Big Fat Lie: Overeating is a symptom, not the cause, of Obesity!

Originally posted by Dumbfirefly
reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd

 

I had read elsewhere that hyperinsulinemia commonly presents in those with diabetes mellitus type 2 and insulin resistence, both of which are commonly caused by obesity.

Obesity, Insulin resistance and diabetes are symptoms of hyperinsulinemia. If you lower insulin levels in the blood and create hormonal equilibrium, you will in essence cure the former diseases.

Insulin is produced as a response to what is eaten, as you correctly mentioned earlier, often the wrong foods that cause sugar/insulin spikes etc. The exacerbation of insulin production and its effects on blood glucose are what cause the insulin conditions. Not the other way around as my obese family members would have everyone believe

I'm sure I've been repeating that throughout the thread.

Or if you eat excess carbohydrates which cause the insulin elevation in the first place. Cause and effect.

Redundancy.

I think the problem that this topic highlights more is the need for education; we wouldn't be trying to find the solution for eating an excess of a given food group if people were educated (not just by being told, but as a cultural practice) not to do so in the first place.

That's also a focal point of this thread. Education on the subject typically results in the teaching of false information. An in-depth look at nutritional health and biochemistry will bluntly reveal how this current thought process is based on bogus research.

This sort of undermines the whole idea of medicalising this problem. It is admitted that if you regulate your intake, then you regulate your fat storage

If by regulate you mean starve, then yes. But otherwise, this is just not true and was realized over 50 years ago with research and years of case studies to support the idea.

but the proposal is to medicalise it anyway? Regulating your insulin should not become the next way to stop being fat. Not when traditional methods - when applied earnestly and correctly - work equally well (and I would argue, more healthily).

Who's wanting to medicalise it? This is a problem that is remedied by reducing carbohydrates not by taking drugs. The so-called traditional methods do not work equally well, as has been realized over the past 10 years worth of research, and I certainly do not believe that that the "traditional" methods are healthier.

But I would not try to stop the hormone from storing; I would simply give it less to store.

If by doing so you are eating healthily and eating when you're hungry until you're full, sounds good to me. The truth is, if you reduce carbohydrates, you're far less likely to "overeat". Carbohydrates are the main drive for overeating. They're addictive and very tough to stop eating once you start. Please, try and remember the last time you just couldn't stop eating a stick of butter was. Or the last time you were eating grilled chicken, or eggs, or bacon and just couldn't stop.

Fat and protein create satiety much quicker than carbs. It's the carbohydrates that we tend to gorge on. Remove them and you'll feel fuller, longer and you'll more than likely eat less(if you were overeating before).

I ask you, what are the the dangers of consuming a low-carb diet?

-Dev

reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd


Hello again devolutionevolvd.

I will just make a point again here. I am absolutely and completely sedentary. Not by choice by ill health. I have had to massively cut back my diet because i gained weight, not shocking amounts but maybe 10 lbs or so. My diet has always been hyper healthy but to keep my weight balanced i have simply had to reduce the amount i intake. This is the point, forget insulin, in the end it weight can be controlled with healthy eating and will power. Oh and i'm eating plenty of carbohydrates, just the very complex kinds.

Right now i'm really hungry but i know if i just satisfy that hunger then i'll continue to gain weight and the last thing i need in my condition is extra weight to lug around!

I hate to sound cruel, but if i can do it anyone can.

Just stop eating as much. Very very simple.

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984


I was a member/trainer at a gym here for about 2 years and a member at a couple of others for the past 5 years. I understand the importance of exercising and moving around but I also understand that if you don't eat right, your work in the gym will be pointless.

I saw people coming in almost daily, playing basketball, raquetball, jogging on the treadmill and resistance training and yet I've seen these very people stay overfat, regardless of their energy expenditure. Why? Partly because they don't know how to optimize workouts for fat burning and mostly because they eat crap. Not just crap, but carbs all day long.

I've seen other trainers see their clients 3 times a week working out for 1 hour, plus having them do multiple cardio workouts in between sessions. Yet these people still don't lose the fat.

In your case, you're sedentary(unintentionally) and you can stay weight stable if you restrict calories. What you're not realizing is that you have to restrict calories because your eating a diet high in carbs, as you have noted. If you're eating carbohydrates all day long, it doesn't matter if they're "complex" or not, they'll still elevate insulin levels.

Just try it. Try eating less grains and eat more fibrous vegetables, protein and fat in the place of grains and, unless you have another underlying problem, you'll lose weight and you'll be able to eat when you're hungry with out gaining weight.

The only thing that would stop you from trying it would be a fear of increasing fat and protein intake. Even though evidence is lacking on the dangers of consuming fat and protein, if for some reason it is bad, one trial diet won't hurt you. Besides, you're a young guy. I'm sure you know that heart disease, and all the other chronic diseases, are due to a prolonged exposure to an unhealthy diet.

-Dev

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
I was a member/trainer at a gym here for about 2 years and a member at a couple of others for the past 5 years. I understand the importance of exercising and moving around but I also understand that if you don't eat right, your work in the gym will be pointless.

I saw people coming in almost daily, playing basketball, raquetball, jogging on the treadmill and resistance training and yet I've seen these very people stay overfat, regardless of their energy expenditure. Why? Partly because they don't know how to optimize workouts for fat burning and mostly because they eat crap. Not just crap, but carbs all day long.

But i'm not talking about eating crap as you put it. I when i used to train ate plenty of protein and some fat along with lots of carbs and i was as lean as they came. The people you talk of i bet you anything are over eating, which means they're consuming more than they need, which means they don't lose weight. Very simple.

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
In your case, you're sedentary(unintentionally) and you can stay weight stable if you restrict calories. What you're not realizing is that you have to restrict calories because your eating a diet high in carbs, as you have noted. If you're eating carbohydrates all day long, it doesn't matter if they're "complex" or not, they'll still elevate insulin levels.

Just try it. Try eating less grains and eat more fibrous vegetables, protein and fat in the place of grains and, unless you have another underlying problem, you'll lose weight and you'll be able to eat when you're hungry with out gaining weight.

Erm whilst i eat a diet with carbs in it, they are not as high as many other people. I don't eat any bad carbs. A plate of pasta fills me up a very long time. I also eat plenty of protein because i know it is the food group that takes the longest for the body to break down, hence being full longer. I eat plenty of fibrous veg as again i know it keeps you full.

A mistake you're making here is thinking i don't know the research. I trained to atheletic standards, i even had a professional coach, i am as informed as you and i'm doing all you have suggested already. I would say maybe i'm having more carbs than you would recommend but i'm not abusing them like the average person you talk of going to the gym you were in.

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
The only thing that would stop you from trying it would be a fear of increasing fat and protein intake. Even though evidence is lacking on the dangers of consuming fat and protein, if for some reason it is bad, one trial diet won't hurt you. Besides, you're a young guy. I'm sure you know that heart disease, and all the other chronic diseases, are due to a prolonged exposure to an unhealthy diet.

-Dev

Well my breakfast was a couple of eggs and 2 pieces of wholemeal toast. Dinner was a lovely pasta dish and yet i'm still losing weight. Snacks were carrot sticks and an apple or two.

Basically i'm saying i agree that people overdo the carbs, however if you do it right you can eat plenty of them whilst still losing, or maintaining weight. If you don't agree then fine but in the end i'm following what i'm saying and i've lost the few extra pounds i didn't need and keep my weight stable.

Hate to tell you devolution but you basically agreed earlier on that if you consume less than you intake you will lose weight. Whether or not insulin causes fat to be more easily stored is unimportant as long as people are in a negative calorc state.

[edit on 1-7-2009 by ImaginaryReality1984]

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984

But i'm not talking about eating crap as you put it. I when i used to train ate plenty of protein and some fat along with lots of carbs and i was as lean as they came. The people you talk of i bet you anything are over eating, which means they're consuming more than they need, which means they don't lose weight. Very simple.

I'm sorry, but I've seen first hand, I have personal experience, and I've also posted information on another thread from Dr. John Berardi with his own case studies that show a positive energy balance, very positive mind you, and yet fat loss was achieved, tremendously. Why? Because they were eating clean(very low processed carb intake) and they were working out 5-6 days a week.

What you're saying, makes sense, but it's just not observed. About 1-1/2 years ago I was overeating between 500-1000 calories a day and while my weight increased(muscle mass) my body fat decreased. That's a positive energy balance. Is my situation anecdotal? Possibly, but it has been repeated by my clients and by Dr. John Berardi's clients, who happen to by Olympic athletes.

Erm whilst i eat a diet with carbs in it, they are not as high as many other people. I don't eat any bad carbs. A plate of pasta fills me up a very long time.

How is pasta not "bad carbs". They're not natural, they're processed, and they will increase blood sugar and, thus, insulin as well.

A mistake you're making here is thinking i don't know the research. I trained to atheletic standards, i even had a professional coach, i am as informed as you and i'm doing all you have suggested already.

This bothers me. That sounds exactly like every researcher, like Ancel Keys, that knows their theories to be true. It's quite faithful and borderline egotistical.

I see this all the time. It's hard to let go of a paradigm. It gets to the point that even when evidence of the contrary is staring them in the face, they still find ways to twist the data because they know that the opposite can not be true. Or, when a hypothesis, such as the lipid hypothesis, is repeated enough it is assumed to be true. Now, "educated" individuals actually say there are thousands of studies supporting the idea that:

A) High fat intake, especially saturated fat, causes atherosclerosis by elevating cholesterol.

B) High cholesterol causes atherosclerosis

C) Dietary cholesterol causes elevated serum cholesterol

The truth is, there are hardly any. And now, most studies are predicated on these bogus claims. A deep look back into the history of how these theories came to can be quite enlightening, and shocking.

Once fat and cholesterol became an enemy, we had to replace those lost calories with something. Along comes the high-carb, low-fat diet, including more vegetable fats, more carbs, and less meat, lard and butter. Guess what? Obesity, Heart Disease and diabetes have no sky-rocketed.

I'm not mistaking your education on the subject, not one bit. I'm questioning whether or not the education you have thus far received is factual or based on assumptions and bogus studies.

Well my breakfast was a couple of eggs and 2 pieces of wholemeal toast. Dinner was a lovely pasta dish and yet i'm still losing weight. Snacks were carrot sticks and an apple or two.

Eggs - 2x90 k/cal (0 carbs)
Bread - 2x70 k/cal (12g total carbs)
Pasta Bowl - 350 k/cal (~50g carbs)

Double post.

[edit on 1-7-2009 by ImaginaryReality1984]

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
I'm sorry, but I've seen first hand, I have personal experience, and I've also posted information on another thread from Dr. John Berardi with his own case studies that show a positive energy balance, very positive mind you, and yet fat loss was achieved, tremendously. Why? Because they were eating clean(very low processed carb intake) and they were working out 5-6 days a week.

What you're saying, makes sense, but it's just not observed. About 1-1/2 years ago I was overeating between 500-1000 calories a day and while my weight increased(muscle mass) my body fat decreased. That's a positive energy balance. Is my situation anecdotal? Possibly, but it has been repeated by my clients and by Dr. John Berardi's clients, who happen to by Olympic athletes.

I would suggest that you got your maths wrong. The body used that energy for repair and building any muscles. It's very easy to get it wrong that is why even top bodybuilders often put on weight and then trim down for competitions as they are eating an excess. It is impossible, i mean actually the mathematical formulas don't exist to work out exactly how much energy is required for muscle growth and maintenance. So again i suggest your excess was being used up. The same for the athletes, their excess is being used up for maintenance.

However if you dont' believe this then please explain where this excess energy went? Because it is basically violating physics, Energy cannot simply disapper.

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd

How is pasta not "bad carbs". They're not natural, they're processed, and they will increase blood sugar and, thus, insulin as well.

There are two main types of pasta. The refined white kind and the wholewheat kind. I eat the latter which is released much more slowly into the blood system. When i speak of refined i mean anything that has had it's natural structure broken down so it is easily absorbed into the body.

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
This bothers me. That sounds exactly like every researcher, like Ancel Keys, that knows their theories to be true. It's quite faithful and borderline egotistical.

*sighs* You are seeing what you want to see. I trust the peer reviewed studies and the majority support the high carb diet. However i think people overdo it with the carbs and need to reduce them, but not to the drastic levels you speak of. Just because i disagree does not mean i'm in denial or anything of this nature and to suggest it in a debate is to attack the person and not the science. Be careful how you tread here.

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
I see this all the time. It's hard to let go of a paradigm. It gets to the point that even when evidence of the contrary is staring them in the face, they still find ways to twist the data because they know that the opposite can not be true. Or, when a hypothesis, such as the lipid hypothesis, is repeated enough it is assumed to be true. Now, "educated" individuals actually say there are thousands of studies supporting the idea that:

The truth is, there are hardly any. And now, most studies are predicated on these bogus claims. A deep look back into the history of how these theories came to can be quite enlightening, and shocking.

Once fat and cholesterol became an enemy, we had to replace those lost calories with something. Along comes the high-carb, low-fat diet, including more vegetable fats, more carbs, and less meat, lard and butter. Guess what? Obesity, Heart Disease and diabetes have no sky-rocketed.

Yes it's hard to let go of a paradigm that has been supported by numerous peer reviewed studies and many years of atheletes performing with it. You claim there are hardly any studies that support the connectionsi support and yet there are plenty. They've been repeated many times and shown to be true. Doctors still recommend patients with heart problems reduce the cholesterol and saturated fat in their diets and with many patients they see a drop in blood cholesterol according to blood tests.

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd

Talk about starvation. You're losing weight because you're starving yourself and because you're only consuming 108g of carbs, much lower than most, so you're insulin levels are lower. I would guess, though, if you ate the same amount of calories, but instead of a pasta bowl you had steak and asparagus/broccoli, you'd lose even more weight.

That sounds like the atkins diet which has been linked to some serious health problems including liver and kidney problems. The reason that diet keeps your weight down is because there are limited amounts of calories that can be stored. The protein is actually excreted in large amounts, the fat is burned for energy and you end up with ketosis. If you think that is healthy then you go for it.

Furthermore i posted that at around 6pm i think. I have eaten more since then and my intake is around 1600 calories atm, i'll be having a snack soon which will take me to around 1800. This is enough to keep my weight stable. I would suggest you don't leap upon something with such zeal next time and consider that maybe i was only half way through my day.

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
I'm telling you that you can eat 1000 calories more a day and still lose weight, by reducing you're carbohydrate intake. Keeping it under 100g, or even 50g, would be ideal. Then you wouldn't be starving yourself, and you can eat when you're hungry. Which is how it's supposed to be.

I am sure it would keep me full because protein takes the longest to break down, however i don't really want to follow the atkins diet with all it's links to bad health effects. You can call it whatever you wish but that is the Atkins diet you are suggesting.

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd

Unfortunately, this is not observed. Starving someone, like you're doing to yourself, is a different story; however, I've seen people getting fatter while maintaining a negative energy balance, because they ate so many carbs. I was one of them.

I would request again that you understand i was only quoting my diet for half the day. I can see how a fat person might gain weight in a negative balance if they didn't do it properly. Without the protein and exercise to keep the muscles working you'll end up burning those away with your fat and end up so that with your intake and your body eating it's muscles you are still experiencing as excess of energy.

If you are in a negative balance but eating plenty of protein whilst exercising you greatly reduce the amount of muscle vastage whilst burning fat. I again ask you to provide a good reason as to how obese, even morbidly obese people who decide to lose weight and follow a high carb, low fat diet are able to lose weight. According to you they'd just get fatter due to your anecdotal evidence. Even if they're reducing their carbs as you'll no doubt say, they are still consuming far more than you are recommending.

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
Here's what I said about reducing intake and weight loss: Other than extreme starvation, people lose weight on low calorie diets in two ways. A) They lose muscle. This happens because insulin won't let fat out of the cells to be burned. and B) When one reduces calories, carbohydrates are typically reduced as well, reducing the amount of insulin in the blood, which allows for more fat to be released from the cells.

What does a good researcher do when the data doesn't fit his hypothesis? He changes his hypothesis to fit the data. What does a sorry one do? He changes the data, twists it or denies to fit his hypothesis. Don't be the sorry researcher.

Seriously now, i've read all the research, even the stuff you provided. The majority of research points to a high carbs diet being healthy and whilst i agree peopel overdo the carbs i cannot agree that your extreme carb reduction is healthy. A middle ground is personally my preferred place with carbs still higher than protein but lower than most people consume.

The part i bolded was interesting because when people diet they tend to reduce all groups equally and they're still on a high carb diet in comparison to their other food groups. So again the research back sup the high carb idea as does years of athletic performance!

[edit on 1-7-2009 by ImaginaryReality1984]

Apologies, my friend. My response was that of frustration and assumption, not logic. Understand that my intention is not to attack you personally as you know of my respect of your knowledge. I have learned a lot from this thread and our interaction.

I realize that I was labeling you, while wearing that very same label myself.

Perhaps Taubes and therefore I am/is wrong. In consideration of the possibility that the hypothesis as a whole may be wrong or harmful in practice, I'm willing to, as are all researchers, abide by the scientific method and try and prove the hypothesis, that I subscribe to, wrong.

Since you are very well versed, I'm sure you'll be able and are more than willing to aid me in the process. So, I have a few questions......

What are the harmful effects of Ketosis on a healthy individual?

Can you provide me with some recent studies demonstrating the dangerous effects of low-carb diets?

-Dev

reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd


The studies are often pay per view sadly so i'm going to list the ones i could find that were free.


This one is an extract froma Johns Hopkins white paper. It deals more with diabetes and complications of the high protein diet. However it should be noted that ketosis produces substances that are harmful to the kidneys. This is why you are often told to drink more water on these diets. No matter how much you drink however your kidneys still have to process that nasty chemicals.

www.healthboards.com...


Then there is this news story quoting studies.

www.newswise.com...

In 1990, a groundbreaking study published in Lancet concluded that a low-fat, vegetarian diet can reverse heart disease, and scientific studies have appeared every year since then showing this approach is best for long-term health and weight loss. During the same period of time, numerous studies have been published linking heavy meat consumption to serious illness. For example, a Harvard study published earlier this year in Annals of Internal Medicine showed that high-protein diets may cause permanent loss of kidney function in anyone with reduced kidney function. It is important for dieters to take this into account since as many as one in four Americans may already have renal problems. Other studies conclude that meat-heavy diets significantly increase one’s risk of colon cancer and osteoporosis.

Here another

www.foodnavigator-usa.com...

Low-carbohydrate diets could pose a serious health risk and are not a safe way to lose weight, according to a new report.

Writing in this week's issue of the Lancet, US doctors report a "life-threatening complication" of the Atkins diet observed in a 40-year old obese woman.

The patient was admitted to the intensive care unit in a New York hospital with dangerously high levels of acids in her blood caused by starvation, said Professor Klaus-Dieter Lessnau of the New York School of Medicine.

The woman, who had been strictly following the Atkins diet for a month and had lost 9kg, had become increasingly short of breath five days before being admitted to hospital. She had lost her appetite and had vomited four to six times daily.

According to Lessnau and his colleagues, she was suffering from severe ketoacidosis, a condition that occurs when high levels of acids called ketones build up in the blood. Ketones are produced in the liver as a result of diabetes or starvation.

According to the doctors, a low carbohydrate diet such as Atkins can lead to ketone production- in fact, the Atkins diet book recommends regular monitoring for ketones in the urine to confirm adherence to the diet.

This is the danger of ketosis. Whilst many haelthy people may continue whilst suffering ketosis the danger of acid build up is immense. It can strike anyone. I'm currently trying to find more studies as i remember reading one linking the Atkins diet to kidney stones!

You see no matter how you approach it you are causing ketosis, this puts pressure on even healthy kidneys. Whilst it may not cause troble in the majority lets remember that we haven't seen the long term effects of this diet. It is being predicted that people on these high protein, low carb diets will be at increased risk of kidney and liver problems along with an increase the rates of colon and other cancers, not to mention osteoporosis.


I'll finish with this BUPA page. You should read teh whole article as it is fair and balanced. It says clearly that people on the low carb diet over a one year study in obese patients had a reduction in their bad cholesterol. Brilliant right? Well the problem is it causes other dangers.


www.bupa.co.uk...

Belinda Linden, head of medical information at the British Heart Foundation, holds similar views. "The new studies do not indicate a dramatic weight loss for excessively obese people," she said. "Previous studies have shown that weight loss from the Atkins Diet may involve muscle loss rather than body fat. Another potential problem is that it is so far unclear from studies whether weight loss is sustained over a longer period than six months. One of the studies shows no significant difference at 12 months."

She added that, "With minimal fruit and vegetables included in the diet, it holds serious implications for coronary heart disease and cancer. Diets need to be varied to protect against these conditions - and this one isn't. This diet requires further long term and larger studies before its effectiveness can be confirmed."

Just thought i'd put something in bold there. Sorry i can't link some studies directly but i'd have to purchase it from the lancet as my subscription ran out -.-

Oh and devolution.

Please do not get me wrong here. You have made some very good poitns and pointed out the lack of research into insulins role in fat accumulation. However for many years atheletes have used the high carb diet and are as fit as anyone. This is simply because they eat a proper high carb diet and not the stupid one that most people do.

I also have learnt a few things, whilst i have read about the insulin idea before it's difficult to read everything and so it's always nice to learn something new. I respect your knowledge on this subject. It seems we have both paid careful attention to nutrition and health for a long time

All the best.

IR84.

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd

 

www.healthboards.com...

Thanks for the info. I enjoyed that link. It was good debate between the members of the board and someone brought up Dr. Bernstein. This guy's story is amazing. Hanging on to life by a string, Dr. Bernstein had almost lost his life from Type 1 Diabetes. He actually reversed all of his symptoms, went to medical school, wrote a dissertation on his findings, established a clinic and is now living to a ripe old age, something quite rare with type 1 diabetics.

Addressing the issues:

1)Weight Loss Is Difficult To Maintain: As a diet, or a temporary weight loss program, yeah, fat gain is inevitable if one goes back to eating carbs at the "recommended" intake. I'm fairly certain thaht most "diets" do this(yo-yo dieting). The point, though, is to continue to eat very few carbs, and the argument is because we're not meant to eat a high carb diet.

2)Increased Risk of Coronary Heart Disease: The thought here is that as dietary cholesterol and saturated fat intake increases, so does serum cholesterol. Here, is an Israeli study that shows low-carb dieters actually experience better lipid profiles. And here is another study showing better lipid profiles on the low-carb diet.

3)Increased Risk of Kidney Dysfunction: From what I've read, including the link you've provided, there is no evidence to suggest that high-protein intake will cause kidney damage on a healthy individual. If there is data I haven't seen, I'd me more than happy to review it.

www.newswise.com...

Here's what Dr. Michael Eades says in one of his blog posts. It's extensive so you'll have to read the rest on his blog:

In The Name of ‘Responsible Medicine’ The Public is Ill-Served
A LowCarbiz Rebuttal to The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine Report on Health Concerns Pertaining To Low-Carbohydrate Diets
By Dr. Michael R. Eades and Dr. Mary Dan Eades
© 2003 LowCarbiz/Michael R. Eades, M.D. and Mary Dan Eades, M.D.

Ten Rebuttal Points:
• PCRM uses what is at best anecdotal information and presents it in the guise of a scientific investigation.
• At least a dozen studies have been conducted recently in major medical and scientific research institutions and published in top-notch journals that confirm the lowcarbohydrate diet is superior to the low-fat diet in multiple respects.
• The respondents to the PCRM poll would represent only 0.00001125% or one onethousandth of one percent of individuals following a low-carbohydrate diet.
• Researchers from Harvard recently reported that subjects could eat 300 calories more per day on a low-carbohydrate diet than those following a low-fat diet and still lose the same amount of weight over a 12-week period.
• Dieters would prefer to lose fat rather than lean tissue, which is precisely what happens with low-carbohydrate diets.
• Virtually every study done on low-carbohydrate diets shows that weight loss is accompanied by either an improvement or no change in heart disease risk factors.
• Low carb dieters who consume green leafy and colorful vegetables and low-glycemic fruits are not at risk of osteoporosis (long-term bone loss).
• The whole idea that protein in the amounts eaten in modified low-carbohydrate diets damages kidneys is a vampire myth that refuses to die no matter how many stakes have been driven through its heart by a multitude of medical studies.
• Overall there is no evidence that meat causes colon cancer, or any other cancer, for that matter. Actually many cancer-fighting nutrients are in meat and a reduction in meat intake might be more likely to increase cancer risk.
• As the data continues to accumulate and the studies increase in number, the efficacy of the modified low-carbohydrate diet will finally be established to the satisfaction of all.

www.foodnavigator-usa.com...

There's a big hole in that report, unfortunately. The way I understand it, Diabetic ketoacidosis can occur two ways. The first is when a type 1 diabetic, not type 2, eats a very low carb diet. No doubt. The other way, is if one were to completely starve themselves becoming so hypoglycemic that ketoacidosis ensues. It seems that the case outlined in the link above was indeed caused by starving.

I'm in a hurry so I'll finish the rest later. Thanks again for the info.

-Dev

It's obvious that the current thought on preventing and curing obesity is not working.

How Obesity Policies are Failing in America

July 2009

Adult obesity rates increased in 23 states and did not decrease in a single state in the past year, according to F as in Fat: How Obesity Policies Are Failing in America 2009, a report released today by the Trust for America's Health (TFAH) and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF). In addition, the percentage of obese or overweight children is at or above 30 percent in 30 states.

F as in Fat 2009

Check out the link and see where your state ranks.

-Dev

[edit on 6-7-2009 by DevolutionEvolvd]

Found another great article written by Gary Taubes in the NY Times. The last two paragraphs are as follows:

As for those people who insist that exercise has been the key to their weight-loss programs, the one thing we’d have to wonder is whether they changed their diets as well. Rare is the person who decides the time has come to lose weight and doesn’t also decide perhaps it’s time to eat fewer sweets, drink less beer, switch to diet soda, and maybe curtail the kind of carb-rich snacks—the potato chips and the candy bars—that might be singularly responsible for driving up their insulin and so their fat.

For the rest of us, it may be time to take a scientific or biological view of our excesses rather than a biblical one. The benefits of exercise include the joys of virtuousness. I worked out today, therefore I can eat fattening foods to my heart’s content. But maybe the causality is reversed here too. Maybe it’s because we eat foods that fatten us that the workout becomes a necessity, the best we can do in the battle against our own fat tissue.

nymag.com...

I'm sure you recall the Framingham Heart Study. It was a landmark study that established dietary fat and cholesterol as causing Heart Disease. Here's a snippet from the former head of the study:

A number of blood lipids have been implicated in coronary disease, but none more substantially than the blood cholesterol content. That blood cholesterol is somehow intimately related to coronary atherosclerosis in no longer subject to reasonable doubt…

Here's a snippet from from a later director of the Director of the study:

Most of what we know about the effects of diet factors, particularly the saturation of fat and cholesterol , on serum lipid parameters derives from metabolic ward-type studies. Alas, such findings, within a cohort studied over time have been disappointing, indeed the findings have been contradictory. For example, in Framingham, Mass, the more saturated fat one ate, the more cholesterol one ate, the more calories one ate, the lower the person’s serum cholesterol.

Framingham Flip Flop

What do you think?

-Dev

I would say the science is still mostly pointing toward more saturated fat consumed the more cholesterol rises. Patients with heart problems are told to reduce their cholesterol intake and their levels of blood cholesterol do drop. This is clinical evidence of a working theory. The body actually produces cholesterol itself. and cholesterol has a very important role in the body, something that most people don't realise. I would suggest there is a definite genetic factor in cholesterol levels and the whole thing needs more research (which is being done).

I would pose you a few questions here though devolution.

1) Is ketosis healthy?

I ask this simply because ketosis is actually starvation. This isn't questionable. When you are starving your body starts digesting fat and muscle. So is this a healthy thing? I pointed out in one of those articles that a study actually found people lost muscle mass on an atkins diet! Really now devolution, how can putting your body in a mode of starvation be a healthy thing long term? I imagine we'll know more about this in 20 years when atkins followers start to show a significant proportional rise in heart disease, stroke, arteriosclerosis, bowel cancer etc.

2) How is it that people who religiously follow a low fat, high carb diet and include exercise do lose weight, often significant weight?

You talk about high carb diets being misleading and yet in the end we have years of atheletes competing with this diet, we have morbidly obese people losing truck loads of weight. If this diet is incorrect then how is it that it works for these people? Is it maybe because they actually followed it correctly and didn't cheat? I would suggest the ones it doesn't work for do cheat or perform the diet incorrectly.

3) Whilst i agree insulins role has been overlooked, don't you think it is sort of letting people off the hook to put such emphasis on it as you have? Especially when we already have a working model for weight loss (see question 2).

I think once you've answered these questions the debate may fizzle out as i think we've covered both our view points quite a lot I'll reply to what you put up to these questions.

Thanks for the debate.

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984


Here's some information on the Myths associated with The Atkins Diet, which is essentially the diet that Gary Taubes is recommending. Have a look while I answer your questions.

Myth: Atkins is a nutrient-poor program.

Fact: Even on Induction one consumes 4 to 5 servings of low glycemic, high nutrient vegetables daily. In addition, fruits such as tomato, avocado and olives are included. According to the CDC only 27.2% of Americans eat 3 or more servings of vegetables daily.

Myth: Most of the weight you lose on Atkins is water.

Fact: A portion of the initial weight lost is water just as it is on any diet. It takes about 4 days for most people to switch to burning fat once carbs are cut low enough.

Myth: Eating more protein will cause kidney damage.

Fact: There has never been a study that demonstrated that increasing protein intake damages healthy kidneys. In fact, a review published on the Nutrition & Metabolism site in September 2005 states that there is no evidence that a higher protein intake is a concern in this regard.

In none of the studies conducted on the low carb diet has there been evidence of kidney damage.

However, people who already have severe pre-existing kidney disease often require a more limited protein intake along with regular monitoring of kidney function.

People with diabetes are at risk for kidney disease. Not because of eating protein but because of the damaging effects of high levels of blood sugar. Controlling carbohydrates is a good strategy for improving blood sugar control in people with type 2 diabetes thus decreasing the risk of kidney complications as well as other complications of diabetes.

Myth: Following the Atkins diet leads to bone loss and osteoporosis.

Fact: This rumor has been circulating since Dr. Atkins first book was published in 1974. Bone loss is supposed to occur because the diet is considered a high protein diet. This itself is a misconception although protein intake is higher than the 15% usually recommended.

A few inconclusive short term studies showed increased calcium excretion with a high protein intake from protein powder (not an Atkins program). This was then extrapolated to mean osteoporosis would result even though bone mass was not measured.

This study was repeated using meat rather than protein powder. It showed that after 2 weeks the body adapted to a higher protein intake normalizing calcium excretion.

Myth: A diet high in fat causes cancer.

A 2004 study published in the International Journal of Cancer showed a relationship to prostate cancer risk when consuming foods with a high glycemic index and glycemic load. Another study published in Gastroenterology found a protective effect from meat in pancreatic cancer. In 2008 a report in The American Journal of Gastroenterology found both the intake of refined carbs and total carb intake correlated with increased risk of esophageal cancer. The International Journal of Cancer reported a study that demonstrated a decreased risk of breast cancer in women eating a diet high in animal products and no relationship with a meat-rich, saturated fat diet and ovarian cancer. A positive correlation to increased cancer risk was demonstrated with a starch-rich diet- 34% higher risk for breast cancer and 84% increased risk for ovarian cancer.

While epidemiological studies cannot prove cause the evidence continues to accumulate that

controlling both the quality and quantity of carbs can normalize insulin levels; successfully address obesity and likely decrease risks for a variety of cancers and other chronic health concerns.

Myth: Atkins stresses the liver and can cause liver damage.

Fact: There has never been any research to support this. It is likely another theory that because Atkins allows a higher fat intake it will cause fatty infiltration of the liver. All of the studies done on people doing Atkins have examined liver function tests and have shown it to be safe. In years of clinical practice there has been no indication of liver damage. Many people have fatty infiltration of the liver as a complication of obesity. It is called non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. It can become as severe as to cause serious complications. When treating people with elevated liver enzymes on a low carb plan it is common to see normalizing liver tests often within a short period of time, even before significant weight loss occurs.

Myth: The higher fat intake allowed on Atkins causes heart disease.

Fact: The idea that dietary cholesterol and saturated fat leads to heart disease is a hypothesis. There is a weak association at best. Much of the research underlying the hypothesis is based on epidemiological research that does not prove cause. It points to an association with numerous confounders such as manufactured trans fats and a high carb intake as factors. For an eye-opening and interesting discussion how this theory came to be adopted read Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes.

Natural fats have been part of our diets since the beginning of the human race. We are genetically programmed to be carnivores. Our caveman ancestors had a low carb diet. They did not have processed foods, refined flour, high fructose corn syrup or other items that pass as food today.

Recent research done on Atkins-type diets have shown interesting and to some surprising results.

Low carb diets decrease cardiovascular risks by:

· Re-balancing blood sugar/insulin

· Lowering triglycerides

· Increasing HDL cholesterol better than any drug available

· Shifting LDL particles from small, dangerous types to large, buoyant particles

· Decreasing inflammatory chemicals

· Lowering blood pressure, decreasing fluid retention

· Improving the processing of saturated fat

· Inhibiting the manufacture of fat

· Improving the clearance/use of saturated fat

It appears to be the amount of carbs especially those that have the most negative impact on insulin and blood sugar regulation that plays a role in cardiovascular disease.

www.ControlCarb.com

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984

1) Is ketosis healthy?

Ketosis, when achieved by consuming minimal carbohydrates, is healthy. In fact, the heart works more efficiently on ketones than glucose. Found not the article, not the abstract:

The fundamental reason why the metabolism of ketone bodies produce an increase of 28% in the hydraulic efficiency of heart compared with a heart metabolizing glucose alone is that there is an inherently higher heat of combustion in Image-β-hydroxybutyrate [a ketone] than in pyruvate, the mitochondrial substrate which is the end product of glycolysis.

Ketosis is achieved by starving or by consuming minimal carbohydrates, and in the latter the diet will provide protein so that muscle breakdown isn't necessary to convert protein to fuel.

You're not starving as your body is receiving optimal nutrition from fat and protein, the only essential macronutrients.

2) How is it that people who religiously follow a low fat, high carb diet and include exercise do lose weight, often significant weight?

For long term fat loss, there really isn't that much data. Here's a recent study conducted by The Journal of Nutrition and Metabolism which shows:

Exercise alone (ND) appears to have minimal impact on measured outcomes with positive outcomes apparent when exercise is combined with a hypoenergetic diet. Greater improvements in waist circumference and body composition occurred when carbohydrate is replaced in the diet with protein. Weight loss in all diet groups (VLCHP, LCMP and HCLP) was primarily fat and stimulated improvements in markers of cardiovascular disease risk, body composition, energy expenditure and psychosocial parameters.

I've read study after study showing the exact same thing. Dr. John Berardi conducted the same type of study in which he, and researchers at the University of Texas, demonstrated that strenuous exercise on a regular basis(by on the worlds best trainers) has little to no effect on fat loss when diet isn't changed, yet study after study has revealed that by simply reducing carbohydrates and eating the same amount of calories can lead to fat loss.

Now, Dr. Berardi trains olympic athletes and he has them eating processed carbs only after workouts, for optimal nutrient delivery. Organic, unprocessed oats for breakfast and that's about it. Everything else is clean, vegetables and some fruits. Lots of protein and fat. This idea is exactly what every true athlete at my gym consumes. So this idea that most athletes eat a low-fat, high-carb diet seems outlandish and misunderstood.

Even if a very active athlete were to consume a high-carb diet, the simple fact that they're working out 6 days a week for 2 or more hours is enough for one to realize that, yeah, they can eat more carbs than a normal person without gaining weight.

3) Whilst i agree insulins role has been overlooked, don't you think it is sort of letting people off the hook to put such emphasis on it as you have? Especially when we already have a working model for weight loss (see question 2).

How does it let people off the hook? Is it because it allows them to eat as much as they feel like it as long as they don't induce insulin secretion? Eat low carb is tough for the first few weeks so I don't know how it's letting them off the hook.

As far as a working model for weightloss. Exercise more makes you hungry and eating less makes you hungry. The body wants homeostasis. So in the long term, it doesn't work. By working out more, the body needs and wants more food and study have consistently shown that working out causes an increase in hunger(trying to reach homeostasis). Likewise, lowering calories leads to a reduced metabolism and increase in hunger(homeostasis again).

BTW, here's some information/articles on cholesterol: www.stumbleupon.com.../www.spacedoc.net/cholesterol_art icles/

-Dev

reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd


Well i guess we'll just have to disagree and sit on our fences until the long term science has been completed. The Atkins diet has spawned a wave of people using high protein so we'll see what happens in 50 years. I am willing to put money on the prediction that people on an Atkins diet will have increased incidence of cancers, kidney stones, heart disease, stroke and a ton of other problems.

As i say, we'll have to wait but at the moment the majority of medical doctors still support the high carb diet. However they support proper use of the high carb diet. The studies you link do not say if the people involved were eating bad diets or not.

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984


I dare you to read the book Good Calories Bad Calories. Even if you just read the prologue and the first chapter or two.

I really don't think you realize how misinformed "most doctors" are about nutrition and it's effect on the body.

“When distant and unfamiliar and complex things are communicated to great masses of people, the truth suffers a considerable and often a radical distortion. The complex is made over into the simple, the hypothetical into the dogmatic. . .”

~Walter Lippmann

”When we meet a fact which contradicts a prevailing theory, we must accept the fact and abandon the theory, even when the theory is supported by great names and generally accepted”

"The doubter is a true man of science: he doubts only himself and his interpretations, but he believes in science."

"They make poor observations, because they choose among the results of their experiments only what suits their object, neglecting whatever is unrelated to it and carefully setting aside everything which might tend toward the idea they wish to combat"

~Claude Bernard: An Introduction to the Study of Experimental Medicine (1865)

-Dev

reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd


I will look for the book. Devolution i'm all up for the practice of real science, that being giving up an entire theory if facts contradict it. However the facts must be overwhelming and in the majority. When this happens i will happily switch my view point. I am not one of the people who will cling to a theory even in the face of contradictory evidence.

If the research continues and shows your perspective to be correct i will simply accept that new viewpoint. To do anything else is unscientific and irrational. At the moment however the majority of the science still supports the high carb diet with exercise.

Many people apply this diet incorrectly, eating refined carbs and/or far to many of them. So in time we will see.

Peace.

I've got two links for ya:

In this study, nearly 100 initially sedentary participants either stayed sedentary (about half of them) OR began exercising (the other half). They exercisers were given a program to follow that added up to about 5 1/2 to 6 hours of activity per week and that lasted for a total of 12 weeks. The non-exercisers did nothing for the 12 weeks except show up for measurement sessions.

..... they averaged between 35% and 40% body fat (according to DEXA scans).

Once the study began, the training group gathered together for 3 weight training sessions per week and 2 group exercise / interval sessions per week. All the training was designed by myself and overseen by a weightlifting coach and group exercise coach. So there was a pretty high level of quality control there.

Now, it’s important to note that we didn’t alter the participant’s eating at all. And we did this on purpose. We wanted to test the effects of exercise alone - without diet. In other words, the question became:

“Without a dietary intervention, can exercise alone reshape a person’s body?”

At the end of the 12 week study, we got our answer:

“Not so much…”

When Exercise Doesn't Work

and.....

A high-fat, ketogenic diet induces a unique metabolic state in mice
Karl Popper, metabolic advantage and the C57BL/6 mouse

Intelligent people will look at this tightly-controlled study and say, Hmm, mice that ate a ketogenic diet gained less weight than genetically-identical mice eating the same number of calories but of a different composition. There must be something different about the way a ketogenic diet works because it provides a metabolic advantage, i.e., the animals that followed it gained less than those that didn’t and didn’t do anything volitional to keep from gaining the weight.

At least that’s what the authors of the study said. And one assumes that they are reasonably intelligent. Specifically, they concluded that:

"feeding of a ketogenic diet with a high content of fat and very low carbohydrate leads to distinct changes in metabolism and gene expression that appear consistent with the increased metabolism and lean phenotype seen. Through a specific dietary manipulation, weight loss can occur secondary to distinct metabolic changes and without caloric restriction"

The metabolism adjusts to energy intake.

More from those authors:

These data indicate that dietary manipulation is capable of altering energy balance and metabolic state. In these experiments a high-fat, ketogenic diet not only failed to cause obesity but was capable of reversing diet-induced obesity in mice. These data suggest a more complex relationship between fat consumption and obesity than previously thought. Further investigation as to the mechanisms of energy balance in these animals may provide new targets in obesity research.

These are the same studies that Taubes cites in his book.

-Dev

[edit on 11-7-2009 by DevolutionEvolvd]