
What I put on the post to which you replied are guidelines, not dogma (hence my wistful surprise when I saw it get modded as flamebait!). I certainly indulge in cheese and crackers and sweets every now and then, and I don't limit myself vis-a-vis my nutrional regimen when I go out on engagements on Friday night or over the weekend. I find that my diet is pretty easy to stick to since a) it tastes good with a little planning and b) I feel better eating healthfully. I love a 3-inch think filet mignon, but tops once/month. When I get a hankering for red meat, I stick to lean cuts or lean ground ...
Happiness is the ultimate goal, no? I think health officials try to hard, and turn off people. I also think people try to hard, and turn off themselves. Very few people find true satisfaction in torturing themselves in a game of diminishing returns. I think I've found a comfortable critical point, as have you.
I hate to say it, but... (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
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:What else is new? Of course we don't know yet.. (Score:2)
On the contrary, scientists admit this all the time. It just that they express it in slightly different words.
Some time back, I saw the advice that the most important part of a scientific paper is the paragraph near the end that start with "... more research is needed
Scientists make their living pointing out that there are many things that we don't yet know, and asking funding agencies to pay them to learn about some of those things.
I was wondering if this topic would make it here.. (Score:3, Informative)
I've always been overweight and have always been in the low-fat and exercise camp. It didn't work.
My wife and I went to a nutritionist who explained the principles behind low-carb. I had heard about Atkins and low-carb and been skeptical until I listened to the principles behind it. It made a lot of sense. 5 months and 50 pounds later, I no longer suffer from acid reflux, and weigh less than I did when I graduated high school almost 20 years ago.
Despite popular beliefs, my weight loss has been almost 100% fat - I get an analysis every other week.
Certainly we can bandy about talking about exersize and balanced diets - and I agree 100%, ultimately the way to stay healthy is a balanced diet (although not the food pyramid, which is a joke) and exersize. But to get to that point obese people need to lose the weight first! And for people who simply don't have a lot of time to exersize (and no, I don't watch TV, either), low-carb works wonders.
I have to say that - it really seems like almost a miracle. I no longer take medication for acid reflux (was taking for over a year and a half). A friend of mine's mom went low-carb and now no longer needs her diabetes medication. And we've all lost weight.
The scientific principles behind it really make sense, and every single person I know who is trying it is succeeding. I know a lot of people doing low-fat diets, too. Some of them are succeeding, some of them not - but none of them have had the kind of results I've gotten by doing low-carb.
I think this is important for this group - I know a lot of healthy programmers, but I know a lot more fat ones.
Some Points Not Yet Discussed (Score:2)
Here are four things that weren't mentioned in the Times article and haven't yet been mentioned in the comments here.
First, despite the huge length of the article, nearly everything mentioned to support the Atkins-type diets was anecdotal. Compare that to efforts like Dean Ornish's [amazon.com] carefully controlled studies, where participants ate all they wanted of near-vegan foods and generally lost significant weight.
Second, this is anecdotal, but I've never met anyone who could stick with the Atkins plan for more than a year. And while I'm being anecdotal, take a look at the bookjack photos of Atkins and Sears. Do you really think they look healthy?
Third, and this is a huge concern for some and a trivial concern for others, consider the massive farm animal killing that meat-centered diets require. I've personally been healthy as can be for fifteen years, ever since I switched to a vegan diet. But the big attraction for me is that my food dollar no longer funds the slaughterhouse.
Finally, keep in mind that Ornish-type programs invariably contain loads of fruits and vegetables -- which have been shown to significantly reduce risks of many types of cancer. After all, there are other health matters to think about beyond obesity.
I've read The Zone, and Body For Life (Score:4, Interesting)
Higher fat, healty protien, and carbs from non-refined sources makes sense. It more closely follows the diet that we've evolved to do well on.
I don't believe in saturated fat. And I don't believe in most animal protien.
I've never seen a study that says vegetables cause cancer, and meat prevents it. It's always been the reverse. Most meat is stuffed with antibiotics (which most experts believe is helping create antibiotic-resistent super bugs) and pesticides (the higher up the food chain you go, the more pesticides you will see, as it is stored in body fat; dead whales in the St Laurence are have toxicity levels high enough to get them classified as toxic waste). The meat industry also creates alot of pollution (mostly due to the size of sed industry); manure poisons ground water, etc. In Canada, we had a case in Walkerton were a bunch of people died after cow shit got into the drinking water during a flood.
And, especially for Slashdotters, don't use vitamin suppliments. Two studies just came out that said vitamin E (and, to a lesser extent, vitamin C) reduce the chances of getting Alzheimers; lesions relating to free radicals are found on most Alzheimer patients, and thus anti-oxidants are being viewed as a potential salvation. But only if you get it from natural sources. Pills had no effect.
And then there was the study on smokers who took beta carotene in pill form. They had a higher incidence of lung cancer than those who didn't take the vitamin pills.
Soy has been shown to have many benefits - lowering cancer risks in both men and women. There are alot of great soy analogues out there for hot dogs, hamburgers, ground beef, etc. Try a few - some are pretty good.
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:I've read The Zone, and Body For Life (Score:4, Informative)
(The main problem with synthetics are that certain chemicals structures are highly persistent, esp. molecules containing halogens or aromatic rings. If you use them indiscriminantly, they tend to build up over time, which is much worse than simply being toxic.)
Breeding for durability is a bigger part of the problem. From a seller's point of view, a good tomato is one that can be spend weeks in a truck; taste is simply not a consideration. Likewise, a florist's ideal rose is indestructible, rather than a fragrant variety you'd want to grow in a garden.Re:I've read The Zone, and Body For Life (Score:2)
As for my vegan-PETA FUD, I'm neither a vegan or member of PETA. Here's a link and quote on Beluga whale corpses being so polluted that they are classified as toxic waste:
"Of even greater concern, belugas inhabiting the St. Lawrence River have been called one of the most polluted mammals on earth along with orcas. Over 24 contaminants have been found in their bodies including PCBs, DDT, and heavy metals such as mercury. Their PCB levels are so high that, according to Canadian regulations, their bodies should be treated as toxic waste upon death."
Here's the link [tmmc.org]
And another [whalecenter.org]
That was nice, just slamming me for being some sort of radical without knowing anything about the subject.
It is neither the fat nor sugar it is Calories (Score:2)
A diet high in saturated fat can raise your LDL, which can get damaged; this doesn't make you fat, however.
The important thing to remember is that it isn't what calories, but how many.
The Atkins diet induces a state called Ketosis (as in Ketone) where the products of fat breakdown (for energy) accumulate and cannot be used to make more energy; these products act as apetite suppressants and help people diet. A breakdown product of sugars (it happens to be called pyruvate) allows you to metabolise these ketones. So, if you eat fat but no sugar, the fat can't be burned for as many calories and produces compounds that help suppress your appetite.
This may not have beneficial effects on your health. My Dad (who is a nutritionist) is extremely leary of it - not because it won't make you lose weight (it will,) but because it may not have overall beneficial effects on your health.
The thing that demonstrably has a beneficial effect is EXERCISE.
In the case of Type II diabetes, which is muchw worse to get than heart disease, even very mild interventions (150 minutes of activity per week, slight reduction in Caloric intake) cut the risk of getting diabetes by 58%. [nih.gov]
That's not a great big shock for doctors, but it is for the weight-loss industry, which is trying to convince you that you have to be thin to be healthy. You do not; if you're obese, your health benefits from being thinner, but even a (relatively, very slight) drop in weight can be of great benefit.
This seems misguided... (Score:2, Informative)
Sure, some amount of debate remains regarding how to best control this epidemic by controlling *what* we eat. But the bottom line is *how much* we eat.
It's a fundamental mismatch between super-sized overconsumption and generally sedentary lifestyles.
And while there may be a few interesting detours on this road along the lines of fad diets (ie, Atkins), they utterly fail to address the root cause in a sustainable fashion...
Corn: The Culprit? (Score:4, Interesting)
Gee.
That's the same time we went from granulated sugar as a sweetener to High Fructose Corn Syrup, because it was easier for the food industry to deal with liquid rather than powdered supplies; welcome to "Old Coke"/"New Coke"/"Old Coke But Not Really".
At the same time, we went from peanut and palm kernel oil to... corn oil ("and/or corn oil" on a label means "whatever's cheapest, and it's always corn").
Try and find a food product in the grocery store today without corn oil/corn meal/corn starch/corn syrup/corn syrup solids/corn/corn/corn.
And just what is it that we feed to cows and pigs to fatten them up?
Try an experiment: weigh yourself. Then, for one month, read the labels on everything you buy; and if it has corn products in it... don't buy it. Then weigh yourself again after the one month is up. If you lose weight, please send me the money you would have sent to Dr. Atkins... 8-).
-- Terry
Exercize is over rated (Score:2)
Anyway, you can stay on your ass all day and sitll not be a fat ass, I've done that long enough, so I know, eh.
It doesn't matter much what you eat, rather what you DON'T eat.
Just give up junk food. Gratz, you've done 90% of the work.
But you're feeling hungry? Very hungry I guess? Ok here's another tip: give up aspartam junk, Pepsi Light, Coke Light and all those "light" stuff. Indeed, they don't have sugar inside, but they taste like sugar, and they make you feel much HUNGRY. It's a trap. Milk would be good, if you can be sure it's not filled with fattening hormons. I know, the WTO says it's harmless but I'd rather not take the chance, thank you. Orange juice is good, too, but same thing, you want real orange juice not sweetened stuff.
So you still want that snack? Ok I have two tips for you: first, chocolate. Buy lots of it. But I mean real chocolate. Get the quality stuff preferably, black chocolate, as pure as you can. It's so strong you can't decently swallow it too fast. So you have to let it melt in your mouth; and it's busy (your mouth) for some time. It contains lots of interesting chemicals [chocolate.org] as well. I hear you can give blow jobs for the same result but I'm not into that kind of stuff, so I won't comment.
Second tip: bread. Expensive bread is better. The real stuff. There's something interesting about bread, you see, there's lots of air in it. It stuffs you up much more than anything else. You can also get fiber enabled bread for improved intestinal maintenance.
Ok now we've solved the snack problem. How about the meals?
Meals are important. To NOT be overweight, you need to eat. Properly, that is. My advice: spend a lot of money on food. Good food, that is. Keep meals on schedule. No eating outside of meals, except for the small snacks. Food is not to be left hanging around, no snack stuff all over the place, if you want to eat something, you have to get off your ass, go to the fridge and take it. If you're bothered about getting up to go get the food, then you're not really hungry and you can wait next lunch.
Get used to toning down the sweet taste. You can do the same for salt actually; better for your heart. Get used to drinking coffee without sugar. Get used to unsweetened yogurt. And then when you really want sweet, go for it. But keep food with their natural taste.
About time they start thinking about science... (Score:2)
Sure took them long enough to start seriously considering alternatives. First off, IANAD, but I'm not obeise either, and I know what works.
I eat no special diet, in fact, for a while I was eating fast food almost everyday for lunch. When I had a cholesterol test the doctor remarked that I had the lowest cholestorol count he had ever seen.
Perhaps I have just been lucky and have a great metabolism... But after I started researching to put together a regular exercise program (mostly jogging), I kept hearing the same facts repeated. These were: If you eat mostly fats consistently, your metabolism with adjust to run your body on fat calories. If you eat mostly carbohydrates (complex-sugars) your body will adjust to burn them. If you are adjusted to burning carbohydrates, and start running, when you run out of sugars in your blood, you "hit the wall" while you body tries to switch over to burning fats (and does a crappy job at it, leaving all kinds of junk floating around).
So basically, what looks like is happening, at least from my lay perspective, is that if you eat a ton of carbohydrates any extra fat you eat is going to be dropped off as fat. However, if you eat mostly fats, your body is already burning them, and extra sugar will be converted to fat and burnt later.
So the best thing to do, if you like eating fat, is to keep eating it... and do get off your butt once and a while and actually use all those calories!
Ahha! (Score:4, Informative)
Still the king, baby. Common sense, and a lot less trendy crap, and a whole lot more suck it up and deal mentality.
Not Rocket Science (Score:2)
Weight lose is an easy concept. It's the will power that is tougher.
If you want to lose weight you simply need to eat less then you are eating. It's that simple.
Here are two easy ways to lose weight.
1. Grab yourself a pen and a small notebook. Keep track of everything you put in your mouth. Write down it's name, the time, as well as how many calories.
Total it up at the end of the day. That's how much you need to eat to maintane your current weight.
Now you are 280 pounds? You want to lose weight? Well you don't want to lose more then 2 pounds a week it's not healthy so here is all you need to do. Eat 1500 calories a day. Break it into 3 meals. Do what works for you. I found that 400 for breakfast provided a large bowl of cerial with skim or soy milk. 500 calories provided 2 pieces of skinless boneless white meat chicken. And some salad with low cal dressing as well as a piece of bread. And for dinner you can have 600 hundred calories. So make pasta and measure out your portion or whatever works. Be creative.
So you have a total of 1500 calories. If you stick with this you will get good at making larger meals in fewer calories.
2. So you maybe you are not into counting calories, well here's another easy one. When you make food, make a lot of vegies. Now take your plate. Fill half your plate with vegies. Fill a quater with with your meat, and fill a quater with your grain/pasta/side whatever. If you are still hungry and want seconds ONLY IT ANOTHER PLATE OF VEGIES. Now don't be rediculous, you can't have butter, etc on them, so get creative. It's not hard.
You must be willing to stick to this and for gods sake you must learn to cook, at least a little bit. Late night burritos and a slurpie are not an option. There really is no mircle diet, just quit putting so much in your mouth.
If you do want to still be able to eat a lot you do have a third option, you better get off your fat ass and exercise. Lift weights, run, etc. . . And I'm talking a couple hours a day. Then you could probably eat whatever you want because your body will burn it off. But for most people they simply won't exercise.
I went from 280 to 180 in about a years time with little exercise by simply eating 1500 calories. My blood pressure dropped to a perfectly normal level, I feel great, and I have tons more energy. I fall off the wagon once in a while, but I don't worry about because now that I am smaller I am more active.
Trust me guys this is not hard. You must stick to it. It's that simple.
- Okay now send me $100 for advice.
Here's a diet you will love. (Score:2, Funny)
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:Common sense would do as well... (Score:3, Interesting)
It would appear you didn't read the article.
I read it; I just don't believe everything I read. Nor should you - 40 years ago doctors thought that pregnant mothers should drink alcohol to help relax.
For example, that stuff about "agriculture being a relatively new change to humanity's diet" - crap. The shift towards sedentary lifestyles is much more recent, drastic, and relevant than that sort of psuedo-scientific crockery. The changes in food preparation, additives, processing, etc. etc. are also enormous.
The problem is that a "balanced diet" as described in just about every piece of nutritional literature written in the last thirty years just might be not so balanced after all.
First, you would have to believe that a significant portion of the population eats the recommended "balanced diet" - almost none do. There was a funny article in Runner's World recently following the travails of someone trying to actually eat the recommended servings of everything in a day, and generally failing. Miserably. And it emphasized how unlike his 'normal' diet the food pyramid was.
Second, you'd have to confuse the food that is easily available today with the food that is good for you. First of all, simple sugars. Soda is obvious. Things like applesauce are less obvious. Breakfast cereal. Snacks in the snack machine. Let's also consider how refined everything is. White bread is extremely refined, but how many people eat wheat? What do you get when you eat in the cafeteria, the fast food restaurant, or the mall? You get what tastes good, and not what's good for you.
In my opinion, everyone should go through the exercise of trying to figure out what they're eating for a week or so. It's difficult to impossible, but a learning experience. You probably aren't eating anything like what you think you are.
What we may come to discover is that a balanced diet really consists of much more fat and far fewer carbs than has been previously thought.
Well, that depends on what you previously thought. If you thought that low-fat and Snackwells were the true path, then yes.
I repeat, if you want to look at your 'diet' find a good sports nutrition book. That's the area where the practical implications of how and what the body uses for fuel are applied on a regular basis, and I trust them a lot more than I trust 'diet plans' or 'diet gurus.' With a diet, you just need to lose weight; with sports nutrition, you have to keep the right weight and still be able to perform - that's what I call a real test.
Re:Common sense would do as well... (Score:3, Informative)
Also, I note this interview [cnn.com] just showed up on CNN. Summary: The NYTimes article misrepresents things a bit; researchers like "good fats" rather than all fats and aren't down on "complex carbs."
Here's a quick taste, emphasis mine:
It's hard to diet in the US (Score:2)
I used to eat in those "pay by the pound" places in my home country. I started eating an average of 650-700 grams per meal. Slowly I was able to reduce it to 350 grams per meal without that "hungry" feeling that follows an incomplete meal.
Of course I also followed a very regular course of exercises (walking, hiking, etc).
Three years ago I moved to the US. I've gained back part of the weight I lost. A lot of work and no time for exercise, plus insanely big portions put me on this track. Now, here I am again trying to slowly reduce the amount of food on each meal, but given the prevailing idea that "more is better", not "better is better", that becomes a very hard task. But I'm getting there... Slowly, as it has to be.
Anyway, just remember:
- Eat less
- Eat better
- Cut down the greasy foods
- Don't be too harsh or you'll quit
- Exercise
- Exercise!
- Exercise!!! (You'll feel better, believe me)
- Lose weight SLOWLY while you get used to your new feeding habits.
The evidence is all around... (Score:5, Funny)
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 omnivores.)
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.
Obviously I'm the only farmer around here.. (Score:3, Informative)
CNN did the opposite story yesterday (Score:2)
- Keep trying
- Don't be afraid to splurge once in a while
- Weigh yourself often
- Eat 5 small meals per day
- Excercise one hour per day
- A low fat, high carb diet (but low calorie) shows longest term success rate
What has worked for me, is that in the last year I've basically become a half-time vegetarian (about 4 small servings of meat a week). Without really trying, I've lost about 25 pounds in the year. Not a lot, but it makes a difference to me.I still eat lots of carbs and love dairy. I no longer really crave meat. I probably don't get enough veggies. Small things like ordering small meals or not finishing the larger ones at restaurants can really help. So can eating a small snack when you get a little hungry rather than waiting until you are ravenous at meal times.
Basically, I think it boils down to two things: eating a balanced diet and making gradual lifestyle changes you can live with for the rest of your life. What this means varies from person to person. For me, doing this has been easy and losing a little weight was almost a side effect to leaving a somewhat healthier lifestyle.
Low card diets DO work and I'm proof (Score:2)
Let me put it this way.
I'm 6' 3" and I used to weight 299 lbs. I never exersize except to climb out of the viper and behind my 'puter then back into the viper. I cut my lawn with a riding mower and when I'm "roughing" it outdoors I do it riding a ATV. Stairs? Elevators! I mean, honestly... 44" waist and I couldn't get it to shrink.
I tried to eat "Low fat" - oh yea, all those "Low Fat" items at the store. Amazing, I actually GAINED more weight!!
So, then I switched overnight to low carb. Basically I'm doing about 30g of carbs a day. What DO I eat? Lesse, breakfast I have a 3 egg omlet with cheeze, bacon, ham and sausage. For lunch I eat a low-carb bar that I get from GNC and wash it back with the 4-6 Diet Mt. Dews I drink at the 'puter. For dinner? Let's see: Sloppy Joes, Steaks, Pork Chops, Shrimp by the boatload, Lobster tails, crab legs with LOTS of butter (real butter). I eat microwave bacon whenever I feel like a salty snack. Sometimes I get those single serving hot dogs and skip the bun and just dip some ketchup and eat up. I'm telling you - just like the diets claim. All the meat and seafood I want. I skip bread and avoid pasta (that hurt!) and no potatoes; no french fries
You know - how can people ignore the obvious facts. EVERYONE I know who has used a low fat diet has failed and everyone of them I have joining me on a low carb diet and it's working. I am personally, in 4 months, down to 240 and I am aiming for 205 before summer is over. This is not crazy weight loss, it's definately not "water loss". This is real pounds. I have to buy new cloths, my pants just don't stay up on me anymore.
To people who critisize Atkins diets: Pffftttt!!! Especially to fat people on low-fat diets who critisize low-carb I say: AHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAA
Low-carb works -- just my own experience... (forgive the typing, I have to get the heck outta here and get my butt home - got some thin-sliced smoked turkey breast in the fridge I'm gonna eat with some pickles).
But that would be hard. (Score:2)
"I want you to eat this, but I'm not going to tell you what it is..."
Add to this the problem that a decent study would need to run for at least a year, and preferably several years.
I never really realized how bad diet research was until I tried to find proof that eating more food makes you gain weight.
Sure, we all "know" it does, but find a study that proves it.
-- this is not a
I actually stumbled on the perfect diet (Score:2)
A few people above mentioned that you need to exercise. Exercise is for lam3rs. Admit it, every time you see someone in a bright spandex jogging suit you think of spider-man. I say, find something you like to do that requires a physical effort. I doesn't matter if it's hiking, playing basketball, doing gung fu or yoga, or rock climbing. You'll see yourself get in shape magically, with no percieved(*) effort on your part. And you won't quit doing it after a few weeks, because, duh, you like doing it.
* hmmm, okay, i before e, except after c, or when sounding like a as in neighbor and weigh, and on weekends and holidays and all throughout may, and you'll always be wrong no matter what you say...
Want to Lose Weight? (Score:2)
This one's guarenteed to work (Score:2)
Eat less food than you use up each day in energy. At some level of intake, you are guarenteed to lose weight.
High fat food works just as well as low fat food for this, and it tastes better.
Seriously. I lost 105 pounds so far.
It's not just about fats vs. carbs (Score:2)
Re:It's not just about fats vs. carbs (Score:2)
Quite possibly. There's something called the Satiety Index, which attempts, somewhat unscientifically, to measure the satisfaction or "fullness" derived from various foods. Foods high in refined flour and sugar foods tend to score very low on it, whole grains fare a little better, and foods high in protein and fat score high. (Staying away from refined grains and simple sugars is a good idea, regardless of whether it's fat or carbs that make you fat.)
Healthy Eskimo != Healthy African (Score:3, Insightful)
The Hackers' Diet (Score:5, Interesting)
A friend of mine had some success with it. I don't have much dieting experience so I wonder what others here think of this book.
personal experience (Score:2)
One time, after five months of eating steak and eggs and bacon and cheeses, and various other high-cholesterol goods, I went to have a blood test to see whether I was killing myself on the diet. My cholesterol level was 170, and I don't recall what my HDL/LDL split was, but it wasn't too bad.
Different people will do well on different diets, depending on their metabolisms. Don't poo-poo a diet that sounds ridiculous, because while it might not work for you, it could work for someone else.
Nooooo!!! (Score:2)
What worked for me (Score:4, Informative)
I looked into all these diets and there was so much conflicting information, that I just made up my own.
It was very, very simple. 1. No booze except on the weekends. 2. No matter what, no fast food (I still ate out quite a bit, just at sit down resturants where the nutritional value was a little better). 3. Walk for an hour a night. 4. If you ever are full, don't be afraid to stop eating (I had the bad habit of always needing to finish off my plate, even if I was'nt hungry).
Being somebody who spends 90% of his waking hours behind a computer in a desk chair (not to mention quite a few in my sleeping hours), it probably was the perfect fit.
I lost 45 pounds in 7 months, I feel much better, got to learn a lot more about my town (by walking), and have been told I look 'really good' by a number of very nice women.
I doubt this would work for somebody who was highly obese, or somebody who has a eating disorder... but chances are that for your average geek whos putting on the pounds, it just might work.
My personal experience with ATKINS (Score:4, Informative)
Watching an infomercial one day on Atkins, it sounded too good to be true, so we bought his book and tried his diet.
First... here are the good things about the diet (then I'll list the bad things):
THE GOOD
1) Yes, you can eat *unlimited* quantities of meats etc... as long as you totally control your carb intake. We would go to Outback or Ruths Chris and I would eat 3 or 4 porkchops... and some brocolli... till I could eat no more.
2) The diet throws you into ketosis - which is a diabetic term for pure fat burning. You can go to the drug store and get ketosis testing strips, little PH papers that you pass your pee stream over. The color the paper turns indicates the amount you are in ketosis. Once in ketosis, you are in pure fat burning mode.
3) Did I lose weight? YOU BET!!! I dropped from 250+ pounds to 190 pounds in about 8 months. The diet is amazing because on a daily basis, you can easily see 1/2 to 2 pounds disappear (make sure you weigh yourself at exactly the same time each day for accurate statistics). My wife also dropped 50 pounds.
THE BAD
Here are some negative things about the diet:
1) You must be sure to drink LOTS of water on this diet... and I mean LOTS. The diet is very hard on the kidneys because they have to work overtime to break down the larger molocules. By drinking lots of water you assist your kidneys and actually drop the weight even faster. If you don't drink water, kidney damage can result.
2) The closer you get to your desired weight (e.g., the longer you are on the diet), the slower you begin to drop weight. At the start of the diet, the pounds were flying off. By the end, we would even out for a few days and then drop a pound or two. The book says this happens - and indeed it does. The main reason for this is that your body has adapted to the new diet - so for us, that was the stopping point.
3) Upfront it is very gratifying to eat unlimited amounts of all those wonderful foods... but in the end we tended to become bored with the diet - which happens in most diets. But don't get me wrong, we were still happy as can be that we dropped 60 pounds in such a short time.
THE UGLY
You stop pooping. Because you are getting little fiber in your diet (and the diet recommends that you keep up on high fiber, but it's hard) - you literally stop pooping. Other problems associated with not pooping can raise their ugly bumps at this point. However, this all goes away once you ease yourself off the diet.
The other negative... you drop weight so fast that your skin ends up loose. This was a shock to my wife and me. We actually had skin that looked to be very loose. It took about 3 months after the diet was over for the skin to tighten up to our new bodies - but tighten it did.
So did I keep the pounds off?
The diet encourages you to reach a point and then back off the diet. The wonderful thing about the diet is that you now understand how to quickly lose weight... so if you indulge in a weekend of excess, all you need to do is go on the diet for 3 days to lose that excess and back down you are.
I've managed to keep the weight off - and right now I'm fluxuating around 200 lbs. I'm about to start again because I want to drop the final 30 lbs.
Another positive point... if you have cronic heart burn - we discovered it was from eating carbs. In fact, a friend of mine who had been told to sleep upright because of his cronic heartburn, had the symptoms totally disappear (as did I) on this diet. Amazing. And since, I've noticed that I only get heart burn if I eat too many carbs in a meal.
The diet is not for everyone... and it helps to have a partner go through it with you (otherwise whoever you eat with won't like the meat-only choices you are forcing). Anyway... it worked for me - and it tought me to not listen to the government bullshit about the food pyrimid or any of their other crap they shovel out about dieting. They don't have a clue.
ALOHA!
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:Atkins does work... (Score:2)
Re:Atkins does work... (Score:2)
I am losing 1-2lbs a year on a high fat moderate exercice diet.
I
You gotta choose your fights man, shoot, can you really keep that up forever?
My legs keep on going from flabby to non-flabby to flabby to non-flabby, hehe. Oscillators!
Re:Atkins does work... (Score:2)
Yes. Yes I do. When I say without problem, I mean that the weight loss has been consistant, not that there is any hardship in maintaining the diet. I am not dieting, I'm eating a healthier diet.
I feel good and my pants fit better, and in the end that is the criteria I use.
Re:Atkins does work... (Score:2)
<AOL>Me too.</AOL>
To the guy talking about losing 20 pounds in a week on Atkins - dude, you went into ketosis and dehydrated yourself. Nothing to do with the diet. Good think you knew to drink plenty of water, though.
To the guy who started this thread, talking about losing a pound a week on Atkins - dude, you can do that on any calorie-restricted diet!
A pound of fat is about 3500 calories. Losing a pound a week means a calorie deficit of 500 calories a day.
Suggested reading #1: The Hacker's Diet [fourmilab.ch] (Former CEO of Autodesk describes an approach to dieting in language that will appeal to engineers. He starts with the "3500 calories in a pound of fat", applies the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and derives the rest from there.)
If you normally burn 2000 calories per day to keep yourself alive (i.e. to maintain a body temperature of 98.6F in ambient air of 70F, and to sit erect at a computer terminal), and you want to lose a pound a week, you need to cut 500 calories a day. A moderate-to-heavy soda drinker (say, 4 cans a day) can accomplish this simply by switching from regular (at ~130 cal per can) to diet (zero).
The exercise suggestion part of Atkins is good (but it's a good idea with or without diet), but IMNSHO, the nutritional advice is questionable at best - and dangerous quackery at worst.
Suggested Reading #2: As Quackwatch [quackwatch.com] appears to be down at the moment, I recommend anyone considering a low-carb diet read Google's cached copy [216.239.39.100] of Stephen Barrett's analysis of Atkins and the other low-carb approaches.
I agree with Barrett's conclusion - that most of the "success stories" of Atkins dieters are merely the logical end result result of caloric restriction, and not anything "magical" about the approach -- other than that it's a lot easier and more pleasant to eat 1500 calories of "what you want" (guzzle coffee, water, and diet sodas all day long at the office and finish off - at 400 calories per 4-oz serving - with a juicy well-marbled 16-oz New York Strip for dinner! Every night!) than to live on 1500 calories a day of tofu.
Re:Atkins does work... (Score:2)
On the contrary, everything to do with the diet. The whole point of the induction phase of the diet is to throw you into ketosis -- you use ketostrips to check this. (And he's drinking plenty of water, so no dehydration.)
Certain metabolic diseases aside, ketosis is simply a sign that the body is burning stored fat rather than ingested sugar.
I agree with Barrett's conclusion - that most of the "success stories" of Atkins dieters are merely the logical end result result of caloric restriction,
No fsking way. I know in my case and others I've known on the diet their caloric intake went up. (Of course, that's calories as measured in the conventional food-calorie sense -- burn the food in a calorimeter bomb and calculate it that way, which certainly doesn't match what actually happens in the body.)
Also (Score:2)
BlackGriffen
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:Moderation (Score:5, Informative)
After looking at the results he recommended that I get on the Atkins diet. He did recommend getting some exercise after losing some of the weight, but I had to get the weight off first. He also had me stop weight lifting because I was actually developing an un-healthy level of muscle mass. Trying to supply too much muscle with blood is actually hard on your heart. Also I found that when you have too much muscle in your upper body you can develop breathing problems in your sleep becuase your torso is too massive. These are some of the probs that body builders put up with. Also my cholesterol was in the 280's and the ratio was "way off" but I don't remember the numbers.
Well, I was on the diet for almost a year and dropped over 100 lbs. At first I was really skeptical, but after being on it for a couple of weeks, I couldn't believe how much energy I had. I was actually hyper. When I dropped about 50 lbs I started riding a bike and then running when I dropped more weight. Now I am 2 belt levels away from getting my black belt in tae kwon do, a lifetime dream of mine but I have alwasy been too heavy to do.
My cholesterol is in the 130's and the ratio has flipped the other way now. I have been off the Atkins diet for almost 9 mos now and have maintained my weight. I can't say that I am totally off the diet, obviously I had to change my way of eating because that's what got me where I was in the first place. I try to eat a low carb breakfast (bacon and eggs or a flax cereal). And a "lower" carb lunch - chicken salad or left over stir fry, maybe soup. Dinner is usually whatever though, spaghetti, pizza, etc...
The problem with the Atkins diet is that it is INCREDIBBLY BORING. I am so freaking sick of meat and cheese. I really should get back on it and drop another 20 - 30 lbs but haven't come up with the motivation to put myself on it full time again. I probably will this fall but I need a break.
The diet isn't for everyone. If people would shut their yap long enough to research it, the diet is actually for a specific type of metabolism. The metabolic condition is really brought on by a diet that has been extremely high in simple carbohydrates complicated by a genetic predisposition to diabetes (which is rampant in my family). You develop an insensativtiy to insulin and need more and more of it to metabolize glucose. The prob is, with that much insulin you body readily stores glucose as fat rather than metabolizes it - it becomes a viscious circle.
Through testing my doc found this condition in my body and recommended the diet which worked. There are several people I work with that thought they would try it without checking with their doc (which Atkins warns against in his book) after seeing my success that got sick on the diet. It isn't for everyone.
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.
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?
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:The studies have been done.. by interested part (Score:4, Informative)
The real reason why a lot of poor (by US standards) and recently-but-no-longer poor Americans eat poorly has a lot to do with class mobility. People learn eating habits early, and as part of family cultures. When families are still in "survivor mode," when the experience of scarcity is still persistant in the values of that family, they are taught, first, that food is an intrinsic pleasure and, secondly, that the waste of food is unethical and risky. Add to that factors like a. stress, b. schedules that encourage fewer, bigger meals instead of more, smaller ones, and c. the lack of information about healthier foods (or of a traditional food-culture, like those in Spain, France, and Japan, that has over centuries learned how to make healthier meals) and you have the formula for obesity.
Ultimately, people have the willpower that they have, and I find it far more logical, and a better use of Ockham's Razor, to assume that their contexts and environments have changed more quickly than some questionable intangible of "willpower" has.
Incidentally, if you think I'm an obese person trying to explain away my condition, you're wrong. I'm completely fit, a little less than my ideal weight, and lead an active lifestyle.
Re:The studies have been done.. by interested part (Score:2, Informative)
I read the article, and also the Atkins website, and it is by no means an uncontrolled, "eat whatever you want" diet. You have to be very aware of your carbohydrate intake, and regular testing of cholesterol, triglycerides, weight, etc. is part of the plan. Refrainment from caffeine, alcohol is also in there, and while diet is certainly the main emphasis from what I've seen, exercise is a key component as well. To me, the Atkins diet certainly has what I consider surprising elements (Eggs? Red Meat? No fruits?!) but it also seems to require enough participation and determination so as not to qualify as "too-good to be true."
Diets are called change in habit (Score:2)
This means dont eat alot of sugar, or alot of generally unhealthy foods, eat mostly the same boring foods everyday, and forget about stupid nonsense like taste, and you'll be healthy.
Your shape wont change however unless you lift weights.
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.
Re:The studies have been done.. by interested part (Score:3, Funny)
(What does Andrija Mohorovicic has to do with "mohole"? Well, read this [nas.edu]).
Re:The studies have been done.. by interested part (Score:3, Insightful)
Anonymous Coward.
Re:The studies have been done.. by interested part (Score:2)
And there's a shitload of research into diet - it's just mostly in very specialised niches (high performance athletes).
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.
Re:The studies have been done.. by interested part (Score:5, Interesting)
First of all, you obviously didn't have the staying power to read the article. The government has given us guidelines to being healthy - the food pyramid, for example.
20 years later obesity is at an all time high BECAUSE people have been more aware of health issues and thought that by eating low-fat foods they could lose weight or stay slim. The government guidelines simply do not work.
You can blame McDonalds all you want - the fact is that the majority of the population does not eat there. The studies showed most of peoples calories were coming from carbs, NOT fat - which makes sense, since the food pyramid, which is a sham, has high carb foods as it's base.
Atkins, and most low-carb diets DON'T advocate eating fats willy-nilly. There is a clear distinction between good and bad fats, and the good fats can actually help you metabolize store fat - that's why the basic "low-fat" diet doesn't work. People trying low-fat often see an increase in bad cholesterol and triglycerides, while amazingly people on low-carb diets (beyond 3 or 4 months) see a decrease in triglycerides and an increase in HDL - the good cholesterol.
But I do not have to just quote studies and hand waving dieticians - I have lived it. I did not lose weight - even when exersizing, by following the government guidelines. I have lost 50 pounds in less than five months following low-carb (but not Atkins - but they are all similar). My blood pressure went down to normal. My acid-reflux virtually disappeared. I know a diabetic that no longer has to take medication.
Until you understand that low-carb is not just for losing weight, and the implications of what a high carb diet can do (like CAUSING diabetes - the rate of type 2 diabetes has gone up along with obesity - ever since the government said that low fat was the key to health).
The scientific principles behind low carb just make a lot of sense - the blood sugar levels, the insulin production... I didn't believe it until I learned all the principles. Not only do I believe now, but it's worked wonders for me.
And before you get on my case, I get an analysis every other week - my fat free mass (lean body tissue - i.e. muscle) is UP, my total body water is UP, my FAT is the only thing that is down - 50 pounds worth.
Re:The studies have been done.. by interested part (Score:3, Funny)
Uhm... only if you're a reptile.
Muscle mass and at-rest calories. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:One thing that bugs me about diets (Score:2)
It is not that simple. For one, matabilism will often slow down if you reduce your caloric intake. Billions of years of evolution has tought the body to efficiently hord food, but this is not what modern people need.
(begin flamebait)
My big fat ugly belly is proof of evolution, you Bible-thumpin' zealots!
(end flaimbait)
Further, if you reduce your amount below what the body wants, it cranks up the craving harmones, and it is harder and harder to resist.
Re:99% of stuff in the supermarket is 'Low Fat' (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:99% of stuff in the supermarket is 'Low Fat' (Score:3, Interesting)
Never mind, neither did I. But the point is that in the last few decades there has been a great increase in "low fat" food being offered in the USA. At the same time, the country is going into a huge obesity epidemy.
OK, let's do a totally unscientific and empirical study. Can you eat just a few "low fat" potato chips? Can you eat two club crackers and put the package away? That's the problem with "low fat" food: you never get enough of it.
With fatty food, you just don't want to eat more after a normal serving. Try to eat a juicy steak, and a serving of potato chips afterwards. You will find that about 150 grams of fatty meat are enough to satisfy a "normal human being", if such thing exists, but you cannot ever get enough "low fat" potato chips. Food manufacturers count on this simple fact.
Re:Why is diet pill such a stumper? (Score:2)
Yes, and this injection results in people changing what they eat and their exercise pattern how?
Re:Why is diet pill such a stumper? (Score:2)
(* Yes, and this injection results in people changing what they eat and their exercise pattern how? *)
Some skinney people eat like cows and never excercise. Some skinney people just don't have an appitite.
I don't know why skinney poeple are skinney, many without any effort. That is what this experiment would find out.
If you can decrease somebody's appetite so that food is not appealing, that may greatly help, for example.
Possible, but hard (Score:2)
Re:Possible, but hard (Score:2)
Well with enough money, such is possible, right?
A diet drug that would work to make people's body act like a skinny person's body and make people safely lose weight will earn such a company *huuuuge* profits.
Thus, it might be expensive research, but the payoff is greater than any dot-com can ever hope for. It would be right up there with Viagra.
Propose the research to your bosses, and talk dollar signs.
Re:I dunno what's more insulting... (Score:2)
Re:I dunno what's more insulting... (Score:2)
Then you got big bones in your ass and stomach!
Heh.
Re:Diet gurus? (Score:2, Insightful)
Maybe there's something to it?
Re:Co-occurance does not imply causality. (Score:2)
Your sample size: 1
Have you looked around you when you were there? Did you see many fat people? Do you know how much bread the average french person eats a day? Seriously! Your comment is really weird.
Re:Nah... (Score:2)