Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[Low-Carb Diets]: Now with awesome recipes on the first page!

145791028

Posts

  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited May 2010
    So Protein, say I am a 250 pound person and desire to lose weight. According to you, apparently, I don't want to burn more calories than I take in, because I will fall into a coma, or something, even though physics dictates the only way to lose weight is to take in fewer calories than you expend. So how does one lose weight if one is overweight? Is the answer just "you should never want to lose weight," or what?

    ElJeffe on
    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited May 2010
    Okay I've decided to embark on one of these low-carb diets(actually decided couple days ago), and heres my problem: I am a pretty good cook, but when trying to keep my daily carbs <20g I don't have a fucking clue what to do. I can make a bechamel(I know flour but 1 tbls spoon is only 6g carbs and I am not consuming all 4 cups of sauce in one day), but what the fuck do I put it on?

    Same problem with side dishes(aside from salad). Is the only solution to replace steak and potatoes with steak and another steak?

    Vegetables can fill you up and are delicious.

    Though my suggestion would be "fuck low-carb, bake up some yams or something, just don't add sugar."

    ElJeffe on
    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • geckahngeckahn Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Arch wrote: »

    If more fat comes from the diet than the body can use, it will upregulate the metabolism to burn some of the excess (the individual might have a *slightly* increased body temperature and might feel hyper), and store the rest in fat tissue (because likely, such a diet will also contain protein, which also causes *some* insulin to be secreted, although not nearly as much as carbs do).

    Overall though, it is MUCH harder to gain weight on a low-carb diet, and MUCH easier to lose it.

    these two statements don't seem to parse, at least to me.

    If eating more fat calories than you are currently burning causes them to go directly into fat cells, how is then harder to gain weight on a low carb, high fat diet?

    Or do I not understand the diet?

    EDIT: I think I just asked the same question Eggplant Wizard did, but in a different manner.

    you're not getting it.

    The key thing to understand here is that fatty acids (from dietary fat) move in and out of adipose tissue constantly. Adipose tissue is like a rechargable battery thats contantly being charged and used. When insulin is high it increases the inflow of fatty acids into the adipose tissue and prevents them from leaving the adipose tissue. So if you're low carb, fatty acids (from all the fat youre eating) go in and out of your adipose tissue all the time, but never build up because insulin is not around to prevent the fatty acids from leaving the adipose cells. So you never get fat. It's actually pretty much impossible.

    geckahn on
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    You know what's really good?

    Soup.

    Schrodinger on
  • ArchArch Neat-o, mosquito! Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    geckahn wrote: »
    Arch wrote: »

    If more fat comes from the diet than the body can use, it will upregulate the metabolism to burn some of the excess (the individual might have a *slightly* increased body temperature and might feel hyper), and store the rest in fat tissue (because likely, such a diet will also contain protein, which also causes *some* insulin to be secreted, although not nearly as much as carbs do).

    Overall though, it is MUCH harder to gain weight on a low-carb diet, and MUCH easier to lose it.

    these two statements don't seem to parse, at least to me.

    If eating more fat calories than you are currently burning causes them to go directly into fat cells, how is then harder to gain weight on a low carb, high fat diet?

    Or do I not understand the diet?

    EDIT: I think I just asked the same question Eggplant Wizard did, but in a different manner.

    you're not getting it.

    The key thing to understand here is that fatty acids (from dietary fat) move in and out of adipose tissue constantly. Adipose tissue is like a rechargable battery thats contantly being charged and used. When insulin is high it increases the inflow of fatty acids into the adipose tissue and prevents them from leaving the adipose tissue. So if you're low carb, fatty acids (from all the fat youre eating) go in and out of your adipose tissue all the time, but never build up because insulin is not around to prevent the fatty acids from leaving the adipose cells. So you never get fat. It's actually pretty much impossible.

    Again, I raised the question that it is pretty much impossible, and may even be dangerous, to have low levels of insulin in the body. Added to that, protein (such as lysine) can also stimulate insulin release and you get a situation where I don't feel comfortable with advocates claiming that you will not store any fatty acid in adipose tissue, regardless of how much you eat.

    Arch on
  • ArchArch Neat-o, mosquito! Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Which is really my point; "low carb" diets don't really offer anything that the previous dietary recommendations did.

    It just seems to me you are replacing one "monster molecule" (fatty acids) with another (insulin)

    Arch on
  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Arch wrote: »
    geckahn wrote: »
    Arch wrote: »

    If more fat comes from the diet than the body can use, it will upregulate the metabolism to burn some of the excess (the individual might have a *slightly* increased body temperature and might feel hyper), and store the rest in fat tissue (because likely, such a diet will also contain protein, which also causes *some* insulin to be secreted, although not nearly as much as carbs do).

    Overall though, it is MUCH harder to gain weight on a low-carb diet, and MUCH easier to lose it.

    these two statements don't seem to parse, at least to me.

    If eating more fat calories than you are currently burning causes them to go directly into fat cells, how is then harder to gain weight on a low carb, high fat diet?

    Or do I not understand the diet?

    EDIT: I think I just asked the same question Eggplant Wizard did, but in a different manner.

    you're not getting it.

    The key thing to understand here is that fatty acids (from dietary fat) move in and out of adipose tissue constantly. Adipose tissue is like a rechargable battery thats contantly being charged and used. When insulin is high it increases the inflow of fatty acids into the adipose tissue and prevents them from leaving the adipose tissue. So if you're low carb, fatty acids (from all the fat youre eating) go in and out of your adipose tissue all the time, but never build up because insulin is not around to prevent the fatty acids from leaving the adipose cells. So you never get fat. It's actually pretty much impossible.

    Again, I raised the question that it is pretty much impossible, and may even be dangerous, to have low levels of insulin in the body. Added to that, protein (such as lysine) can also stimulate insulin release and you get a situation where I don't feel comfortable with advocates claiming that you will not store any fatty acid in adipose tissue, regardless of how much you eat.

    If it was dangerous to have low levels of insulin in the body we wouldn't have such low insulin levels in our body most of the time. There is also no reason as to why it would be dangerous.

    Julius on
  • geckahngeckahn Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Arch wrote: »
    geckahn wrote: »
    Arch wrote: »

    If more fat comes from the diet than the body can use, it will upregulate the metabolism to burn some of the excess (the individual might have a *slightly* increased body temperature and might feel hyper), and store the rest in fat tissue (because likely, such a diet will also contain protein, which also causes *some* insulin to be secreted, although not nearly as much as carbs do).

    Overall though, it is MUCH harder to gain weight on a low-carb diet, and MUCH easier to lose it.

    these two statements don't seem to parse, at least to me.

    If eating more fat calories than you are currently burning causes them to go directly into fat cells, how is then harder to gain weight on a low carb, high fat diet?

    Or do I not understand the diet?

    EDIT: I think I just asked the same question Eggplant Wizard did, but in a different manner.

    you're not getting it.

    The key thing to understand here is that fatty acids (from dietary fat) move in and out of adipose tissue constantly. Adipose tissue is like a rechargable battery thats contantly being charged and used. When insulin is high it increases the inflow of fatty acids into the adipose tissue and prevents them from leaving the adipose tissue. So if you're low carb, fatty acids (from all the fat youre eating) go in and out of your adipose tissue all the time, but never build up because insulin is not around to prevent the fatty acids from leaving the adipose cells. So you never get fat. It's actually pretty much impossible.

    Again, I raised the question that it is pretty much impossible, and may even be dangerous, to have low levels of insulin in the body. Added to that, protein (such as lysine) can also stimulate insulin release and you get a situation where I don't feel comfortable with advocates claiming that you will not store any fatty acid in adipose tissue, regardless of how much you eat.

    I think you may be not understanding the definition of low. Insulin is still around, protein causes its levels to rise. Its just low in relation to if you had some flour or sugar or rice, since those cause significantly higher levels of insulin to be released. We agree on this right?

    And you do store fatty acide in adipose tissue. Just much less.

    geckahn on
  • geckahngeckahn Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Arch wrote: »
    Which is really my point; "low carb" diets don't really offer anything that the previous dietary recommendations did.

    It just seems to me you are replacing one "monster molecule" (fatty acids) with another (insulin)

    Jesus Christ you could not be missing the point more.

    geckahn on
  • KamarKamar Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    I'm going to jump in because it looks like people are going in circles instead of clarifying what they mean.

    The pass out thing was clearly just talking about the exact order Arch talked about; i.e. doing 3k worth of exercise and eating 2k after the fact. Answering it that way was a bit daft, I'd say, as the question was clearly not about the order, but about 0+2k-3k=-1k.

    The point being made about the simplistic Calories out>calories in idea isn't that that doesn't work by itself. Of course it works, that's all that works. But there are sooooooooo many factors involved that if you honestly think you can use it in any meaningful way you're insane. What you eat will determine not just how many calories go in, but how many go out as well.

    It will also determine how many MORE calories you WANT to go in. I.e. how hungry you are, how energetic you are, etc. And also what weight you lose when you do game the system to Out>In; muscle or fat.

    So yes, Out>In does work. But that's FAR from all that needs to be considered to lose weight.


    Personal anecdote, I was eating whatever I wanted, but calorie limiting to about 1800 calories a day. I lost weight VERY SLOWLY and was always always always hungry. Starving. I managed, but damn. Then I changed my diet to basically 'eat what you want, but get most of it from protein and fat, with carbs coming from veggies and low-carb versions of things', and suddenly I'm losing fat quicker, never hungry. I never WANT to take in more than 2-2.5k calories.

    Hell, my weight isn't changing much but my abs are starting to get defined. That says a lot.

    Edit: Editted a hilariously bad typo out.

    Kamar on
  • Protein ShakesProtein Shakes __BANNED USERS
    edited May 2010
    Arch wrote: »
    geckahn wrote: »
    Arch wrote: »

    If more fat comes from the diet than the body can use, it will upregulate the metabolism to burn some of the excess (the individual might have a *slightly* increased body temperature and might feel hyper), and store the rest in fat tissue (because likely, such a diet will also contain protein, which also causes *some* insulin to be secreted, although not nearly as much as carbs do).

    Overall though, it is MUCH harder to gain weight on a low-carb diet, and MUCH easier to lose it.

    these two statements don't seem to parse, at least to me.

    If eating more fat calories than you are currently burning causes them to go directly into fat cells, how is then harder to gain weight on a low carb, high fat diet?

    Or do I not understand the diet?

    EDIT: I think I just asked the same question Eggplant Wizard did, but in a different manner.

    you're not getting it.

    The key thing to understand here is that fatty acids (from dietary fat) move in and out of adipose tissue constantly. Adipose tissue is like a rechargable battery thats contantly being charged and used. When insulin is high it increases the inflow of fatty acids into the adipose tissue and prevents them from leaving the adipose tissue. So if you're low carb, fatty acids (from all the fat youre eating) go in and out of your adipose tissue all the time, but never build up because insulin is not around to prevent the fatty acids from leaving the adipose cells. So you never get fat. It's actually pretty much impossible.

    Again, I raised the question that it is pretty much impossible, and may even be dangerous, to have low levels of insulin in the body. Added to that, protein (such as lysine) can also stimulate insulin release and you get a situation where I don't feel comfortable with advocates claiming that you will not store any fatty acid in adipose tissue, regardless of how much you eat.

    Insulin is not a bad hormone. Only when it is secreted in excess does it cause all the horrible problems regarding CHD and pre-diabetes stages. The point of a low-carb diet is not to eliminate insulin completely, because it is essential for survival. Rather, low-carb diets will contain plenty of protein, which will raise insulin just enough that it can do its critical jobs properly, but not so much that it will prevent the release of fatty acids from fat cells and convert dangerous amounts of dietary fat into blood cholesterol and cause insulin resistance later on in life.

    Stated another way, proteins raise insulin as well, but much, much less than carbs do.
    So Protein, say I am a 250 pound person and desire to lose weight. According to you, apparently, I don't want to burn more calories than I take in, because I will fall into a coma, or something, even though physics dictates the only way to lose weight is to take in fewer calories than you expend. So how does one lose weight if one is overweight? Is the answer just "you should never want to lose weight," or what?

    Two possibilities here.

    One: you watched the video in the OP and still don't get it.
    Two: you didn't watch the video in the OP and are asking me to summarize it, which I already did.

    So which is it? Because I have explained the same thing multiple times to different people, and you're the only one still strawmanning me (I never said burning more calories than you take in will make you comatose, either learn to read or gtfo).

    Protein Shakes on
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Well, if my mom met the following criteria... I'd be in favor if waterboarding her.
  • Eggplant WizardEggplant Wizard Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Kamar wrote: »
    The point being made about the simplistic Calories out>calories in idea isn't that that doesn't work. Of course it works, thats all that works.

    It seems to have been put forth that as long as fat calories stay below a certain threshold and carb calories are absent, the total calorie count doesn't matter. This would contradict the "that's all that works" part of your statement.

    Eggplant Wizard on
    Hello
  • KamarKamar Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Well, the fat isn't going to magically disappear. I think the difference here is in thinking what you need to do versus how you need to consider it.

    Thinking "I need to burn more than I eat" is pointless and will typically lead to behavior that doesn't actually help you all that much.

    Thinking "Eat what I want but it needs to be low-carb" works in almost all cases. You'll succeed in the first guys goal by not aiming directly for it, more or less.

    Basically, if you have a magical device that tells you exactly how much you've burned, exactly how X food will effect your hunger and metabolism, etc...you can aim for a simplistic "Less In Than Out". But, uh, I doubt any of us have something like than on hand.

    Kamar on
  • Protein ShakesProtein Shakes __BANNED USERS
    edited May 2010
    Kamar wrote: »
    Well, the fat isn't going to magically disappear. I think the difference here is in thinking what you need to do versus how you need to consider it.

    Thinking "I need to burn more than I eat" is pointless and will typically lead to behavior that doesn't actually help you all that much.

    Thinking "Eat what I want but it needs to be low-carb" works in almost all cases. You'll succeed in the first guys goal by not aiming directly for it, more or less.

    Basically, if you have a magical device that tells you exactly how much you've burned, exactly how X food will effect your hunger and metabolism, etc...you can aim for a simplistic "Less In Than Out". But, uh, I doubt any of us have something like than on hand.

    Someone finally got it. Wohoo.

    Fat keeps you really full, and it's digested slowly, so it's very, very difficult to actually eat more than your body actually needs on a low-carb diet. If you manage to do it (by forcing yourself, since you won't actually feel hungry) then you might gain a *slight* amount of weight if your diet also contains sufficient amounts of proteins (which it should).

    Protein Shakes on
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Well, if my mom met the following criteria... I'd be in favor if waterboarding her.
  • Eggplant WizardEggplant Wizard Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    I think perhaps Arch and I are looking at it from different sides of the issue, but we both want the same thing. We want someone to blow a wad of science that says definitively (or refutes definitively) "it is possible to lose weight despite a calorie surplus". :)

    Protein has sort of done that, but for me the issue of excess protein calories is left hanging in the air.

    Eggplant Wizard on
    Hello
  • Protein ShakesProtein Shakes __BANNED USERS
    edited May 2010
    What is the issue of excess protein calories?

    Protein Shakes on
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Well, if my mom met the following criteria... I'd be in favor if waterboarding her.
  • Eggplant WizardEggplant Wizard Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    What is the issue of excess protein calories?

    Well, what you said on the previous page seemed to imply that losing body fat on a low-carb diet still necessitates that calories from fat be maintained below a certain level. What if I'm slightly below that level, but I'm also eating a ton of protein, thus putting my total caloric intake way above what my body actually needs? Do I gain weight? Lose weight? Maintain?

    Eggplant Wizard on
    Hello
  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Kamar wrote: »
    I'm going to jump in because it looks like people are going in circles instead of clarifying what they mean.

    The pass out thing was clearly just talking about the exact order Arch talked about; i.e. doing 3k worth of exercise and eating 2k after the fact. Answering it that way was a bit daft, I'd say, as the question was clearly not about the order, but about 0+2k-3k=-1k.

    Actually, the order doesn't matter. You don't get the fat out fast enough with a normal diet so you'd pass out and not complete the 3k.

    Julius on
  • JihadJesusJihadJesus Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Kamar wrote: »
    Of course it works, that's all that works. But there are sooooooooo many factors involved that if you honestly think you can use it in any meaningful way you're insane. What you eat will determine not just how many calories go in, but how many go out as well.

    It will also determine how many MORE calories you WANT to go in. I.e. how hungry you are, how energetic you are, etc. And also what weight you lose when you do game the system to Out>In; muscle or fat.
    What you're saying makes no sense whatsoever. It is all that's necessary to lose weight. You can't help BUT lose weight if you do it. I can understand some of where your coming from - making sure you hit the negative caloric intake you need is much simpler if you feel full and you can get your base metabolism to run higher, which are (supposedly) helped by severly restricting carb intake. I've yet to be convinced that this is true, but that doesn't change the basic, underlying point:

    If you can accurately identify how many calories you burn, and you take in fewer than this, you will lose weight.

    Even you acknowledge this. For most people they will not be cutting it so fine in this area that they will be well served by obfuscating the discussion with detailed hypothesis on how the body metabolizes various types of carbohydrates. They'll be well served getting off their asses and keeping some basic track of what they stuff in their faces, and then doing less of one and more of the other until they start losing weight.

    It's not rocket science. The fact that it's made to seem like rocket science via discussions like this is why people make it more complicated than it needs to be and think the task is some alchemic impossibility for regular people.

    JihadJesus on
  • Protein ShakesProtein Shakes __BANNED USERS
    edited May 2010
    What is the issue of excess protein calories?

    Well, what you said on the previous page seemed to imply that losing body fat on a low-carb diet still necessitates that calories from fat be maintained below a certain level.

    No, not calories from fat. Overall calorie intake needs to be below a certain level. What makes low-carb diets superior is that you never actually have to worry about or try to guess what that level is, because fats and proteins keep you full for longer amounts of time, and you never feel the sort of ravenous hunger that is typically associated with low-fat/high-carb diets and you don't have to be constantly self-conscious about what you're eating. In the absence of excess insulin to confuse the hell out of your body, your body can regulate itself much more effectively in this regard.

    It is still possible to eat above the threshold and not lose weight, and maybe gain some (although less than you would if you had eaten the same caloric excess with a high carb diet), but that's not something that happens on its own unless the person has a severe overeating disorder.
    JihadJesus wrote:
    If you can accurately identify how many calories you burn, and you take in fewer than this, you will lose weight.

    Even you acknowledge this.

    There is nothing to acknowledge, because it is not true in all situations. We have explained this over and over. Even if it was true, you can never accurately tell how much energy your body is burning because it changes all the time due to depending on many factors. Most people also can't tell how much they are eating, especially when eating out is common - only time they can is when they have full control of their foods, but even that is only half the equation. This makes the entire equation useless.

    Protein Shakes on
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Well, if my mom met the following criteria... I'd be in favor if waterboarding her.
  • geckahngeckahn Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    JihadJesus wrote: »
    If you can accurately identify how many calories you burn, and you take in fewer than this, you will lose weight.

    actually, this is not true. If you are on a restricted calorie diet (eating less than you burn), and you have excess levels of insulin, your body will be unable to effectively use its fat stores and will instead react by becoming hungry, decreasing metabolism, and cannabalizing lean body mass.

    this has been shown to be true in many controlled studies.

    Fatness (excess fatty acid stores in adipose tissue) is a disorder of fat tissue regulation caused by excess insulin levels over a sustained period of time.

    geckahn on
  • Eggplant WizardEggplant Wizard Registered User regular
    edited May 2010

    No, not calories from fat. Overall calorie intake needs to be below a certain level. What makes low-carb diets superior is that you never actually have to worry about or try to guess what that level is, because fats and proteins keep you full for longer amounts of time, and you never feel the sort of ravenous hunger that is typically associated with low-fat/high-carb diets and you don't have to be constantly self-conscious about what you're eating. In the absence of excess insulin to confuse the hell out of your body, your body can regulate itself much more effectively in this regard.

    Fair enough. Somehow I had the impression that there was more to it than that.

    Eggplant Wizard on
    Hello
  • Protein ShakesProtein Shakes __BANNED USERS
    edited May 2010
    Pick up Protein Power when you can - the author explains it extremely clearly.

    Protein Shakes on
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Well, if my mom met the following criteria... I'd be in favor if waterboarding her.
  • JihadJesusJihadJesus Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    geckahn wrote: »
    JihadJesus wrote: »
    If you can accurately identify how many calories you burn, and you take in fewer than this, you will lose weight.

    actually, this is not true. If you are on a restricted calorie diet (eating less than you burn), and you have excess levels of insulin, your body will be unable to effectively use its fat stores
    I call BS, give that this is the exact situation for which we even have fat stores.
    ...and will instead react by becoming hungry,
    Wait, eating a caloric deficit results in hunger? Someone better stop those presses, quick!
    ...decreasing metabolism
    This is true, but speaks to the basic issue: if it isn't reduced enough to negate the caloric deficit, weight loss still occurs. This effect makes it harder to calculate with accuracy whether or not you are reaching caloric deficit, but unless you can show that it is proportionally large (ie, running a 500 caloric deficit necessarily results in a decrease of metabolic rate closer to 300 calories/day than 30 calories/day), this is not going to be a primary mover in whether or not weight is lost. It's also valuable to note that there are MANY things that affect this rate, from sleep habits to physical activity, to various degrees and with various certainties.
    ...and cannabalizing lean body mass.
    Yes, the body will prefer to burn muscle over fat if given the option. I think that's pretty widely recognized. But I think this can be mitigated by use of the muscle tissue via resistance training or other physical activity, and further more you would still have to demonstrate that this is the case for caloric deficit diets that include carbohydrates and NOT for those that ommit them for it to be a relevant factor in the debate. And that is leaving aside the fact that burning lean tissue is indeed losing weight (I specifically did not say losing fat).
    ...this has been shown to be true in many controlled studies.
    1. Which you have failed to cite in the only instance your claim is in any way controversial (that the body can not access energy stores in fatty tissue effectively when running a caloric deficit).

    2. It is largely irrelevant anyway, since what you said is probably both true and utterly meaningless to the question of whether or not a diet low in cabohydrates will result in more weight loss than a diet of comparable caloric intake that includes them.

    JihadJesus on
  • Protein ShakesProtein Shakes __BANNED USERS
    edited May 2010
    JihadJesus wrote: »
    geckahn wrote: »
    JihadJesus wrote: »
    If you can accurately identify how many calories you burn, and you take in fewer than this, you will lose weight.

    actually, this is not true. If you are on a restricted calorie diet (eating less than you burn), and you have excess levels of insulin, your body will be unable to effectively use its fat stores
    I call BS, give that this is the exact situation for which we even have fat stores.

    Either you missed the second part that I limed, or you are demonstrating that you lack even the most basic understanding of what insulin is and what it does.

    If you have excess insulin, then your body cannot use its fat stores, because the presence of insulin in the blood signals the fat cells to hold on to their fats. As a result it sends more signals to the brain to trigger hunger and downregulate the metabolism until more food is eaten. This is why people who are on calorie restricted diets but still consume a large amount of carbs feel like shit all the time when they diet.

    Protein Shakes on
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Well, if my mom met the following criteria... I'd be in favor if waterboarding her.
  • JihadJesusJihadJesus Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    JihadJesus wrote: »
    geckahn wrote: »
    JihadJesus wrote: »
    If you can accurately identify how many calories you burn, and you take in fewer than this, you will lose weight.

    actually, this is not true. If you are on a restricted calorie diet (eating less than you burn), and you have excess levels of insulin, your body will be unable to effectively use its fat stores
    I call BS, give that this is the exact situation for which we even have fat stores.

    Either you missed the second part that I limed, or you are demonstrating that you lack even the most basic understanding of what insulin is and what it does.

    If you have excess insulin, then your body cannot use its fat stores, because the presence of insulin in the blood signals the fat cells to hold on to their fats. As a result it sends more signals to the brain to trigger hunger and downregulate the metabolism until more food is eaten. This is why people who are on calorie restricted diets but still consume a large amount of carbs feel like shit all the time when they diet.

    I did miss that part actually, although I will admit my understanding of insulin is basic. This is still not necessarily a demonstration that low carb calorie restricted diets are necessarily 'better' within this discussion, though - if you keep track of calories burned and know you are running a caloric deficit, you will still lose weight. All you are really saying here is that you'll be hungrier doing it assuming that we're still within the hypothetical of a true caloric deficit diet.

    I'm a bit skeptical that this is an issue if you're eating quality carbs that don't come packed with simple sugars that rapidly spike insulin levels, too. I suppose it implies that from a real world standpoint you're unlikely to actually maintain a caloric deficit with a diet that's centered around simple sugars or starches, but....well, duh. That's not really what we're talking about here. I suppose it is rather unique to modern conditions that you could even potentially be running a caloric deficit while eating that kind of diet, which is interesting but probably a bit of a tangent.

    JihadJesus on
  • Protein ShakesProtein Shakes __BANNED USERS
    edited May 2010
    if you keep track of calories burned and know you are running a caloric deficit
    We have explained this over and over. Even if it was true, you can never accurately tell how much energy your body is burning because it changes all the time due to depending on many factors. Most people also can't tell how much they are eating, especially when eating out is common - only time they can is when they have full control of their foods, but even that is only half the equation. This makes the entire equation nearly useless.

    Seriously, just pick up the Protein Power book. It should be fairly cheap since it has been out for a while, and I promise it explains everything in great detail and clarity.

    Protein Shakes on
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Well, if my mom met the following criteria... I'd be in favor if waterboarding her.
  • Alistair HuttonAlistair Hutton Dr EdinburghRegistered User regular
    edited May 2010
    We still haven't seemed to have cleared up the Asian paradox yet, given that the Taube quote posted in relation to it can be summed up as "I don't know".

    Alistair Hutton on
    I have a thoughtful and infrequently updated blog about games http://whatithinkaboutwhenithinkaboutgames.wordpress.com/

    I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.

    Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
  • Protein ShakesProtein Shakes __BANNED USERS
    edited May 2010
    We still haven't seemed to have cleared up the Asian paradox yet, given that the Taube quote posted in relation to it can be summed up as "I don't know".

    It's a combination of eating much less calories in general (daily average seems to be around 1400 calories) and the fact that they have been eating rice for much longer time period than Westerners have been eating refined carbs and sugars so maybe they have had more time to adapt to it. If there is a paradox to solve, then it will be solved with more studies.

    However, he also said that as Japan is starting to switch from brown rice to white rice, their obesity is increasing as well.

    Protein Shakes on
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Well, if my mom met the following criteria... I'd be in favor if waterboarding her.
  • JihadJesusJihadJesus Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    if you keep track of calories burned and know you are running a caloric deficit
    We have explained this over and over. Even if it was true, you can never accurately tell how much energy your body is burning because it changes all the time due to depending on many factors. Most people also can't tell how much they are eating, especially when eating out is common - only time they can is when they have full control of their foods, but even that is only half the equation. This makes the entire equation nearly useless.

    Seriously, just pick up the Protein Power book. It should be fairly cheap since it has been out for a while, and I promise it explains everything in great detail and clarity.

    I don't feel the need to contribute any funds to a shyster who's perpetuating the "losing weight is too complicated for you to handle without paying $19.95 for my book!" bullshit. Either you can explain why it's completely impossible (or so close as to be impractical) to run a caloric deficit without dropping carbs, despite so many people having done exactly that, or you can not. Either you can explain why running a caloric deficit is not sufficient for weight loss and dropping carbs is a prequisite, or you can not.

    From what I've seen of these threads, you can not.

    JihadJesus on
  • Alistair HuttonAlistair Hutton Dr EdinburghRegistered User regular
    edited May 2010
    But why do they eat fewer calories? Because if this thread has taught me anything it's that eating carbs makes you want to eat more.

    You cannot hammer us with juicy information then fall over at the first sign of a counter example.

    Alistair Hutton on
    I have a thoughtful and infrequently updated blog about games http://whatithinkaboutwhenithinkaboutgames.wordpress.com/

    I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.

    Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited May 2010
    Arch wrote: »
    Yar wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    Yar wrote: »
    We evolved on diets that basically didn't have carbs, except for maybe some fruit, which tends to be rather low-calorie. It makes sense to me that carbs, which are almost always processed foods (except for fruit), might not be ideal as the basis of our diets.

    We evolved to make the best of what we had. For example, we evolved to eat raw meat but cooked meat isn't worse for us. Similarly, carbs have been processed to be compatible with our dietary profile, so evolutionary biology can't really tell us much.

    One thing I've learned is that fats tend to be bad if you have a problem with eating too much in a sitting rather than eating too frequently because they tend to have higher calorie density (I remember the Science Times talking about how several then recent studies had shown that fullness is determined by mass)
    Hmmm, no, this doesn't address it. Cooked food isn't different from raw in the same way that a protein is different from a carb.

    Carbs in our diet largely didn't exist until some point in civilization when we started making bread and boiling rice and potatoes and stuff. For a few orders of magntiude longer before that, it was meat, veggies, fruit, and nuts. Haven't had a lot of time to evolve to a diet where the majority of calories come from manufactured simple carbs, but as a cheap source of energy it has proved quite useful. It just wouldn't surprise me that a diet based on those, particularly if that diet doesn't desperately need cheap quick energy, runs a risk of deforming your natural body state as opposed to what eating meats, leaves, and nuts does to you.

    So veggies and fruit aren't carbs? Besides that, there is a lot of evidence that the diet of early man contained grains, albeit not to the level of large scale agriculture. But that is a different topic, and one outside of the scope of this thread.

    I think what he meant that carbs didn't exist in our diets before agriculture to nearly the same extent that they started to after agriculture. In addition, yes, we did have carbs previously, but most of them were likely seasonal, much like the carbs in the diets of Eskimos (only appear in summer time when the weather allows some fruits to grow).

    Also a lot of veggies - especially the leafy kind that you would expect our ancestors to eat - contain very little actual carbs. They consist mostly of water and fiber.

    Yes, humans evolved in the arctic. Good job.

    Also, none of this makes the assumption that carbs, medicine, and sunscreen not being around when we evolved means that they're bad for you any more true.

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • Protein ShakesProtein Shakes __BANNED USERS
    edited May 2010
    But why do they eat fewer calories? Because if this thread has taught me anything it's that eating carbs makes you want to eat more.

    You cannot hammer us with juicy information then fall over at the first sign of a counter example.

    Nobody is falling over. There is an explanation for everything. We just don't know what that explanation is in the case of traditional Asian diets. Even Taubes himself says more studies need to be done on that subject.
    JihadJesus wrote: »
    I don't feel the need to contribute any funds to a shyster who's perpetuating the "losing weight is too complicated for you to handle without paying $19.95 for my book!" bullshit.

    o_O

    They are a couple of doctors with more than 20 years of clinical experience prescribing this diet to their patients.
    Either you can explain why it's completely impossible (or so close as to be impractical) to run a caloric deficit without dropping carbs, despite so many people having done exactly that, or you can not.

    From what I've seen of these threads, you can not.

    I explained it, and plenty of people seem to have understood it, which means the problem is you. Especially since you have admitted that your understanding of insulin (possibly among other things) is basic.

    I am not your teacher. It's your job to educate yourself, not mine. I can only point you in the right direction. I can't hold your hand and walk you there. If you don't want to buy one of the best sources of information on this subject for something ridiculously low (like 6.99) then here is a summary. I am not going to explain anything to you beyond this until you check your antagonistic attitude at the door.

    Protein Shakes on
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Well, if my mom met the following criteria... I'd be in favor if waterboarding her.
  • geckahngeckahn Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    JihadJesus wrote: »
    if you keep track of calories burned and know you are running a caloric deficit
    We have explained this over and over. Even if it was true, you can never accurately tell how much energy your body is burning because it changes all the time due to depending on many factors. Most people also can't tell how much they are eating, especially when eating out is common - only time they can is when they have full control of their foods, but even that is only half the equation. This makes the entire equation nearly useless.

    Seriously, just pick up the Protein Power book. It should be fairly cheap since it has been out for a while, and I promise it explains everything in great detail and clarity.

    I don't feel the need to contribute any funds to a shyster who's perpetuating the "losing weight is too complicated for you to handle without paying $19.95 for my book!" bullshit. Either you can explain why it's completely impossible (or so close as to be impractical) to run a caloric deficit without dropping carbs, despite so many people having done exactly that, or you can not. Either you can explain why running a caloric deficit is not sufficient for weight loss and dropping carbs is a prequisite, or you can not.

    From what I've seen of these threads, you can not.

    Your entire perception of the calories in - calories out = fat stored equation is wrong, which I think is why you're not understanding this.

    That statement is true, but it's more complicated then you're understanding. It's useful to think of your fat stores as a separate entity from the rest of your body, like it's a battery and the rest of your body is a machine. The machine needs a certain amount of energy to run itself, and it does so by both drawing directly from the food you eat and from its fat stores, and it always draws from fat stores, constantly. Not just when its running a caloric deficit.

    So when everything is working smoothly and is in homeostasis then the simple version of the calories in/out equation works. But when you expose your body to high levels of insulin for extended periods of time your adipose tissue starts storing more fatty acids (a source of energy for the body) then it lets go. This is because insulin both pushes fatty acids into adipose tissue and prevents it from leaving. When this happens its like the battery for this machine is malfunctioning. It's not working right anymore. So your body (the machine) isnt getting enough energy. So it tells you to eat more, or expend less energy, or a combination of both. And the cycle continues.

    You need to understand this. This is how your body works. Get it?

    geckahn on
  • CervetusCervetus Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    I am not your teacher. It's your job to educate yourself, not mine.

    It seems like starting an information thread is a bad way to convey this principle.

    And although I haven't completely bought the idea of low carb = good, this thread has done a great job of making me want bacon.

    Cervetus on
    The libertarian response to anything is, "Sure, that works fine in practice, but it doesn't fly in theory."
  • Protein ShakesProtein Shakes __BANNED USERS
    edited May 2010
    Cervetus wrote: »
    I am not your teacher. It's your job to educate yourself, not mine.

    It seems like starting an information thread is a bad way to convey this principle.

    And although I haven't completely bought the idea of low carb = good, this thread has done a great job of making me want bacon.

    I created an information thread to give information, not to repeat myself endlessly in several different ways, only to be told by people that they "don't feel the need to contribute any funds to a shyster who's perpetuating the "losing weight is too complicated for you to handle without paying $19.95 for my book!" bullshit."

    Protein Shakes on
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Well, if my mom met the following criteria... I'd be in favor if waterboarding her.
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited May 2010
    Arch wrote: »
    I don't know how bad it will be for you. It's just that most of it is empty calories because it's full of sugar. An average sized banana has 28g sugar in it, which is almost as much as a can of soda. Of course, it's fructose as opposed to sucrose or HFCS, so it's a little different, but it's still bad.

    :?

    Bananas are now equal to soda, good to know.

    But remember, buttered bacon is equal to an apple. No, better than!

    What? There is nothing wrong with buttered bacon, except maybe the fact that you don't actually need the butter since bacon cooks nicely in its own fat.

    Well, there's the fact that, even if the fat isn't going to kill you, it's still an open race between the salt, sugar, and nitrates it's been soaked in.
    Bacon is distinguished from salt pork and ham by differences in the brine (or dry packing). Bacon brine has added ingredients, most notably sodium nitrite, and occasionally sodium nitrate or saltpeter, are added to cure the meat; sodium ascorbate or erythorbate are added to accelerate curing and stabilize color. Flavorings such as brown sugar or maple are used for some products. If used, sodium polyphosphates are added to improve sliceability and reduce spattering when the bacon is pan fried. Today, a brine for ham, but not bacon, includes a large amount of sugar. Historically, "ham" and "bacon" referred to different cuts of meat that were brined or packed identically, often together in the same barrel.

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • Protein ShakesProtein Shakes __BANNED USERS
    edited May 2010
    I can't comment on the nitrates, but there is zero sugar and low sodium bacon. I am not suggesting eating it until your kidneys or whatever explode. Drink some water with it and it will take care of the sodium.

    Protein Shakes on
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Well, if my mom met the following criteria... I'd be in favor if waterboarding her.
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited May 2010
    But why do they eat fewer calories? Because if this thread has taught me anything it's that eating carbs makes you want to eat more.

    You cannot hammer us with juicy information then fall over at the first sign of a counter example.

    Nobody is falling over. There is an explanation for everything. We just don't know what that explanation is in the case of traditional Asian diets. Even Taubes himself says more studies need to be done on that subject.

    Maybe the explanation is that he's wrong. That's usually the assumption one should make when faced with directly contradictory data.

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • Protein ShakesProtein Shakes __BANNED USERS
    edited May 2010
    Scalfin wrote: »
    But why do they eat fewer calories? Because if this thread has taught me anything it's that eating carbs makes you want to eat more.

    You cannot hammer us with juicy information then fall over at the first sign of a counter example.

    Nobody is falling over. There is an explanation for everything. We just don't know what that explanation is in the case of traditional Asian diets. Even Taubes himself says more studies need to be done on that subject.

    Maybe the explanation is that he's wrong. That's usually the assumption one should make when faced with directly contradictory data.

    Or that there is something here that is making it an exception, because we have overwhelming evidence in pretty much every other population around the world. In addition, our understanding of how the body works supports the theory fully.

    When facing directly contradictory data, no assumptions should be made however, until more studies are done on the subject.

    Protein Shakes on
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Well, if my mom met the following criteria... I'd be in favor if waterboarding her.
Sign In or Register to comment.