Your body with or without the help of insulin will & can store as fat any protein any food any carb any fat that it does not use.pure & simple.Even a recent study confirmed Atkins diet people limited calories
ITS the law of physics.If you take in more than your body needs.It^ll be stored as fat.Taubes only picks what supports his theories.He is not credible,just a showboater & sensationalist. Most experts & human x-perience sat otherwise.With low carb,you loose weight at first but its water.Taubes thinks its ok to eat bacon everday but is afraid to have more than 6 blueberries according ti him. If u want to believe someone who seems he^s on crack cocaine.Go ahead
I also believe than the American diet also causes extensive hair growth as opposed to the diet in Asian countries. Asians seriously have less body hair than Americans and I think that is also a result of the diet.
i'm orthodox christian and during lent we fast, which is veganism w/out oil, sugar, and alcohol. anyways i always gain 10-15lbs during this period cuz I don't feel satisfied. I eat like 5-6 giant meals a day. in fact practically everyone I know gains weight.
so I don't think nutrition alone makes you full, I heard somewhere proteins keep you full for a longer period of time. btw not an atkins fan here, in fact i don't diets period.
you need animal protein and minerals which of course contains no carbs and makes you feel full longer. If you eat only vegetables and fruits and processed food you will eat too much sugar which will store as fat.
@gledalac1979 Your body can & will convert any protein to fat that is not used.It don^t matter carb,fat protein. Take in more than u use & it will be stored as fat
Some bad math(s) and the usual flawed assumptions relating to calories in versus calories out
The same old unproven claims of causal correlation between dietary fat (implied animal fats) and "obesity". Unscientific failure to distinguish between the absolute decline in animal fat consumption and the simultaneous increase in vegetable fat use in the US. At least sugar was covered.
I'm know that repeating these errors over and over will cause people to believe them. Natural selection in action?
@madmax200769 There is no unptoven theory here.Whether its a protein,fat or carb your body can & will store it as fat if you take in more than what your body needs. To say that you can eat excess in proteins,taking in more than whay your body needs & somehow it won^t get stored as fat is non sensical. Protein consumption as well as caeb consumption has both gone up the past 30 years.
@sumbarine That statement doesn't even remotely make sense. Its based on the naive "calorific hypothesis" which treats the body as a passive "bin" for calories rather than a dynamic and tightly-regulated process. Additionally, since there are only 3 macronutrient groups then, if BOTH protein have "gone up" (ratio) in the last 30 years this demands that total fat has gone down. In any event this is a non-factual claim
You've completely neglected the role of endocrinal signalling such as insulin
@madmax200769 Since 1970 americans are taking in 500 more calories a day.Fibre which helps with weight loss(& a lot of Carbs have fibre) has been taken out of the diet.Enzymes in the body can & will convert to fat any protein used in excess amounts. Taubes leaves out some cultures who are the leanest but have a diet that is 75% carbohydrate.If you look at the poor souls who starved in the death camps or Japanese POW camps inWWII,they were skin & bone due to Calorie deprivation. Its common sense
@sumbarine Fail. @ 365 days/hr since 1970 (41 yrs) - let's say 41x365x500 kcal would be an increase of 7,482,500kcal which is absurd. You neither made your facts clear not got them correct. Additionally *which* Americans are you talking about. Is this a mean, median or modal average or groups? You quote Birkitt's fibre hypothesis. Fibre cannot "help" with weight loss. This implies active participation in metabolism. By concrete definiton fibre is inert - although it may support gut flora ...
@madmax200769 500 x-tra calories a day,7 days a week,55 wks a year seems logical. A breakfast at Bob Evans can run 1,500 cal, a rib & steak dinner can run up to1,800 easy.When your constipated due to lack of fibre,you get sluggish,when u refuse the carbs your body needs you get lazy.The healthy carbs provide energy hence it helps with weight loss.Remember u don^t need to be a brain surgeon to know,the more you move,the more you are active u are headed towards a calorie deficy+ weight loss
@sumbarine What is it that you mean? Do you mean 500kcal/day increase per person across the whole of the USA or are you quoting some mean estimate?
The problem with exercise for "calorific deficit" is that unless you are extremely active it's simply not going to happen. Esp. if you're ingesting those "extra" (?) *digestible* calories per day. Both Taubes and Banting covered the problem that extra exercise simply increases hunger and you eat more to compensate. If overweight that may not help.
@madmax200769 Jared Fogle ate nothing but/only subway sandwiches & walked alot for over a year.He lost over 200lbs despite a crappy diet.He was originally over 400 pounds.He started to get fat at 8 when he abandoned a active life for a inactive life with video games followed by junk food.When he started walking(activity) & still eating junk(subway sandwiches under 6 g of fat) he eventually created a calorie deficit & the pounds fell. Real simple. Nothing bizarre just calories in vs calories out
@sumbarine Not sure how you manage to make subway Sandwiches relevant as a "crappy diet". Unless you have gluten issues then there's not much wrong with a "Subway" - of course using the term "Subway" leaves open ended room for deceit since anyone who's had one knows there's singular item such as a "Subway" to even argue over - YOU choose what goes into the damn thing. Getting fat at 8 y/o would have little to do with simple lack of an "active life". You're really clutching at straws.
@madmax200769 Subway Sandwiches are crappy because of the processed meats or coldcuts(to be enjoyed occassionally but not every day) & the type of bread used(which is OK but not every day)
@sumbarine "Subway Sandwiches are crappy because..." - False. Subways let you choose what you want on your sub. The only reason I've eaten there as I don't like most of the choices. All cooked meat is "processed". Unless, perhaps you like sushi and even that has been "processsed" by slicing. People criticising science by using weasel words such as "processed" or making a qualitative statement such as "crappy" aren't demonstrating anything of their case.
@sumbarine Moreover, if "Subway Sandwiches are crappy" then this ridicules *you* offering Fogel and his use of Subways as a means of losing "weight" (fat) using a "crappy" diet. You are the one who needs to defend Subways, not me. I certainly wouldn't recommend them, especially for people who have gluten intolerance, and I wouldn't particularly offer up Subways as a good choice to base a diet upon (which you did).
@sumbarine QUOTE - "The Jared Fogle diet: Coffee for breakfast. For lunch, a six-inch turkey sub with a small bag of Baked Lay's chips and a Diet Coke. For dinner, a foot-long veggie sub and a Diet Coke. On the sandwiches, no cheese, no mayonnaise, but plenty of lettuce, green peppers, banana peppers and pickles, and a dab of mustard. No snacks, and no cheating. *Exercise was not part of Fogle's plan*, but after a few months he noticed he had more energy".
@sumbarine I searched out the Fogel information and corrected your false assertion that Fogel's weight loss program included exercise (It didn't - he started to exercise *after* he lost weight which is a perfect description of Taubes and others' view on "weight" and calories)
What's also clear is that Fogel skipped breakfast, consuming only coffee. For lunch he had a small Sub which would have had minimal "insulin poking" effect. Then, only a 12 inch sub for final meal. No snacks. (nndb , com)
@sumbarine Sir, you are an idiot or are simply trolling. I've pasted two sets of Fogel quotes in which he made it abundantly clear that exercise did *not* play a part until LATER ON in his diet regime. Perhaps you have difficulty reading the quote where he reassures people to lose weight first and worry about the exercise after? Exercising after the fact cannot be causal in initial weight loss - unless perhaps you have a time machine
@sumbarine Indeed he did and - I will repeat yet again, from his own words - that was clearly stated to be AFTER he lost weight on his "Sub diet" so it *cannot* have been the cause of his initial weight loss. Not only can you not read but you're citing sources (Fogel) you don't seem to be able to read or find.
@madmax200769 He first cut back on the calories,yes that^s a start.The excercise after allowed him to lose more weigh quicker t. That^s why when people diet they increase there activity level a little & then reduce calories,so much easier than depriving yourself of food because in reality we are not meant to diet but to feed our bodies
@madmax200769 You just screwed yourself there,"excercise didn^ play a part until later..." Of course until later.At 400 lbs you can get a heart attack if you exert yourself too much. He did excercise later & it helped. Surprise !
@sumbarine "You just screwed yourself there,"excercise didn^ play a part until later..."
Nope. Not so, other than in your fantasy world.
Jared Fogel says he didn't exercise till after he lost weight on the "Sub" diet. So there's no evidence for *causality* attributable to exercise-induced calorie deficit from the get-go here. Combining exercise with a change in lifestyle and diet, even later on, is a multi-factor intervention. I've made it clear that exercise helps regulate insulin
@sumbarine ... inert fibre can only displace digestible carbs. This is the subtraction of the offending causality rather than introducing new causality. The metabolism *may* convert excess protein via GNG into glucose and trigycerides which is indirectly stored as fat. That doesn't imply the degree to which it *must*. In any event you still have a glucose/triglyceride problem. Considering total calorie deficit is not the same thing as necessarily happens in calorific excess (see" obese mice")
@madmax200769 Fibre helps absorb excess cholesterol & brings it out for elimination, As well gets rid of the stuff your body doesn^t need helping your metabolism & digestion to be efficient.Some proteins spike insulin levels higher than carbs. Whatever the case insulin or not,your body can & will store any excess protein it doesn^t need as fat.There are many roles for insulin including helping you feel full,its not the evil that taubes makes it out to be.
@sumbarine "Fibre helps absorb excess cholesterol & brings it out for elimination" - No it doesn't - but would you care to explain the mechanics of this? Do you mean excess dietary cholesterol or circulating cholesterol?
"Some proteins spike insulin levels higher than carbs." - such as?
"Whatever the case insulin or not,your body can & will store any excess protein it doesn^t need as fat" - how if not via GNG as already mentioned?
@sumbarine ... not is what happened in POW "common sense" which can be extrapolated into the causality of obesity. As Taubes highlghted, research showed that mice can die obese yet starve internally if injected with insulin, digesting their own organs in the process. You're neglecting to pay attention to the role of insulin signalling in fat accumulation.
@madmax200769 Humans are not mice & the typical human does not inject himself with hormones.Not one person who starved in the death camps,pow camps was obese.If what Taubes & u say is true,then we would of found someone who died of starvation but was obese or not skin & bones .Its real simple & straightforward.When you have less calories to feed your body or when calorie demand exceeds intake,your body will turn on its fat reserves & even muscle for nourishment.Its called 2 + 2 + 4.Real simple,
@sumbarine Correct. But mice and many other animals have quite similar insulin metabolism and respond in the same way so your assertion is not valid. This is why human diabetics could use animal (pig) insulin. By contast rodents, are not like humans when it comes to cholesterol experimentation.
"we would of found someone who died of starvation but was obese or not skin & bones" - does not follow but you can look at the reverse case where women diabetics skip insulin to lose "weight".
@madmax200769 Plenty of evidence that too much LDL cholesterol is dangerous to the arteries. As was pointed out.In the USA you had in 50s,60s---white bread for toast,apple pies,burgers & shakes,french fries etc. What you didn^t have were large portions & people moved more.The obesity rate for the amish is 1% but they walk all the time(16,000 steps a day) Japan likes there sweets & commonly eats white rice but overall portions of food are smaller,obesity is 3%.
@sumbarine You're simply cutting and pasting every flawed argument. There may be plenty of "evidence" re: LDL but this evidence is flawed as many other researchers in the field have highlighted. The error of impuning causality to LDL when it is simply an associated phenomena (colloquially called "correlation is not causality"). Small portions are simply one of many variant factors. Not everyone has large portions. As for Japan, yet more correlation without demonstrated causality. Does not follow
@sumbarine I see you've looked it up. However, "small LDL" is not "LDL" - nor is the causality associated with small/dense LDL clear. The field of research has been muddied by the popular meme of "LDL bad... HDL good". Goffman's metric arising from centrifuging was, as is often the case with such things, a metric looking for someone to try and use it for a purpose. Whilst small/dense LDL is implicated I don't believe any researchers would imply causality to it. It's just one more symptom.
@sumbarine Here^s the proof.Check out Jared Fogle.Fogle was over 400 lbs & lost over 200 eating nothing but Subway sandwiches & walking. Jared said he was active up untill 8 yrs until he got NINTENDO. From there he says inactivity & junk food came in & video games took over,he balooned up. He saw Subway sandwiches advertise types under 6 grams of fat.For one year he ate that & walked alot & lost over 200!! A crappy diet but he walked just like the ancestral hunter humans,Calories In vs Out.Fact
@sumbarine Additionally. Fogel as a single example of an anecdotal multi-factor intervention offers zero *proof* of anything. He changed many factors in his lifestyle and whilst it's clear to me that he lost weight by reducing the degree to which he was stimulating his insulin and sustaining insulin resistance this single case "proves" nothing at all since it's impossible to isolate any single causal factor. So the claim "here's the proof" is meaningless.
@sumbarine No he didn't and since you have no metrics for his calorific expenditure you have no basis to make that assertion. Clearly you're clueless about his calorific expenditure due to (lack of) exercise and are unable to even comprehend the words coming from Fogel's own mouth. You're either trolling or living in a complete fantasy world, hoping that if you repeat the statement over and over it will become true. I'm not sure which but up to now you're making a complete arse of yourself.
@sumbarine Fogel QUOTE - "I’m lucky enough not to have problems with loose skin. I started losing weight when I was 20 ..." - another aspect of multiple factors is natural "weight" (adipose) loss in males at maturation. Boys typically have weight gain and a period of feminisation prior to this with differential growth between M and F. QED confirmation bias
"I also did a lot of cross training and weights. ... . Worry about losing the weight first." - confirms exercise AFTER losing "weight"
@sumbarine It's clear that you haven't the remotest idea what Jared Fogel did and either can't read his story, can't find it or are simply relying on others to feed you stupid responses to post back.
@madmax200769 1)we know coke,fries & apple pie were a part of US diet in 60s no obesity 2)we know in Japan they eat white rice frequently,less than 3% obesity#)we know from death & POW camps that millions died skin & bone due to lack of calories(defici)4)we know meditteranean diet has pasta & fruit,no insulin problems5) we know many quoted in taubes book complained of being taken out of context6)A studt confirmed that those on Atkins took in less calories. Taubes is rubbish
@sumbarine We know portion sizes have gone up alot since 50s,60s,70s8)we know the more active one is--walking,raking leaves,housework--the more energy is used. ask yourself,rather than does this food make me fat but rather how much do i eat & what I have done or am planning to do to utilize the amount of energy(calories) in my body. Its foolish what Taubes says that u can eat all the meat u want,not excercise or move & u won^t gain weight. The body can & will insulin or not store excess calories
@madmax200769 My claim is not that but against Taubes stating that carbs like white rice,sodas,cakes etc cause obesity because insulin goes up Point is that if u look at the 60s & Japan it doen^t.He claims that these rise insulin & therefore people get fat.Well they didn^t get fat in the 60s & neither in Japan.Insulin rising does not mean fat gain,if you exercise or limit portions.Insulin contributes to regulation of blood sugar but in the end thast6S meaningless if you burn more than u take in
@sumbarine An area you might care to look at (already mentioned) is differential growth phases between pre-pubertal boys and girls. In a calorific view this would be "eating too much" or either sex being selectively indolent at specific phases
There's fat gain in pubertal males which likely applied to Fogel to a degree. Of course, as with Fogel, this too would be due to calories and teen indolence, not hormones, right? This may involve gynaecomastia (breast growth).Wikipedia:Puberty:body shape
@madmax200769 Our moms made apple pies,cakes back in the 50s & 60s,that was typical USA. Hamburgers & shakes were enjoyed on occasion. At the time though,the streets had kids playing ball hockey,girls jumping rope & there were smaller portions of french fries.No obesity rates,No weight issues.The bottomline(putting aside nutrition) its not what u eat that causes weight loss but HOW MUCH & WHAT YOU DO TO EXPEND THOSE CALORIES.Real simple,real straightforward
@madmax200769 As the Washington Post pointed out Taubes rejected over 50 studies that didn^t support his thesis.Many who were interviewed & quoted in the book complained they were taken out of context.Protein in the body gets broken down into building blocks called peptides.It becomes amino acids & enters the blood. ISome build the body^s protein stores but excess amino acids become converted to fat & sugar.If they are not used up in energy-----Stored as fat
@sumbarine He point out in his criticism of bad science that rejected far more invalid studies than 50.
And nevertheless GNG except in cases of very high protein consumption (not part of your normal spread) will remain a minor influence in the face of dominant effects such as high HFCS, refined carbohydrate and sugar consumption. Even where GNG converts amino acids it ultimately remains an insulin issue. Read the linked article.
@sumbarine@sumbarine@sumbarine If you won't read Taubes or other critic of the calorific theory you could try this article
tinyurl dot com /62ofwl5
"Increased consumption of refined carbohydrates and the epidemic of type 2 diabetes in the United States: ..."
Whilst fibre is implicated it is a *passive* not *active* ingredient which has been displaced largely by the introduction of High Fructose Corn Syrup. The +500kcal quote is there (1980 not 1970)
@madmax200769 Insulin rises at every meal,its no big deal it does its job regulating blood sugar.When it is chronically high problems can arise.Obesity is a problem in keeping it high.Eat too much,don^t burn it off---weight gain
@sumbarine And yet that process has specific mechanics, this involving insulin. Are you now shifting your argument from excess calorific intake to "excess protein" (volume based causality v's calorific excess?)
Sooner or later you need to admit the role of insulin stimulation/dysregulation rather than the calorific myth. Read the linked article which offers a graph nof displacement of low-quality/high-fibre carbs with HFCS etc. and which shows "gone up" is misleading. (It went down THEN up)
@madmax200769 It all gets back to that. I saw my mothers family photo from the 60sfamily of 6,all thin).What was there diet I asked---potatoes,pasta,lard,fruit,some meat,vegetables.They had smaller portions,walked.Real simple realstraightforward.
@sumbarine Unfortunately that's how something called "magickal thinking" works. Vague and un-analysed association. We all remember thin people from our youth until we think about it in more depth. We're mostly remembering the thinness of our selves and the youthful around us, most of whom have healthy insulin response and no insulin resistance. If we analyse in greater depth and avoid the perceptual bias we can also recall plenty of fat people too. I certainly can and remember that era also
@madmax200769 Is not magical.That was the diet.The lifestyle involved smaller portions,working in the field & walking alot.I remember 5 oz wine glasses were the standard.Now I can^t find them there 7 or 8 oz glasses.Dr Oz pointed out that todays dishes have increased by 2 inches to incorporate more food. Coffee mugs have been made huge compared to before.I noticed the differences many a time. There was only one size of fries now there are 3 & there all bigger than the original size long ago
@sumbarine Comprehension FAIL. You still fail to examine the supplied data and are replying on junk rhetoric. Plate size is not a metric for consumed food quantity or quality. If Oz' arguments rely on this then he's an idiot. Plate sizes may have gotten bigger on average in America but not in other nations who still suffer similar obesity issues. It all depends *which* plates, cups and saucers. My 80 year old granparent's plates are larger than my supermarket ones. One word - "dishwasher".
@sumbarine QUOTE - "Dietary carbohydrate steadily decreased from 500 g/d in 1909 to 374 g/d in 1963, largely because of a decrease in the consumption of whole grains. Simultaneously, dietary fiber decreased at a greater rate—by nearly 40%. Since 1963, the consumption of carbohydrates steadily increased back to 500 g/d; however, fiber consumption did not increase proportionately. This finding reflects an increased consumption of refined carbohydrates over this time period"
@madmax200769 THere was a increase in technology as well---computers,video games,200 channel cable tv(as opposed to 5 channels in the 50s),vehicle usage etc.This happened especially in the past 25 years just when obesity rose big. As I pointed out refined white rice & even cjocolates are very much a part of Japanese diet,what^s not a part of it are large portions,. Less people walking,playing sports,moving. Calories not burned add up.
@sumbarine Post-hoc of undemonstrated relevance. The same style of post hoc has been used to blame say delinquency and crime on 1950s pulp fiction, rock and roll, comic books, TV, console games, computers and the internet. Take your pick. You're completely ignoring the empirical data (already offered) which provides a much more substantive explanation. The history of Jap diet is much more complex, esp. as there was a post-war transition to much more Americanised diet. This is rarely focused on
That^s all irrelevent when it comes to weight gain/weight loss. If people are burning those calories because of various excercises or movemeent as opposed to sedentary lifestyle,very common these days. Or there total calories don^t exceed what there body demands,it counts for squat.Experts would laugh at your face if you said calories don^t count & that you can eat all the steak & eggs in a week & if you take in more than what you need it won^t be stored as fat.PS I noticed MR Taubes Big belly
@sumbarine Nope. Of vital relevance, especially since one has to consider insulin resistance and the advent of NIDDM and Metabolic Syndrome. Excercise (of which I'd advocate anaerobic weight/resistance) doesn't "work" by merely consuming calories it works by helping the body to overcome insulin resistance. Commenting on Taube's gut is simply a weak ad-hominem argument. You make no observation of his weight history nor lifestyle and as with all ad-hominem that is of no relevance to the issue.
@madmax200769 Back in the old days do you know how they would fatten the pig before slaughter ? they would keep feeding it in its stall where it had no movement.The pig would be there without any movement & would get large.Its no different than with humans & sedentary lifestyle.I remember enjoying cakes & choclate bars when young but not every day & I moved alot(excercise) weight was never a issue
@sumbarine Utter stupidity. These would be pigs kept in the same stalls as "thin" siblings. Pigs are fattened by eating copious amounts of grains and other food which stimulate their insulin. You could google "how to fatten a pig" instead of making this stuff up.
QUOTE:
"Young hogs turn their feed into mussle at a ratio of 6 to 1. Meaning that it will take 1200 lbs of grain to fatten your feeder pig to a 240 lb butchering weight. 1200 lbs of corn is 24 bu and would cost about $80." [sic]
"That same pig will fatten up to 240 lbs on 1000 lbs of corn stalks, sweet corn cobs, rotten lettuce heads from the supermarket dumpster, plus about 200 lbs of grain"
@madmax200769 My buddy doesn^t take his dog out for a walk because she has arthritis.He also feeds her generoously,what^s the Result----overweight where she has trouble walking . Surprise ! Surprise! Surprise!. The body^s gotta store those calories not used. Its hard to understand isn^t it when your on crack cocaine ?
@sumbarine In that case you'll have no problem describing the mechanism the body has for storing "calories" rather than triglycerides/blood glucose. Perhaps the dog has cells that inflate and fill with "calorie molecules"?
"Its hard to understand isn^t it when your on crack cocaine ?"
I guess it must be - you certainly have my sympathies. I'm sorry I didn't realise your drug handicap earlier. It must be incredibly difficult for you. I would have ceased discussion had I realised your problem
@sumbarine "Its hard to understand isn^t it when your on crack cocaine ?"
In view of your unfortunate condition, one which explains the disconnected nature of your posts, there will be no point in me continuing in vain to expect a rational discussion. I hope you resolve your coke problem and get counselling and rehabilitation. You should have highlighted this affliction earlier. It must be truly awful trying for you trying to reason whilst under the influence of this evil substance
@sumbarine Your assertion that all you need to do to "fatten" pigs will be a godsend to livestock owners looking to reduce high costs of fattening
Go post on some pig rearing forums and point out that rather than over-feeding all they need to do is feed ALL pigs the SAME AMOUNT but strap the fattening pigs down and prevent ANY movement at all. Hey, it HAS to work because you now have a calorific deficit in relation to the sufficiently-fed siblings which MUST CAUSE obesity in the pig. QED right?
@madmax200769 Thank you fpr your statement that makes no sense at all. As my mother recalls on the farm---overfeeding & lack of movements fatten animals.Today in order to bring meart faster they use hormones etc.Traditionally it was not done like that.Weight gainis a slow process just like weight loss. It takes time to eat more than 3,500 calories that your body burns. He quotes a scientist called bron or something like that,but bron has retracted his theories
@madmax200769 GA person or animal growing & weight gain can be 2 different things.Baby to adult grows but it doesn^t follow that they are fat or get fat.
@sumbarine I have a serious question which you could help me with.
So far, everything you've posted indicate that your belief-framework is composed almost entirely of bullshit, nonsense, false-assumptions, repetition of media tripe, ignorance plus rambling and disconnected rhetoric
You get used to this stuff on YouTube but the serious question I have is: How do you manage to successfully conduct your life? I mean, do you have someone to look after you and tell you what do do?
@sumbarine And an additional issue to get crystal-clear is that those who debunk the calorific hypothesis do not claim that "calories don't count" - asserting such is an irrational strawman fallacy. The entire discussion is about *causality*. "Experts" who ignore causality and vests their expertise on loose association are common plentiful and if you're looking at any area of health where you need to get causality clear then such people laughing would be of minimal importance.
@sumbarine QUOTE - "From 1963 to 1997, the consumption of total fat increased nearly 30%, protein consumption increased 8%, and total energy consumption increased 9%."
- if you look at the graph you see that this claimed "increase" simply restored levels to their 1908-1938 levels. It is entirely misleading to claim the trend by examining only the past 30 years. There was a progressive dip in carb-nutrition following the Great Depression. WW2 and the post war depression & recovery up to ~1984
@sumbarine I'd suggest you also forget nitpicking over Taubes and the Washington Post's nonsense and draw from source.
In particular I can recommend this lecture from UCSD "Sugar, the Bitter Truth" which discusses fructose toxicity which is pertinent to the AJCN study I linked. -> /watch?v=dBnniua6-oM - (1hr 29m) Read the linked AJCN paper and then follow-up with this lecture.
I don't expect a reply until you've considered them.
@madmax200769 Sugar is mother nature^s gift.Its found in fruits to give us energy especially the brain,heart & muscle. Processed sugar is a problem because it is released too fast in the blood but then again if we need a lot of energy (pro sports players eat some pasta,those building weights eat pasta at times) there fine as far as weight goes because they get burned off.Lance Armstrong takes in 3 500 calories in a day but burns them off from movement & stays thin
@sumbarine What rot. If by sugar you mean table sugar or sucrose rather than blood glucose then this is the most absurd nonsense I've ever heard. If you mean fructose (fruit sugar) then you've clearly not taken the time to watch the Rob Lustig lecture on fructose toxicity, consequent liver toxicity, pancreatic stress and associated diabetes are covered. I'm confident that his lecture will cover most of the junk fallacies you're likely to try and raise. Try reading "Sugar Blues" by William Duffy.
@madmax200769 That^s why in the meditteranean culture they live into 80s & 90s. Cherries,grapes provide flavonoids that enrich the arteries,Vitamin C that builds collagen to keep arteries flexible,fibre to clean out your system,anti cancer & anti heart disease properties as well as enjoyment of life.Apples have pectin a powerful heart protector.Watermelons have lecithin that fight prostate cancer.
@sumbarine PMSL - Poor geography enables people to believe the "Mediterranean Diet" nonsense. The med is a BIG area yet the diet concept cherry-picks narrow observed phenomena applies that label that to a much wider geographical area. Contrary to the diet hype many meds, even those focused on eat a high-fat diet. Perhaps you will demonstrate how cherries, apples and watermelons are primary composites of the diet of "Mediterranean" peoples (any more than fruit eating Westerners)
@sumbarine Also, I recall Lustig pointing out, fructose when occurring naturally in fruits doesn't appear in the "free" form. Additionally, the consumption of fruits is inherently self-limiting in humans. I'm sure you can recall from the nostalgic youth what happens when unwise children over-consume large quantities of fruit. Sugar toxicity from refined fructose is significantly different from that of sucrose. Again, I supplied you with the research paper which covers this but you didn't read it
@madmax200769 Scientists agree.Law Of Physics. Your body is a machine.It runs on fuel. The fuel are calories(energy). This fuel warms up your organs & helps them to do their work.It helps you tp prune the trees & kick that soccer ball. 3,500 calories represent a pound of fat. You take in more than your body needs & you reach 3,500 x-tra calories u gain a pound.Burn or use up to3,500 calories less u lose a pound.It don^t matter carb,ptotein or fat,take in more the body will store it.
@sumbarine Non squitur. I assume you meant to say "scientists agree that the law of conservation of energy proves causality in relation to fat accumulation". You failed to make a statement and instead quoted 3 disjoint opening sentences which have no connected meaning. Nothing you say which follows is thus connected to your failed opening assertion.
@madmax200769 You either burn fat or accumulate fat.Its the calories stipid,a basic statement held up to scrutiny.You can lose weight by eating snickers bars only.
@sumbarine If you'd taken the time to actually read the Taubes book before attempting to discredit it then you'll know exactly why "scientists" don't actually agree on what you probably intended to assert. (1st law of thermodynamics, fat and causality). I suggest that instead of simply repeating the same nonsense over and over you buy a copy of the book, read it and maybe even take a class if you're struggling to understand the concepts.
PLANT BASED DIET!!! DOCTORS AND THE FOOD INDUSTRY WANT US FAT AND SICK!!!
5tonyvvvv 2 weeks ago
EVERYTHING
edwardd6681 3 months ago 2
Your body with or without the help of insulin will & can store as fat any protein any food any carb any fat that it does not use.pure & simple.Even a recent study confirmed Atkins diet people limited calories
sumbarine 7 months ago
ITS the law of physics.If you take in more than your body needs.It^ll be stored as fat.Taubes only picks what supports his theories.He is not credible,just a showboater & sensationalist. Most experts & human x-perience sat otherwise.With low carb,you loose weight at first but its water.Taubes thinks its ok to eat bacon everday but is afraid to have more than 6 blueberries according ti him. If u want to believe someone who seems he^s on crack cocaine.Go ahead
sumbarine 7 months ago
The American Diet is a fucking joke. It's so gross.
tropical481 1 year ago
A good doctor would mention free range organ meats.
vishiqualle 1 year ago
I also believe than the American diet also causes extensive hair growth as opposed to the diet in Asian countries. Asians seriously have less body hair than Americans and I think that is also a result of the diet.
kyr200 1 year ago
it seems like as we get bigger so do the portion sizes, so don't forget portion size.
zaaz369 2 years ago
@zaaz369
portion sizes do not matter if you eat the nutrients. Your body will self regulate when it's fed
gledalac1979 2 years ago
have to disagree.
i'm orthodox christian and during lent we fast, which is veganism w/out oil, sugar, and alcohol. anyways i always gain 10-15lbs during this period cuz I don't feel satisfied. I eat like 5-6 giant meals a day. in fact practically everyone I know gains weight.
so I don't think nutrition alone makes you full, I heard somewhere proteins keep you full for a longer period of time. btw not an atkins fan here, in fact i don't diets period.
zaaz369 2 years ago
@zaaz369
you need animal protein and minerals which of course contains no carbs and makes you feel full longer. If you eat only vegetables and fruits and processed food you will eat too much sugar which will store as fat.
gledalac1979 2 years ago
very true. thx
zaaz369 2 years ago
@gledalac1979 Your body can & will convert any protein to fat that is not used.It don^t matter carb,fat protein. Take in more than u use & it will be stored as fat
sumbarine 7 months ago
Some bad math(s) and the usual flawed assumptions relating to calories in versus calories out
The same old unproven claims of causal correlation between dietary fat (implied animal fats) and "obesity". Unscientific failure to distinguish between the absolute decline in animal fat consumption and the simultaneous increase in vegetable fat use in the US. At least sugar was covered.
I'm know that repeating these errors over and over will cause people to believe them. Natural selection in action?
madmax200769 3 years ago
@madmax200769 There is no unptoven theory here.Whether its a protein,fat or carb your body can & will store it as fat if you take in more than what your body needs. To say that you can eat excess in proteins,taking in more than whay your body needs & somehow it won^t get stored as fat is non sensical. Protein consumption as well as caeb consumption has both gone up the past 30 years.
sumbarine 7 months ago
@sumbarine That statement doesn't even remotely make sense. Its based on the naive "calorific hypothesis" which treats the body as a passive "bin" for calories rather than a dynamic and tightly-regulated process. Additionally, since there are only 3 macronutrient groups then, if BOTH protein have "gone up" (ratio) in the last 30 years this demands that total fat has gone down. In any event this is a non-factual claim
You've completely neglected the role of endocrinal signalling such as insulin
madmax200769 7 months ago
@madmax200769 Since 1970 americans are taking in 500 more calories a day.Fibre which helps with weight loss(& a lot of Carbs have fibre) has been taken out of the diet.Enzymes in the body can & will convert to fat any protein used in excess amounts. Taubes leaves out some cultures who are the leanest but have a diet that is 75% carbohydrate.If you look at the poor souls who starved in the death camps or Japanese POW camps inWWII,they were skin & bone due to Calorie deprivation. Its common sense
sumbarine 7 months ago
@sumbarine Fail. @ 365 days/hr since 1970 (41 yrs) - let's say 41x365x500 kcal would be an increase of 7,482,500kcal which is absurd. You neither made your facts clear not got them correct. Additionally *which* Americans are you talking about. Is this a mean, median or modal average or groups? You quote Birkitt's fibre hypothesis. Fibre cannot "help" with weight loss. This implies active participation in metabolism. By concrete definiton fibre is inert - although it may support gut flora ...
madmax200769 7 months ago
@madmax200769 500 x-tra calories a day,7 days a week,55 wks a year seems logical. A breakfast at Bob Evans can run 1,500 cal, a rib & steak dinner can run up to1,800 easy.When your constipated due to lack of fibre,you get sluggish,when u refuse the carbs your body needs you get lazy.The healthy carbs provide energy hence it helps with weight loss.Remember u don^t need to be a brain surgeon to know,the more you move,the more you are active u are headed towards a calorie deficy+ weight loss
sumbarine 7 months ago
@sumbarine What is it that you mean? Do you mean 500kcal/day increase per person across the whole of the USA or are you quoting some mean estimate?
The problem with exercise for "calorific deficit" is that unless you are extremely active it's simply not going to happen. Esp. if you're ingesting those "extra" (?) *digestible* calories per day. Both Taubes and Banting covered the problem that extra exercise simply increases hunger and you eat more to compensate. If overweight that may not help.
madmax200769 7 months ago
@madmax200769 Jared Fogle ate nothing but/only subway sandwiches & walked alot for over a year.He lost over 200lbs despite a crappy diet.He was originally over 400 pounds.He started to get fat at 8 when he abandoned a active life for a inactive life with video games followed by junk food.When he started walking(activity) & still eating junk(subway sandwiches under 6 g of fat) he eventually created a calorie deficit & the pounds fell. Real simple. Nothing bizarre just calories in vs calories out
sumbarine 7 months ago
@sumbarine Not sure how you manage to make subway Sandwiches relevant as a "crappy diet". Unless you have gluten issues then there's not much wrong with a "Subway" - of course using the term "Subway" leaves open ended room for deceit since anyone who's had one knows there's singular item such as a "Subway" to even argue over - YOU choose what goes into the damn thing. Getting fat at 8 y/o would have little to do with simple lack of an "active life". You're really clutching at straws.
madmax200769 7 months ago
@madmax200769 Subway Sandwiches are crappy because of the processed meats or coldcuts(to be enjoyed occassionally but not every day) & the type of bread used(which is OK but not every day)
sumbarine 7 months ago
@sumbarine "Subway Sandwiches are crappy because..." - False. Subways let you choose what you want on your sub. The only reason I've eaten there as I don't like most of the choices. All cooked meat is "processed". Unless, perhaps you like sushi and even that has been "processsed" by slicing. People criticising science by using weasel words such as "processed" or making a qualitative statement such as "crappy" aren't demonstrating anything of their case.
madmax200769 7 months ago
@madmax200769 Nobody considers fresh meat at the butcher processed,it^ll rot if not frozen or kept pass due date
sumbarine 7 months ago
@sumbarine You have no comprehension of what the term processed even means. The rest of the comment is an idiotic non-sequitur.
madmax200769 7 months ago
@sumbarine Moreover, if "Subway Sandwiches are crappy" then this ridicules *you* offering Fogel and his use of Subways as a means of losing "weight" (fat) using a "crappy" diet. You are the one who needs to defend Subways, not me. I certainly wouldn't recommend them, especially for people who have gluten intolerance, and I wouldn't particularly offer up Subways as a good choice to base a diet upon (which you did).
madmax200769 7 months ago
@sumbarine QUOTE - "The Jared Fogle diet: Coffee for breakfast. For lunch, a six-inch turkey sub with a small bag of Baked Lay's chips and a Diet Coke. For dinner, a foot-long veggie sub and a Diet Coke. On the sandwiches, no cheese, no mayonnaise, but plenty of lettuce, green peppers, banana peppers and pickles, and a dab of mustard. No snacks, and no cheating. *Exercise was not part of Fogle's plan*, but after a few months he noticed he had more energy".
madmax200769 7 months ago
@sumbarine I searched out the Fogel information and corrected your false assertion that Fogel's weight loss program included exercise (It didn't - he started to exercise *after* he lost weight which is a perfect description of Taubes and others' view on "weight" and calories)
What's also clear is that Fogel skipped breakfast, consuming only coffee. For lunch he had a small Sub which would have had minimal "insulin poking" effect. Then, only a 12 inch sub for final meal. No snacks. (nndb , com)
madmax200769 7 months ago
@madmax200769 Yes it was,he walked alot
sumbarine 7 months ago
@sumbarine Sir, you are an idiot or are simply trolling. I've pasted two sets of Fogel quotes in which he made it abundantly clear that exercise did *not* play a part until LATER ON in his diet regime. Perhaps you have difficulty reading the quote where he reassures people to lose weight first and worry about the exercise after? Exercising after the fact cannot be causal in initial weight loss - unless perhaps you have a time machine
madmax200769 7 months ago
@madmax200769 He admitted to excercising alot---albeit walking
sumbarine 7 months ago
@sumbarine Indeed he did and - I will repeat yet again, from his own words - that was clearly stated to be AFTER he lost weight on his "Sub diet" so it *cannot* have been the cause of his initial weight loss. Not only can you not read but you're citing sources (Fogel) you don't seem to be able to read or find.
madmax200769 7 months ago
@madmax200769 He first cut back on the calories,yes that^s a start.The excercise after allowed him to lose more weigh quicker t. That^s why when people diet they increase there activity level a little & then reduce calories,so much easier than depriving yourself of food because in reality we are not meant to diet but to feed our bodies
sumbarine 7 months ago
@madmax200769 You just screwed yourself there,"excercise didn^ play a part until later..." Of course until later.At 400 lbs you can get a heart attack if you exert yourself too much. He did excercise later & it helped. Surprise !
sumbarine 7 months ago
@sumbarine "You just screwed yourself there,"excercise didn^ play a part until later..."
Nope. Not so, other than in your fantasy world.
Jared Fogel says he didn't exercise till after he lost weight on the "Sub" diet. So there's no evidence for *causality* attributable to exercise-induced calorie deficit from the get-go here. Combining exercise with a change in lifestyle and diet, even later on, is a multi-factor intervention. I've made it clear that exercise helps regulate insulin
madmax200769 7 months ago
@sumbarine ... inert fibre can only displace digestible carbs. This is the subtraction of the offending causality rather than introducing new causality. The metabolism *may* convert excess protein via GNG into glucose and trigycerides which is indirectly stored as fat. That doesn't imply the degree to which it *must*. In any event you still have a glucose/triglyceride problem. Considering total calorie deficit is not the same thing as necessarily happens in calorific excess (see" obese mice")
madmax200769 7 months ago
@madmax200769 Fibre helps absorb excess cholesterol & brings it out for elimination, As well gets rid of the stuff your body doesn^t need helping your metabolism & digestion to be efficient.Some proteins spike insulin levels higher than carbs. Whatever the case insulin or not,your body can & will store any excess protein it doesn^t need as fat.There are many roles for insulin including helping you feel full,its not the evil that taubes makes it out to be.
sumbarine 7 months ago
@sumbarine "Fibre helps absorb excess cholesterol & brings it out for elimination" - No it doesn't - but would you care to explain the mechanics of this? Do you mean excess dietary cholesterol or circulating cholesterol?
"Some proteins spike insulin levels higher than carbs." - such as?
"Whatever the case insulin or not,your body can & will store any excess protein it doesn^t need as fat" - how if not via GNG as already mentioned?
AFAIK Taubes doesn't describe insulin as "evil"
madmax200769 7 months ago
@sumbarine ... not is what happened in POW "common sense" which can be extrapolated into the causality of obesity. As Taubes highlghted, research showed that mice can die obese yet starve internally if injected with insulin, digesting their own organs in the process. You're neglecting to pay attention to the role of insulin signalling in fat accumulation.
madmax200769 7 months ago
@madmax200769 Humans are not mice & the typical human does not inject himself with hormones.Not one person who starved in the death camps,pow camps was obese.If what Taubes & u say is true,then we would of found someone who died of starvation but was obese or not skin & bones .Its real simple & straightforward.When you have less calories to feed your body or when calorie demand exceeds intake,your body will turn on its fat reserves & even muscle for nourishment.Its called 2 + 2 + 4.Real simple,
sumbarine 7 months ago
@sumbarine Correct. But mice and many other animals have quite similar insulin metabolism and respond in the same way so your assertion is not valid. This is why human diabetics could use animal (pig) insulin. By contast rodents, are not like humans when it comes to cholesterol experimentation.
"we would of found someone who died of starvation but was obese or not skin & bones" - does not follow but you can look at the reverse case where women diabetics skip insulin to lose "weight".
madmax200769 7 months ago
@madmax200769 Plenty of evidence that too much LDL cholesterol is dangerous to the arteries. As was pointed out.In the USA you had in 50s,60s---white bread for toast,apple pies,burgers & shakes,french fries etc. What you didn^t have were large portions & people moved more.The obesity rate for the amish is 1% but they walk all the time(16,000 steps a day) Japan likes there sweets & commonly eats white rice but overall portions of food are smaller,obesity is 3%.
sumbarine 7 months ago
@sumbarine You're simply cutting and pasting every flawed argument. There may be plenty of "evidence" re: LDL but this evidence is flawed as many other researchers in the field have highlighted. The error of impuning causality to LDL when it is simply an associated phenomena (colloquially called "correlation is not causality"). Small portions are simply one of many variant factors. Not everyone has large portions. As for Japan, yet more correlation without demonstrated causality. Does not follow
madmax200769 7 months ago
@madmax200769 small LDL particles burry there way in the arteries & eventually cause a rupture.
sumbarine 7 months ago
@sumbarine I see you've looked it up. However, "small LDL" is not "LDL" - nor is the causality associated with small/dense LDL clear. The field of research has been muddied by the popular meme of "LDL bad... HDL good". Goffman's metric arising from centrifuging was, as is often the case with such things, a metric looking for someone to try and use it for a purpose. Whilst small/dense LDL is implicated I don't believe any researchers would imply causality to it. It's just one more symptom.
madmax200769 7 months ago
@sumbarine Here^s the proof.Check out Jared Fogle.Fogle was over 400 lbs & lost over 200 eating nothing but Subway sandwiches & walking. Jared said he was active up untill 8 yrs until he got NINTENDO. From there he says inactivity & junk food came in & video games took over,he balooned up. He saw Subway sandwiches advertise types under 6 grams of fat.For one year he ate that & walked alot & lost over 200!! A crappy diet but he walked just like the ancestral hunter humans,Calories In vs Out.Fact
sumbarine 7 months ago
@sumbarine Additionally. Fogel as a single example of an anecdotal multi-factor intervention offers zero *proof* of anything. He changed many factors in his lifestyle and whilst it's clear to me that he lost weight by reducing the degree to which he was stimulating his insulin and sustaining insulin resistance this single case "proves" nothing at all since it's impossible to isolate any single causal factor. So the claim "here's the proof" is meaningless.
madmax200769 7 months ago
@madmax200769 He lost weight because he created a calorie deficit
sumbarine 7 months ago
@sumbarine No he didn't and since you have no metrics for his calorific expenditure you have no basis to make that assertion. Clearly you're clueless about his calorific expenditure due to (lack of) exercise and are unable to even comprehend the words coming from Fogel's own mouth. You're either trolling or living in a complete fantasy world, hoping that if you repeat the statement over and over it will become true. I'm not sure which but up to now you're making a complete arse of yourself.
madmax200769 7 months ago
@sumbarine Fogel QUOTE - "I’m lucky enough not to have problems with loose skin. I started losing weight when I was 20 ..." - another aspect of multiple factors is natural "weight" (adipose) loss in males at maturation. Boys typically have weight gain and a period of feminisation prior to this with differential growth between M and F. QED confirmation bias
"I also did a lot of cross training and weights. ... . Worry about losing the weight first." - confirms exercise AFTER losing "weight"
madmax200769 7 months ago
@madmax200769 He stated that after Nintendo he was inactive & started eating a lot of junk.
sumbarine 7 months ago
@sumbarine It's clear that you haven't the remotest idea what Jared Fogel did and either can't read his story, can't find it or are simply relying on others to feed you stupid responses to post back.
madmax200769 7 months ago
@madmax200769 1)we know coke,fries & apple pie were a part of US diet in 60s no obesity 2)we know in Japan they eat white rice frequently,less than 3% obesity#)we know from death & POW camps that millions died skin & bone due to lack of calories(defici)4)we know meditteranean diet has pasta & fruit,no insulin problems5) we know many quoted in taubes book complained of being taken out of context6)A studt confirmed that those on Atkins took in less calories. Taubes is rubbish
sumbarine 7 months ago
@sumbarine We know portion sizes have gone up alot since 50s,60s,70s8)we know the more active one is--walking,raking leaves,housework--the more energy is used. ask yourself,rather than does this food make me fat but rather how much do i eat & what I have done or am planning to do to utilize the amount of energy(calories) in my body. Its foolish what Taubes says that u can eat all the meat u want,not excercise or move & u won^t gain weight. The body can & will insulin or not store excess calories
sumbarine 7 months ago
@sumbarine So, your claim....
1) Obesity in the 60s USA was caused by coke, fries and apple pies
2) Consumption of white rice causes Japanese to be non-obese
#) POWs lacked calories not nutrition
4) All people living in the Mediterranean eat pasta and fruit
People who eat pasta and frut don't get insulin problems
5) Dubious claims of contextual inaccuracy in Taubes' books prove the calorific hypothesis
6) The popular cricism of Atkins being "high calorie" is false - Atkins is a low calorie diet
madmax200769 7 months ago
@madmax200769 My claim is not that but against Taubes stating that carbs like white rice,sodas,cakes etc cause obesity because insulin goes up Point is that if u look at the 60s & Japan it doen^t.He claims that these rise insulin & therefore people get fat.Well they didn^t get fat in the 60s & neither in Japan.Insulin rising does not mean fat gain,if you exercise or limit portions.Insulin contributes to regulation of blood sugar but in the end thast6S meaningless if you burn more than u take in
sumbarine 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@madmax200769 PLANT BASED DIET!!! DOCTORS AND THE FOOD INDUSTRY WANT US FAT AND SICK!!!
5tonyvvvv 2 weeks ago
@sumbarine An area you might care to look at (already mentioned) is differential growth phases between pre-pubertal boys and girls. In a calorific view this would be "eating too much" or either sex being selectively indolent at specific phases
There's fat gain in pubertal males which likely applied to Fogel to a degree. Of course, as with Fogel, this too would be due to calories and teen indolence, not hormones, right? This may involve gynaecomastia (breast growth).Wikipedia:Puberty:body shape
madmax200769 7 months ago
@madmax200769 Our moms made apple pies,cakes back in the 50s & 60s,that was typical USA. Hamburgers & shakes were enjoyed on occasion. At the time though,the streets had kids playing ball hockey,girls jumping rope & there were smaller portions of french fries.No obesity rates,No weight issues.The bottomline(putting aside nutrition) its not what u eat that causes weight loss but HOW MUCH & WHAT YOU DO TO EXPEND THOSE CALORIES.Real simple,real straightforward
sumbarine 7 months ago
@sumbarine "HOW MUCH & WHAT YOU DO TO EXPEND THOSE CALORIES.Real simple,real straightforward
" - neat, simple, straighforward and also wrong.
It really might help you to actualy sit and read Taubes books. All the way through too.
madmax200769 7 months ago
@madmax200769 As the Washington Post pointed out Taubes rejected over 50 studies that didn^t support his thesis.Many who were interviewed & quoted in the book complained they were taken out of context.Protein in the body gets broken down into building blocks called peptides.It becomes amino acids & enters the blood. ISome build the body^s protein stores but excess amino acids become converted to fat & sugar.If they are not used up in energy-----Stored as fat
sumbarine 7 months ago
@sumbarine He point out in his criticism of bad science that rejected far more invalid studies than 50.
And nevertheless GNG except in cases of very high protein consumption (not part of your normal spread) will remain a minor influence in the face of dominant effects such as high HFCS, refined carbohydrate and sugar consumption. Even where GNG converts amino acids it ultimately remains an insulin issue. Read the linked article.
madmax200769 7 months ago
@sumbarine @sumbarine @sumbarine If you won't read Taubes or other critic of the calorific theory you could try this article
tinyurl dot com /62ofwl5
"Increased consumption of refined carbohydrates and the epidemic of type 2 diabetes in the United States: ..."
Whilst fibre is implicated it is a *passive* not *active* ingredient which has been displaced largely by the introduction of High Fructose Corn Syrup. The +500kcal quote is there (1980 not 1970)
madmax200769 7 months ago
@madmax200769 Insulin rises at every meal,its no big deal it does its job regulating blood sugar.When it is chronically high problems can arise.Obesity is a problem in keeping it high.Eat too much,don^t burn it off---weight gain
sumbarine 7 months ago
@sumbarine And yet that process has specific mechanics, this involving insulin. Are you now shifting your argument from excess calorific intake to "excess protein" (volume based causality v's calorific excess?)
Sooner or later you need to admit the role of insulin stimulation/dysregulation rather than the calorific myth. Read the linked article which offers a graph nof displacement of low-quality/high-fibre carbs with HFCS etc. and which shows "gone up" is misleading. (It went down THEN up)
madmax200769 7 months ago
@madmax200769 It all gets back to that. I saw my mothers family photo from the 60sfamily of 6,all thin).What was there diet I asked---potatoes,pasta,lard,fruit,some meat,vegetables.They had smaller portions,walked.Real simple realstraightforward.
sumbarine 7 months ago
@sumbarine Unfortunately that's how something called "magickal thinking" works. Vague and un-analysed association. We all remember thin people from our youth until we think about it in more depth. We're mostly remembering the thinness of our selves and the youthful around us, most of whom have healthy insulin response and no insulin resistance. If we analyse in greater depth and avoid the perceptual bias we can also recall plenty of fat people too. I certainly can and remember that era also
madmax200769 7 months ago
@madmax200769 Is not magical.That was the diet.The lifestyle involved smaller portions,working in the field & walking alot.I remember 5 oz wine glasses were the standard.Now I can^t find them there 7 or 8 oz glasses.Dr Oz pointed out that todays dishes have increased by 2 inches to incorporate more food. Coffee mugs have been made huge compared to before.I noticed the differences many a time. There was only one size of fries now there are 3 & there all bigger than the original size long ago
sumbarine 7 months ago
@sumbarine Comprehension FAIL. You still fail to examine the supplied data and are replying on junk rhetoric. Plate size is not a metric for consumed food quantity or quality. If Oz' arguments rely on this then he's an idiot. Plate sizes may have gotten bigger on average in America but not in other nations who still suffer similar obesity issues. It all depends *which* plates, cups and saucers. My 80 year old granparent's plates are larger than my supermarket ones. One word - "dishwasher".
madmax200769 7 months ago
@sumbarine QUOTE - "Dietary carbohydrate steadily decreased from 500 g/d in 1909 to 374 g/d in 1963, largely because of a decrease in the consumption of whole grains. Simultaneously, dietary fiber decreased at a greater rate—by nearly 40%. Since 1963, the consumption of carbohydrates steadily increased back to 500 g/d; however, fiber consumption did not increase proportionately. This finding reflects an increased consumption of refined carbohydrates over this time period"
madmax200769 7 months ago
@madmax200769 THere was a increase in technology as well---computers,video games,200 channel cable tv(as opposed to 5 channels in the 50s),vehicle usage etc.This happened especially in the past 25 years just when obesity rose big. As I pointed out refined white rice & even cjocolates are very much a part of Japanese diet,what^s not a part of it are large portions,. Less people walking,playing sports,moving. Calories not burned add up.
sumbarine 7 months ago
@sumbarine Post-hoc of undemonstrated relevance. The same style of post hoc has been used to blame say delinquency and crime on 1950s pulp fiction, rock and roll, comic books, TV, console games, computers and the internet. Take your pick. You're completely ignoring the empirical data (already offered) which provides a much more substantive explanation. The history of Jap diet is much more complex, esp. as there was a post-war transition to much more Americanised diet. This is rarely focused on
madmax200769 7 months ago
That^s all irrelevent when it comes to weight gain/weight loss. If people are burning those calories because of various excercises or movemeent as opposed to sedentary lifestyle,very common these days. Or there total calories don^t exceed what there body demands,it counts for squat.Experts would laugh at your face if you said calories don^t count & that you can eat all the steak & eggs in a week & if you take in more than what you need it won^t be stored as fat.PS I noticed MR Taubes Big belly
sumbarine 7 months ago
@sumbarine Nope. Of vital relevance, especially since one has to consider insulin resistance and the advent of NIDDM and Metabolic Syndrome. Excercise (of which I'd advocate anaerobic weight/resistance) doesn't "work" by merely consuming calories it works by helping the body to overcome insulin resistance. Commenting on Taube's gut is simply a weak ad-hominem argument. You make no observation of his weight history nor lifestyle and as with all ad-hominem that is of no relevance to the issue.
madmax200769 7 months ago
@madmax200769 Back in the old days do you know how they would fatten the pig before slaughter ? they would keep feeding it in its stall where it had no movement.The pig would be there without any movement & would get large.Its no different than with humans & sedentary lifestyle.I remember enjoying cakes & choclate bars when young but not every day & I moved alot(excercise) weight was never a issue
sumbarine 7 months ago
@sumbarine Utter stupidity. These would be pigs kept in the same stalls as "thin" siblings. Pigs are fattened by eating copious amounts of grains and other food which stimulate their insulin. You could google "how to fatten a pig" instead of making this stuff up.
QUOTE:
"Young hogs turn their feed into mussle at a ratio of 6 to 1. Meaning that it will take 1200 lbs of grain to fatten your feeder pig to a 240 lb butchering weight. 1200 lbs of corn is 24 bu and would cost about $80." [sic]
madmax200769 7 months ago
@sumbarine Continued quote:
"That same pig will fatten up to 240 lbs on 1000 lbs of corn stalks, sweet corn cobs, rotten lettuce heads from the supermarket dumpster, plus about 200 lbs of grain"
Hence the phrase - "greedy as a pig"
madmax200769 7 months ago
@madmax200769 My buddy doesn^t take his dog out for a walk because she has arthritis.He also feeds her generoously,what^s the Result----overweight where she has trouble walking . Surprise ! Surprise! Surprise!. The body^s gotta store those calories not used. Its hard to understand isn^t it when your on crack cocaine ?
sumbarine 7 months ago
@sumbarine In that case you'll have no problem describing the mechanism the body has for storing "calories" rather than triglycerides/blood glucose. Perhaps the dog has cells that inflate and fill with "calorie molecules"?
"Its hard to understand isn^t it when your on crack cocaine ?"
I guess it must be - you certainly have my sympathies. I'm sorry I didn't realise your drug handicap earlier. It must be incredibly difficult for you. I would have ceased discussion had I realised your problem
madmax200769 7 months ago
@sumbarine "Its hard to understand isn^t it when your on crack cocaine ?"
In view of your unfortunate condition, one which explains the disconnected nature of your posts, there will be no point in me continuing in vain to expect a rational discussion. I hope you resolve your coke problem and get counselling and rehabilitation. You should have highlighted this affliction earlier. It must be truly awful trying for you trying to reason whilst under the influence of this evil substance
madmax200769 7 months ago
@sumbarine Your assertion that all you need to do to "fatten" pigs will be a godsend to livestock owners looking to reduce high costs of fattening
Go post on some pig rearing forums and point out that rather than over-feeding all they need to do is feed ALL pigs the SAME AMOUNT but strap the fattening pigs down and prevent ANY movement at all. Hey, it HAS to work because you now have a calorific deficit in relation to the sufficiently-fed siblings which MUST CAUSE obesity in the pig. QED right?
madmax200769 7 months ago
@madmax200769 Thank you fpr your statement that makes no sense at all. As my mother recalls on the farm---overfeeding & lack of movements fatten animals.Today in order to bring meart faster they use hormones etc.Traditionally it was not done like that.Weight gainis a slow process just like weight loss. It takes time to eat more than 3,500 calories that your body burns. He quotes a scientist called bron or something like that,but bron has retracted his theories
sumbarine 7 months ago
@sumbarine I'm sure it does indeed make no sense to you - you're uncertain when to support your own argument and when to argue against it.
"Today in order to bring meart faster they use hormones etc."
So it's not calories or exercise after all, now you're saying it's actually down to hormones?
madmax200769 7 months ago
@madmax200769 GA person or animal growing & weight gain can be 2 different things.Baby to adult grows but it doesn^t follow that they are fat or get fat.
sumbarine 7 months ago
@sumbarine I have a serious question which you could help me with.
So far, everything you've posted indicate that your belief-framework is composed almost entirely of bullshit, nonsense, false-assumptions, repetition of media tripe, ignorance plus rambling and disconnected rhetoric
You get used to this stuff on YouTube but the serious question I have is: How do you manage to successfully conduct your life? I mean, do you have someone to look after you and tell you what do do?
madmax200769 7 months ago
@sumbarine And an additional issue to get crystal-clear is that those who debunk the calorific hypothesis do not claim that "calories don't count" - asserting such is an irrational strawman fallacy. The entire discussion is about *causality*. "Experts" who ignore causality and vests their expertise on loose association are common plentiful and if you're looking at any area of health where you need to get causality clear then such people laughing would be of minimal importance.
madmax200769 7 months ago
@sumbarine QUOTE - "From 1963 to 1997, the consumption of total fat increased nearly 30%, protein consumption increased 8%, and total energy consumption increased 9%."
- if you look at the graph you see that this claimed "increase" simply restored levels to their 1908-1938 levels. It is entirely misleading to claim the trend by examining only the past 30 years. There was a progressive dip in carb-nutrition following the Great Depression. WW2 and the post war depression & recovery up to ~1984
madmax200769 7 months ago
@sumbarine I'd suggest you also forget nitpicking over Taubes and the Washington Post's nonsense and draw from source.
In particular I can recommend this lecture from UCSD "Sugar, the Bitter Truth" which discusses fructose toxicity which is pertinent to the AJCN study I linked. -> /watch?v=dBnniua6-oM - (1hr 29m) Read the linked AJCN paper and then follow-up with this lecture.
I don't expect a reply until you've considered them.
madmax200769 7 months ago
@madmax200769 Correction - UCSF (not UCSD)
madmax200769 7 months ago
@madmax200769 Sugar is mother nature^s gift.Its found in fruits to give us energy especially the brain,heart & muscle. Processed sugar is a problem because it is released too fast in the blood but then again if we need a lot of energy (pro sports players eat some pasta,those building weights eat pasta at times) there fine as far as weight goes because they get burned off.Lance Armstrong takes in 3 500 calories in a day but burns them off from movement & stays thin
sumbarine 7 months ago
@sumbarine What rot. If by sugar you mean table sugar or sucrose rather than blood glucose then this is the most absurd nonsense I've ever heard. If you mean fructose (fruit sugar) then you've clearly not taken the time to watch the Rob Lustig lecture on fructose toxicity, consequent liver toxicity, pancreatic stress and associated diabetes are covered. I'm confident that his lecture will cover most of the junk fallacies you're likely to try and raise. Try reading "Sugar Blues" by William Duffy.
madmax200769 7 months ago
@madmax200769 That^s why in the meditteranean culture they live into 80s & 90s. Cherries,grapes provide flavonoids that enrich the arteries,Vitamin C that builds collagen to keep arteries flexible,fibre to clean out your system,anti cancer & anti heart disease properties as well as enjoyment of life.Apples have pectin a powerful heart protector.Watermelons have lecithin that fight prostate cancer.
sumbarine 7 months ago
@sumbarine PMSL - Poor geography enables people to believe the "Mediterranean Diet" nonsense. The med is a BIG area yet the diet concept cherry-picks narrow observed phenomena applies that label that to a much wider geographical area. Contrary to the diet hype many meds, even those focused on eat a high-fat diet. Perhaps you will demonstrate how cherries, apples and watermelons are primary composites of the diet of "Mediterranean" peoples (any more than fruit eating Westerners)
madmax200769 7 months ago
@sumbarine Also, I recall Lustig pointing out, fructose when occurring naturally in fruits doesn't appear in the "free" form. Additionally, the consumption of fruits is inherently self-limiting in humans. I'm sure you can recall from the nostalgic youth what happens when unwise children over-consume large quantities of fruit. Sugar toxicity from refined fructose is significantly different from that of sucrose. Again, I supplied you with the research paper which covers this but you didn't read it
madmax200769 7 months ago
@madmax200769 Scientists agree.Law Of Physics. Your body is a machine.It runs on fuel. The fuel are calories(energy). This fuel warms up your organs & helps them to do their work.It helps you tp prune the trees & kick that soccer ball. 3,500 calories represent a pound of fat. You take in more than your body needs & you reach 3,500 x-tra calories u gain a pound.Burn or use up to3,500 calories less u lose a pound.It don^t matter carb,ptotein or fat,take in more the body will store it.
sumbarine 7 months ago
@sumbarine Non squitur. I assume you meant to say "scientists agree that the law of conservation of energy proves causality in relation to fat accumulation". You failed to make a statement and instead quoted 3 disjoint opening sentences which have no connected meaning. Nothing you say which follows is thus connected to your failed opening assertion.
madmax200769 7 months ago
@madmax200769 You either burn fat or accumulate fat.Its the calories stipid,a basic statement held up to scrutiny.You can lose weight by eating snickers bars only.
sumbarine 7 months ago
@sumbarine Keep saying it and hope it's true should you ever get insulin resistance or IDDM
madmax200769 7 months ago
@sumbarine If you'd taken the time to actually read the Taubes book before attempting to discredit it then you'll know exactly why "scientists" don't actually agree on what you probably intended to assert. (1st law of thermodynamics, fat and causality). I suggest that instead of simply repeating the same nonsense over and over you buy a copy of the book, read it and maybe even take a class if you're struggling to understand the concepts.
madmax200769 7 months ago
I eat all the time and I realized .... I AM STARVING ALL THE TIME. Trying to get some fresh brussel sprouts that aren't cooked to death.
X8t9 3 years ago
you forgot to mention the msg thats in that mcdonalds food and that its a NEUROTOXIN
marpoq 3 years ago 2
Exactly...
High Fructose Corn Syrup + Hydrogenated Oils....
yslrivegauche 3 years ago 3