What made Americans fat..........

[Juniper]

It's about how insulin affects the body. Insulin stores the fat and then tells the body it's still hungry. People are eating more calories because their bodies are telling them they're starving.

 

Please have a look at this very short video by Dr. Robert Lustig that explains this:

 

This is the point I feel many do not want to face. If the same people were to just cut calories across the board and exercise more...sure they would lose weight....and be so nutritionally starved that they would be susceptible to any number of disease and pathogens they might have otherwise fought off. :glare:

 

And that does not even begin to address issues like blood sugar and IR. When I was in nursing I remember we admitted a 350lb man who was starving to death...nutritionally. He was living off hard liquor alone. Obesity is not as simple as people make it out to be.

Edited July 17, 2012 by Juniper

[Quiver0f10]

No doubt Americans eat too much, but mainly they eat too much of the wrong things. Chips, pop, ice cream, cookies--highly processed, high carb foods. No effort required except ripping open the package.

 

If all those extra calories were raw veggies, salads, cheese, and nuts, the problem would also be solved.

 

You know what's interesting too is the sort of carb, because most people ate more whole grains. I had a conversation with my father in law about what he ate as a kid, and it was a lot of grains and cooked cereals, rather than the white bread/pasta/rice that everyone eats now. Also people had to do things like mill the grains themselves or other things in which daily life is/was physically taxing. I think the amount of unhealthy snacking, empty calories, availability of food at an instant, and untasty foods (so we eat more to compensate, plus the use of non-homemade foods. Restaurants add tons of salt, sugar and fat to keep things tasty. Not really the case at home, but who cooks from scratch? Those who do are generally healthier.

 

My husband had an American teacher when he was in high school. While he was staying in my husband's hometown, he walked -- only -- and ate local foods. He was normal weight. As soon as he returned home, he returned to being obese.

 

I've read Taubes, and I agree with you that the science supports a LCHF diet as healthy. I do think though, that excess calories (mainly carb calories) are a large part of the problem. Most of those extra calories are in the form of junk food and empty calories, and I don't believe we can blame scientists and government officials for that. Corporations, definitely. But I've never heard any scientist, anywhere, suggesting that pop, sweets, and chips are part of a healthy diet.

 

 

 

 

When most people talk about carbs I think they lump twinkies, cookies, chips etc. in with whole intact grains such as oats or brown rice. Not all carbs are created equal. I think processed carbs are a huge part of the problem.

 

Now if I sat down and ate a plain bowl of oatmeal I would be hungry soon, but add some fruit and a small handful of nuts and I'd be full for a lot longer. Same thing with other meals. If I ate a bowl of plain rice I'd be starving, but add some beans or lean protein and veggies and I'd be full for hours and I'd eat a lot less calories overall.

[Stacy in NJ]

I agree with that, but my point is we're eating more convenience food, because it's convenient, which creates a vicious cycle. If we forced ourselves to make ourselves a salad or scrambled eggs when we were hungry, we'd eat less calories, feel more satisfied, and lose weight.

 

because all calories aren't equal. Again, please, if you have the time, watch the video.

[SKL]

 

It's as if they'd prefer to believe fat folks and Americans are lazy, stupid, and slothful rather than accept the science that says it's a metabolic disorder originating in a diet promoted and recommended by scientists, government officals, and corporations pursuing profits. Sad really.:confused:

 

Excuse me?

 

It's a basic fact of life that the thing you focus most on is the thing you get - whether you actually want it or not.

 

100 years ago there were fat people, but it wasn't the thing everyone thought about all the time. People skinnier than Marilyn Monroe weren't weighing themselves twice a day and feeling crappy about themselves and wondering which self-punishment they should try next. There weren't multiple huge, profit-making industries in business purely to cater to Americans' desire to look skinny or hide their weight shame. And there wasn't a 60+% obesity rate.

 

I'm not the one telling people that they need to be upset about their weight.

[SKL]

What awesomeness the world would be if only everyone could be like you and succeed in everything you work so hard at.

 

I have no idea what you are talking about.

[Quiver0f10]

Excellent work. But, if you find keeping that weight off is a struggle, please look into the LCHF diet.

 

I did gain a lot of my weight back. I know exactly why too. I stopped walking and started eating ice cream, chips, candy, cookies etc. I didn't become overweight eating whole grains, beans, veggies and fruit.

 

I am an emotional eater and was dealing with a particularly stressful/emotional time in my life. I am dealing with the emotional eater aspect and will lose the weight again.

[Trish]

The food pyramid was introduced in the 90's. The notion that starches cause weight gain is very, very old and can be found in diet books from at least a century ago.

 

The official "USDA" Pyramid was indeed introduced in 1992. However the concept is much older, and has been used in health circles prior to the 1992 period. I learned about it in school, and that was way back in the 70s.

 

According to the USDA's Economic Research Service, the food pyramid was conceived during the 1960s in response to rising heartdisease rates.

 

How American Food Groups Have Changed Since the 1930s

 

So the theory is that Americans had been taking doctors and nutritionists' guidelines to heart, and THAT is why they are fatter? Heh. I don't buy it. I mean, the fact that their advice is wrong-headed isn't particulaly helpful to those who ARE paying attention, but I don't think that many are paying attention.

Edited July 17, 2012 by Trish

[Barb_]

* Plus, portions in many restaurants are twice the size of what an average person should eat. Eating out is now seen as a normal part of life for many people.

 

Not only that, but larger portions have skewed our idea of what a normal sized portion looks like. I'm old now, LOL...I grew up in the 70's. Our dishes were second hand from the late 60's or early 70's. My grandmother's dishes were even older...1960 maybe? I suspected that dishes themselves have been growing larger and it's true. From a WebMD blog:

 

Dishing Yourself Into a Smaller Size

 

Let’s look at the plates we’re filling at meal time. Here are the facts. In the 1960′s a dinner plate size was 9 inches and fit about 800 calories of food. By the late 1980′s, it was up to 10 inches adding another 200 calories for a total of 1000 calories. By 2000, the newly enlarged 11 inch dinner plate held 1,600 calories and today’s 12 inch packed plate can handle almost 1,900 calories. We’ve doubled the number of calories you can fit on that plate. Now you see the problem with going back for seconds and thirds. Just do the math.

 

Don't even get me started on the monstrous cereal bowls that my husband used to use for ice cream until I was able to convince him to do otherwise.

[justamouse]

Excuse me?

 

It's a basic fact of life that the thing you focus most on is the thing you get - whether you actually want it or not.

 

100 years ago there were fat people, but it wasn't the thing everyone thought about all the time. People skinnier than Marilyn Monroe weren't weighing themselves twice a day and feeling crappy about themselves and wondering which self-punishment they should try next. There weren't multiple huge, profit-making industries in business purely to cater to Americans' desire to look skinny or hide their weight shame. And there wasn't a 60+% obesity rate.

 

I'm not the one telling people that they need to be upset about their weight.

 

So now we can just think the fat away? Or unthink it away?

 

Read the posts, watch the videos and then perhaps we can take the discussion further.

[tex-mex]

The official "USDA" Pyramid was indeed introduced in 1992. However the concept is much older, and has been used in health circles prior to the 1992 period. I learned about it in school, and that was way back in the 70s.

 

According to the USDA's Economic Research Service, the food pyramid was conceived during the 1960s in response to rising heartdisease rates.

 

 

Thank you.

 

I knew my brain was telling me I learned about this pyramid long before the 1990's. Wasn't there an ABC Afterschool Special Cartoon on it too in the 1970's? For some reason that really rings a bell.

[justLisa]

So now we can just think the fat away? Or unthink it away?

 

Read the posts, watch the videos and then perhaps we can take the discussion further.

 

I am going to starting thinking rilly, rilly, hard.

[justamouse]

It's about how insulin affects the body. Insulin stores the fat and then tells the body it's still hungry. People are eating more calories because their bodies are telling them they're starving.

 

Please have a look at this very short video by Dr. Robert Lustig that explains this:

 

 

This is a great video, and it directly speaks about eat less/exercise more and how it's a complete fallacy.

[justamouse]

I am going to starting thinking rilly, rilly, hard.

 

Dude, I can totally feel your thinking from all the way over there. :D

[Trish]

Not only that, but larger portions have skewed our idea of what a normal sized portion looks like. I'm old now, LOL...I grew up in the 70's. Our dishes were second hand from the late 60's or early 70's. My grandmother's dishes were even older...1960 maybe? I suspected that dishes themselves have been growing larger and it's true. From a WebMD blog:

 

Dishing Yourself Into a Smaller Size

 

Let’s look at the plates we’re filling at meal time. Here are the facts. In the 1960′s a dinner plate size was 9 inches and fit about 800 calories of food. By the late 1980′s, it was up to 10 inches adding another 200 calories for a total of 1000 calories. By 2000, the newly enlarged 11 inch dinner plate held 1,600 calories and today’s 12 inch packed plate can handle almost 1,900 calories. We’ve doubled the number of calories you can fit on that plate. Now you see the problem with going back for seconds and thirds. Just do the math.

 

Don't even get me started on the monstrous cereal bowls that my husband used to use for ice cream until I was able to convince him to do otherwise.

 

Turns out, the plates themselves have a metabolic disorder! :lol:

[justamouse]

This is only true for some people. Those of us with morbidly obese family members know that for some of them, it was never about the body telling them they are starving. It's boredom, it's a sedentary lifestyle, it's convenience, it's the "whoopee, I can eat what I want" indulgent attitude and so forth. It's easy to make choices that lower the calories and satisfy the hunger, for ex. have an apple instead of a cream puff, but one of those choices will never be taken.

 

it's a 15 minute video with a Dr who specializes in obesity and deals with them every day. It's SO Not what you are saying. They're not sitting on their fat heinies and wishing themselves fat. Please, just watch it, and THEN you can fight with the guy who is one of the country's best specialists on it.

[tex-mex]

Excuse me?

 

It's a basic fact of life that the thing you focus most on is the thing you get - whether you actually want it or not.

 

You know... completely off-topic and I apologize. But if you hung out with the church folk I knew who thought this way, you'd be a big time Pentecostal Preacher with a TV ministry. :D We call this POV "naming it and claiming it" -- I do not subscribe to this view, by the way.

 

/thread hijack over

Edited July 17, 2012 by tex-mex

[Barb_]

because all calories aren't equal. Again, please, if you have the time, watch the video.

 

I've read the studies and watched the video, but I'm just not convinced that this statement is true for people who don't already have a metabolic disorder. Here is a study that concludes that for people without active diabetes, diet type has no effect on weight gain: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18996857

 

3 different types of diets were compared, moderately high fat as percentage of calories (35%-45%), Low Fat (percentage not disclosed in the abstract), and a typical < or = 35% fat diet. Interestingly, both the high fat and the low fat diets produced less body fat than the typical diet. Weigh regain was *less* on the low fat diet, but fasting insulin decreased on the high fat diet. None of the diets were significantly better at preventing weight gain. Interestingly, more subjects dropped out of the high fat diet than the other two diets.

 

I can't see from the abstract whether the foods were cooked from scratch or processed. But the study was far from conclusive as to the benefit of a paleo-style diet for everyone.

[Perry]

because all calories aren't equal.

Oh, yes, I totally agree.

 

There are tons of links and videos in this thread I hope to get to later tonight. :)

 

What we eat matters. No question. But how much of it we eat matters too. I ate bread and pasta, chips and pop and cookies 30 years ago. I was skinny.

 

I'm not skinny anymore. I eat pretty much the same things I did then, but I eat a lot more of it. :glare:

 

If I cut out the junk, and replace it with healthy stuff, I lose weight easily. I also end up eating way less calories, and still feel full.

[justamouse]

I can't see from the abstract whether the foods were cooked from scratch or processed. But the study was far from conclusive as to the benefit of a paleo-style diet for everyone.

 

Who is saying that it's needed for everyone? If you don't have IR, eat bread, No one is stopping you.

[justamouse]

Oh, yes, I totally agree.

 

There are tons of links and videos in this thread I hope to get to later tonight. :)

 

What we eat matters. No question. But how much of it we eat matters too. I ate bread and pasta, chips and pop and cookies 30 years ago. I was skinny.

 

I'm not skinny anymore. I eat pretty much the same things I did then, but I eat a lot more of it. :glare:

 

If I cut out the junk, and replace it with healthy stuff, I lose weight easily. I also end up eating way less calories, and still feel full.

 

Did you read my post about what I eat every day at this point? My own diet proves you wrong.

[Alte Veste Academy]

it's a 15 minute video with a Dr who specializes in obesity and deals with them every day. It's SO Not what you are saying. They're not sitting on their fat heinies and wishing themselves fat. Please, just watch it, and THEN you can fight with the guy who is one of the country's best specialists on it.

 

And as he also points out, the sedentary lifestyle, the lack of energy and get-up-and-go, is a by-product of the problem of too much insulin. The constant battles with blood sugar, highs and lows, wear you out and deplete you of energy.

 

Get a little problem.

Feel a little blah.

 

Get a bigger problem.

Feel very blah.

 

Get a huge problem.

Barely move from the couch.

 

And on and on and on...

 

Of course, your problems will be exacerbated due to the fact that everyone else thinks you're a big fat loser. And your motivation to finally get up off the couch will be diminished by how many times you've tried before and failed because you were never given the right information to succeed in the first place.

[Juniper]

I've read the studies and watched the video, but I'm just not convinced that this statement is true for people who don't already have a metabolic disorder. Here is a study that concludes that for people without active diabetes, diet type has no effect on weight gain: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18996857

 

3 different types of diets were compared, moderately high fat as percentage of calories (35%-45%), Low Fat (percentage not disclosed in the abstract), and a typical < or = 35% fat diet. Interestingly, both the high fat and the low fat diets produced less body fat than the typical diet. Weigh regain was *less* on the low fat diet, but fasting insulin decreased on the high fat diet. None of the diets were significantly better at preventing weight gain. Interestingly, more subjects dropped out of the high fat diet than the other two diets.

 

I can't see from the abstract whether the foods were cooked from scratch or processed. But the study was far from conclusive as to the benefit of a paleo-style diet for everyone.

 

I am just going off what you wrote here, but it sounds like none of those diets are HIGH fat, which is a huge factor in this discussion.

[kokotg]

I've read the studies and watched the video, but I'm just not convinced that this statement is true for people who don't already have a metabolic disorder. Here is a study that concludes that for people without active diabetes, diet type has no effect on weight gain: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18996857

 

3 different types of diets were compared, moderately high fat as percentage of calories (35%-45%), Low Fat (percentage not disclosed in the abstract), and a typical < or = 35% fat diet. Interestingly, both the high fat and the low fat diets produced less body fat than the typical diet. Weigh regain was *less* on the low fat diet, but fasting insulin decreased on the high fat diet. None of the diets were significantly better at preventing weight gain. Interestingly, more subjects dropped out of the high fat diet than the other two diets.

 

I can't see from the abstract whether the foods were cooked from scratch or processed. But the study was far from conclusive as to the benefit of a paleo-style diet for everyone.

 

The study didn't include a paleo style diet, or even a low carb diet, so I'm not sure how it could tell anything about whether paleo or low carb helps people. It was solely concerned with comparing moderate vs. low fat intake, it looks like to me.

[Perry]

Did you read my post about what I eat every day at this point? My own diet proves you wrong.

How? Your diet looks fine. Do you seriously think you could double what you ate and not gain weight?

[Spy Car]

I'll link to an older GT piece on exercise and weight loss-

 

http://nymag.com/news/sports/38001/

 

Buried in Taub's article is the salient point:

 

This is not to say that there aren’t excellent reasons to be physically active, as these reports invariably point out. We might just enjoy exercise. We may increase our overall fitness; we may live longer, perhaps by reducing our risk of heart disease or diabetes; we’ll probably feel better about ourselves.

 

I don't understand why Taub is so passive in making the point. He should say: there are excellent reasons to be physically active, and then enumerate them.

 

And a person who is physically active *will* increase their fitness, it is not a *maybe*.

 

I don't know why this is so mysterious. If a person is physically active, in fit condition, and eats healthful foods in reasonable amounts, their chances of being obese are slight and they will improve their health vs being sedentary.

 

It doesn't take fad diet ideas, just a little common sense.

 

Bill

[Trish]

Again, they started out nonobese. When they grew up and changed their diet as a result of stress and the desire to indugle themselves, they became obese, and more obese.

 

One cannot eat a carton of ice cream, a bag of chips, 4 liters of soda, a carton of rice pudding, and a double portion of whatever the pasta/rice dish the family is eating at meals each day and stay slim unless one is doing a lot of physical activity. I know, my relatives have proved it. They have psychological needs in the way of coping skills that need to be addressed. Pampering oneself does not have to be done with food. Coping with the pitfalls in life doesn't have to be done with a carton of ice cream or a bottle of liquor after everyone else goes to bed. Humans can change their behavior. They can learn to stop indulging after the first scoop of ice cream.

 

Plus, the obesity doctor is dealing with people who desire to change, not the people who don't.

[SKL]

You know... completely off-topic and I apologize. But if you hung out with the church folk I knew who thought this way, you'd be a big time Pentecostal Preacher with a TV ministry. :D We call this POV "naming it and claiming it" -- I do not subscribe to this view, by the way.

 

/thread hijack over

 

Actually this is a Buddhist view, also held by other world religions including Christianity (Jesus' Sermon on the Mount touches on it). If you ever read Deepak Chopra's nonfiction, it's a basic tenet of his - if not his main one. (btw Chopra is a doctor - Cardiologist? - practicing in North America - not some half-naked bald chanter dude).

 

It would really help people to take it more seriously. The short, simple book "The Seven Spiritual Laws of Success" (by Chopra) was very helpful to me.

 

For those of you who assume I got on this thread just to insult you and glorify myself, . . . oh, never mind.

[justamouse]

How? Your diet looks fine. Do you seriously think you could double what you ate and not gain weight?

 

Where did I double what I ate? Show me.

[tex-mex]

Actually this is a Buddhist view, also held by other world religions including Christianity (Jesus' Sermon on the Mount touches on it). If you ever read Deepak Chopra's nonfiction, it's a basic tenet of his - if not his main one. (btw Chopra is a doctor - Cardiologist? - practicing in North America - not some half-naked bald chanter dude).

 

It would really help people to take it more seriously. The short, simple book "The Seven Spiritual Laws of Success" (by Chopra) was very helpful to me.

 

For those of you who assume I got on this thread just to insult you and glorify myself, . . . oh, never mind.

Really? Wow. :001_smile: I just learned something! Cool!

 

And yes, I could not help but be amused by your comment. I have no dog in this battle, but you got a lot of spunk.

[swimmermom3]

We might need a new thread inviting people who have actually read the science to discuss it. Otherwise, I find this too frustrating. :lol:

 

I personally don't have any use for opinions based on hearsay, happenstance, urban myth, long revered misinformation (even from those who used to be "in the know")... I don't understand why no one is addressing actual points from the reading. Really. I don't understand why people are refuting the concept but not the particulars of the science. :confused: It's of no use...

 

If I lost a pound for all of the times I have read the "science" of why Americans are fat or how to lose weight permanently, I would be Elle McPhearson.:D

 

You and Stacy are implying that everyone that does not agree with the evidence that you have supported is an ignoramus. Discussion is to be expected on this board. We are not a bunch of dumb "sheeps."

 

Given enough time, I can find you scientific evidence presented by well-credited scientists to support nearly every diet theory out there.

 

You don't want a discussion of anything, just an agreement.

[SKL]

Does anyone else find it ironic that the people we look to most are people whose business is to profit off of overweight people? If anyone ever actually found the answer to the obesity problem, and shared it, they'd all be out of business permanently.

[Barb_]

The study didn't include a paleo style diet, or even a low carb diet, so I'm not sure how it could tell anything about whether paleo or low carb helps people. It was solely concerned with comparing moderate vs. low fat intake, it looks like to me.

 

Sorry, I was using the word paleo as short hand for low-carb, high fat...probably shouldn't have done that in the context of the study. We really weren't talking strictly about paleo diets anyway.

[Perry]

Where did I double what I ate? Show me.

You didn't.

 

You seem to be saying calories don't matter. I'm saying keep your food the same, just eat twice as much, and get back to me.

[kokotg]

Sorry, I was using the word paleo as short hand for low-carb, high fat...probably shouldn't have done that in the context of the study. We really weren't talking strictly about paleo diets anyway.

 

paleo is not necessarily low carb at all...particularly if you love sweet potatoes :). But the study you cited doesn't mention carbs at all, either.

[Barb_]

I am just going off what you wrote here, but it sounds like none of those diets are HIGH fat, which is a huge factor in this discussion.

 

45% is moderately high and considerably higher than most people eat. A diet that high in fat must be fairly low in carbs, by default.

[justamouse]

If I lost a pound for all of the times I have read the "science" of why Americans are fat or how to lose weight permanently, I would be Elle McPhearson.:D

 

You and Stacy are implying that everyone that does not agree with the evidence that you have supported is an ignoramus. Discussion is to be expected on this board. We are not a bunch of dumb "sheeps."

 

Given enough time, I can find you scientific evidence presented by well-credited scientists to support nearly every diet theory out there.

 

You don't want a discussion of anything, just an agreement.

 

It's as frustrating as people being on this board and talking about TWTM but never having read the book. She had to write A BOOK about it, it can't be shorthanded in a few posts. Then the person comes on who disagrees and has no idea what they're disagreeing with. No one is calling anyone a dumb sheep, but we can't have a discussion without at least having some semblance of shared information. THEN we can disagree.

[ktgrok]

You are assuming people eat because they are hungry. Often, people eat because they are bored, because snacking is fun when watching television, people eat and drink a lot with social visits. It's hard to snack while mending socks in the evening, while knitting, while building furniture, while cycling around the neighborhood in the evening, etc. It's so easy to eat and drink when sedentary.

 

I don't think most Americans really know what hunger is. Eating is primarily a pleasure thing.

 

My great-grandmother knew hunger. She died of malnutrition which led to dementia because she refused to eat so her kids could. They ate practically only potatoes.

 

But why would that be an American thing? Or a new thing?

[justamouse]

You didn't.

 

You seem to be saying calories don't matter. I'm saying keep your food the same, just eat twice as much, and get back to me.

 

:lol: I wrote a whole post on what I ate! :lol: See, this is what I mean, I'm not saying calories don't matter in the *least*.

 

HEre's my post.

And to prove that calories in =calories out is wrong, every morning I eat

 

3 eggs fried in butter, with about 4 oz of cheddar, two tablespoons of pastured butter on top (and I already fried them in butter) with some pico de gallo.

 

I then down 2 tablespoons of coconut oil in a little medicine shot glass.

 

For lunch I'll have some slices of london broil with a few lettuce leaves and some blue cheese dressing.

 

For dinner I'll eat whatever protein we're having and a side salad. With more blue cheese dressing or homemade mayo.

 

I've lost almost 20 pounds in about 3 weeks.

 

As a family we're active-but in NO WAY am I burning that many calories. I'll vacuum every day, I'll play in the pool on and off, I'll tackle a house project, we hike on weekends. But I'm not burning off all those calories on any given day.

 

So, how am I losing weight eating like that if calories = calories?

 

Previously, trying to control my hypoglycemia, I was eating every two hours, small handful things, but still more carbs and I had gained weight trying to control this. It kept creeping up and up and I was so frustrated because though I think nothing of carrying an extra ten pounds, this was more than I was comfortable with. Activity wasn't making me lose weight at all. Then I tried eating as *little* as I could without sending myself into a glucose coma. I still gained weight.

 

Now, eating the way I do I'm dropping weight like peeing. I didn't believe it before-I thought whole grains and complex carbs were good. And they may be for some people, but I did this out of desperation and it's working. I don't argue the science of it anymore.

[kokotg]

45% is moderately high and considerably higher than most people eat. A diet that high in fat must be fairly low in carbs, by default.

 

35-45% fat and 10-20% protein leaves between 35 and 55% of your calories from carbs, which is much higher than most low carb advocates would suggest for weight loss.

 

Say you're an overweight man limiting calories to 1800 day for weight loss. I wouldn't consider anything over 60 grams a day or so to be truly low carb. 60 grams of carbs is 240 calories, or around 13% of that 1800 calories. This is actually a problem I see frequently with studies that are supposed to analyze low carb diets. They actually focus on moderate carb diets. Which I think are healthier than high carb diets, but not enough to help significantly with weight loss for most people.

Edited July 17, 2012 by kokotg

[I.Dup.]

You didn't.

 

You seem to be saying calories don't matter. I'm saying keep your food the same, just eat twice as much, and get back to me.

 

:iagree:

 

(and I hope you know I like you a LOT justamouse!! :001_smile::grouphug:)

[Alte Veste Academy]

I'm the first to argue that people's bodies are different. Some bodies compensate where others cannot. Some bodies compensate when they are young and wear themselves out with it and fail in the end. Some bodies never have a problem; if you were blessed with a body that doesn't get fat whether you eat everything in sight or eat like a bird or eat perfectly (because you happen to be one of those who knows exactly what a perfect diet is), that doesn't mean you know everything about how everyone else gains weight.

 

It's so...aaaaaaah.

 

For what it's worth, I don't have a big weight problem, just a bit too much in the middle I'm still carrying around from my pregnancies, and a diastasis doesn't help. But my sister grew up overweight, then obese, then morbidly obese. My whole life I just wanted to slug people on her behalf. I saw her try so hard, for years, for rewards my parents offered (a new wardrobe, a makeover, new makeup, a new car...). She worked so much harder to lose weight than I've ever worked on anything my whole life!

 

She couldn't do it and she felt like a big fat loser. Now she's 42 and knows in her heart she is a big fat loser, even when those of us who love her know she's not. It is her personal truth about herself and it is a lie. She has spent almost her entire life embarrassed to go out in public. I don't remember a time when she didn't run away from a camera. A camera comes out and all of the sudden, she has to go to the bathroom or it's time to check on the kids... Can you imagine living like that your whole life? And choosing it? Just come on!

 

She thought she wasn't worth much because her whole life all she heard people talk about was her potential, what she could be if only... I remember thinking as a teenager that if one more person told her she had a pretty face, I was going to punch their lights out. She married a total jerk because she thought that was the best she could ever do. The night she came home after meeting him, she was lit up with the newness of the feeling of being wanted. But he was and still is just a total SOB. (Sorry but there is no other way to put it.) She thought, and still thinks, so little of herself. And I'm disgusted because all I ever saw was how darn hard she tried...to lose weight, to be a true friend to people, to be a good daughter, to be a good wife (to a guy who treats her like crap), and a good mother (to three teenage boys she showered with love all their lives only for them to be embarrassed to go out with her now). :crying:

 

Well, just boo to anyone who thinks she just should have been able to magically get her bum off the couch and think her way to skinny. I'm just mad. Maybe you're right though. Because now that I've read so much about insulin and insulin resistance and low-carb and I've told her all about it, she too exhausted and hopeless to give it one more try. After 35 years of trying to lose weight, she's tired of trying. Shocking, no?

[Stacy in NJ]

This is only true for some people. Those of us with morbidly obese family members know that for some of them, it was never about the body telling them they are starving. It's boredom, it's a sedentary lifestyle, it's convenience, it's the "whoopee, I can eat what I want" indulgent attitude and so forth. It's easy to make choices that lower the calories and satisfy the hunger, for ex. have an apple instead of a cream puff, but one of those choices will never be taken.

 

It's not completely new. What is new is the number of people stuggling with this issue who have made efforts to master it and continue to struggle.

 

Look, currently we tell people they have basically two options:

 

1. Live a low-fat, low calorie lifestyle while getting plenty of exercise. You may stuggle constantly to maintain this lifestyle. You may have constant cravings for items you aren't allowed to eat. You many still experience health issues related to diet (cancer, heart disease) but it's all worth it. You will feel like a loser and guilty if you aren't able to master this.

 

2. Eat whatever you want and suffer the consequences.

 

All I'm saying, and many of the other ladies on this thread are saying, it that there is a third alternative.

 

3. Eat a LCHF diet. You don't need to restrict your calories or your fat or protein intake. You will need to limit your carbs particularly those from sugar, flour, and other starches. But you can eat as much as you like of other calories. You won't get fat and probably will lose any excess weight you're carrying. Exercise if you like (it is good for your muscles, heart, lung capacity), but it isn't necessary for a trim lifestyle. Also, you will reduce your risk of heart disease and maybe even cancer and alzheimers. You'll usually feel satiated and will experience few cravings.

 

That's it.

[I.Dup.]

From the first link:

 

The persistence of an epidemic of obesity and type 2 diabetes suggests that new nutritional strategies are needed if the epidemic is to be overcome. A promising nutritional approach suggested by this thematic review is carbohydrate restriction. Recent studies show that, under conditions of carbohydrate restriction, fuel sources shift from glucose and fatty acids to fatty acids and ketones, and that ad libitum-fed carbohydrate-restricted diets lead to appetite reduction, weight loss, and improvement in surrogate markers of cardiovascular disease.

 

None of this is new information. This is what Atkins has taught all along (what the 2nd article touched on...again, how the "experts" were wrong and maybe Atkins was right, blah, blah). The 3rd article is about a new and improved food pyramid.

 

I don't see how any of this is revolutionary, or changes anything. If you want to spend the rest of your life eating 90% protein, more power to you. I just don't buy that is what is the key to keeping people thin more than simply restricting calories and/or increasing activity. Eating 90% protein is not practical, or natural.

 

And I agree with the poster who said you all seem to think anyone who doesn't agree is ignorant, that's what I was saying before. A discussion does not seem to be welcome and that makes sense, since this is a highly emotionally charged issue.

[Alte Veste Academy]

If I lost a pound for all of the times I have read the "science" of why Americans are fat or how to lose weight permanently, I would be Elle McPhearson.:D

 

You and Stacy are implying that everyone that does not agree with the evidence that you have supported is an ignoramus. Discussion is to be expected on this board. We are not a bunch of dumb "sheeps."

 

Given enough time, I can find you scientific evidence presented by well-credited scientists to support nearly every diet theory out there.

 

You don't want a discussion of anything, just an agreement.

 

Good grief. That's just plain mean. Not to mention incorrect. I am not implying anything of the sort. What I am saying outright is that reading posts of people who state their opinion without bothering to read the links in the OP frustrates me. Frankly, I lose respect for people who don't want to engage their brains for the few minutes that it would take to thoughtfully participate in an actual conversation about the subject matter. I wouldn't participate in a classroom discussion of Hamlet without reading Hamlet, for Pete's sake. I would watch from the sidelines.

 

I have acknowledged several times on this thread that people are different. People's bodies are different.

 

I am well aware that the Hive is not comprised of mindless sheep.

 

I was merely saying that it was frustrating to have an OP which included links to scientific articles and have so many people respond with absolutes that they didn't back up with anything but their own opinions. As to the bolded, that was exactly what I would have loved, for people to reply thoughtfully, with information to back up their opinions instead of basically saying to the OP, "Nope, that's bunk."

 

If you say it's bunk, I respect that. But I want to ask... Really? In what way? What can you show me to enlighten me about your viewpoint? And then do it. Because, frankly, I am not a dumb sheep either.

Edited July 17, 2012 by Alte Veste Academy

[I.Dup.]

 

3. Eat a LCHF diet. You don't need to restrict your calories or your fat or protein intake. You will need to limit your carbs particularly those from sugar, flour, and other starches. But you can eat as much as you like of other calories. You won't get fat and probably will lose any excess weight you're carrying. Exercise if you like (it is good for your muscles, heart, lung capacity), but it isn't necessary for a trim lifestyle. Also, you will reduce your risk of heart disease and maybe even cancer and alzheimers. You'll usually feel satiated and will experience few cravings.

 

That's it.

 

So basically, go on the Atkins diet. Still a "diet." Nothing new. :confused:

[LG Gone Wild]

From the first link:

 

The persistence of an epidemic of obesity and type 2 diabetes suggests that new nutritional strategies are needed if the epidemic is to be overcome. A promising nutritional approach suggested by this thematic review is carbohydrate restriction. Recent studies show that, under conditions of carbohydrate restriction, fuel sources shift from glucose and fatty acids to fatty acids and ketones, and that ad libitum-fed carbohydrate-restricted diets lead to appetite reduction, weight loss, and improvement in surrogate markers of cardiovascular disease.

 

None of this is new information. This is what Atkins has taught all along (what the 2nd article touched on...again, how the "experts" were wrong and maybe Atkins was right, blah, blah). The 3rd article is about a new and improved food pyramid.

 

I don't see how any of this is revolutionary, or changes anything. If you want to spend the rest of your life eating 90% protein, more power to you. I just don't buy that is what is the key to keeping people thin more than simply restricting calories and/or increasing activity. Eating 90% protein is not practical, or natural.

 

And I agree with the poster who said you all seem to think anyone who doesn't agree is ignorant, that's what I was saying before. A discussion does not seem to be welcome and that makes sense, since this is a highly emotionally charged issue.

 

 

Shopping carts again.

[I.Dup.]

Shopping carts again.

 

?

[Lang Syne Boardie]

It's not completely new. What is new is the number of people stuggling with this issue who have made efforts to master it and continue to struggle.

 

Look, currently we tell people they have basically two options:

 

1. Live a low-fat, low calorie lifestyle while getting plenty of exercise. You may stuggle constantly to maintain this lifestyle. You may have constant cravings for items you aren't allowed to eat. You many still experience health issues related to diet (cancer, heart disease) but it's all worth it. You will feel like a loser and guilty if you aren't able to master this.

 

2. Eat whatever you want and suffer the consequences.

 

All I'm saying, and many of the other ladies on this thread are saying, it that there is a third alternative.

 

3. Eat a LCHF diet. You don't need to restrict your calories or your fat or protein intake. You will need to limit your carbs particularly those from sugar, flour, and other starches. But you can eat as much as you like of other calories. You won't get fat and probably will lose any excess weight you're carrying. Exercise if you like (it is good for your muscles, heart, lung capacity), but it isn't necessary for a trim lifestyle. Also, you will reduce your risk of heart disease and maybe even cancer and alzheimers. You'll usually feel satiated and will experience few cravings.

 

That's it.

 

Well, there are at least two more options:

 

4. If you want quick results but can't eat LC/HF, consult Dr. Fuhrman. His patients' health turnarounds are near miraculous, and I believe his plan is sustainable because my husband has been eating that way for over 20 years. It has worked for me, as well. It's extreme, but no more so than LC/HF and a good alternative for those of us who simply cannot eat LC. (I can't afford LC, can't ethically support factory farming methods in the US, and have lupus-affected kidneys that can't handle much animal protein.)

 

5. You could cut WAY back on starches, snacks, and portion sizes, and increase your proteins, vegetables, fruits, and healthy fats without actually eating LC/HF, and seriously improve your activity level. Not low fat. Not low calorie. Not low carb, either. Just small balanced meals and veggies for snacks, and take a big old walk every day of your life. That moderate lifestyle keeps millions of people all over the world in pretty good shape including 90% of my extended family.

 

I'm thrilled for anyone who has found health by any system whatsoever, and I do believe it's true that people with IR, PCOS, etc. really should be eating LC. But it's a false presentation to say that the only options for the general public are

 

1. low fat failure

2. low carb/high fat success

3. eating one's way to oblivion and despair.

[justamouse]

:iagree:

 

(and I hope you know I like you a LOT justamouse!! :001_smile::grouphug:)

 

You know I love you too, but read the post.

 

So how many calories does that add up to daily?

 

I'm using Calorie Count

 

1 egg is 90 calories.

1oz of cheddar is 110 and I use about 4 for breakfast

I use about 4 tablespoons of butter @ 36

one tbsp of coconut oil is 125, and I use two

one tbsp of heavy cream (I put in my coffee) is 52, I use about 6 in my three cups

 

pico de gallo is 52 per gram

 

So, added up JUST FOR BREAKFAST, that's 1426 calories. Mostly of fat.

 

Wait, I forgot the butter in my addition, so up that to 1590.

Edited July 17, 2012 by justamouse

[LG Gone Wild]

?

 

A benign topic, food, is somehow an emotionally charged one.

 

 

I think the only way to sort this out is to bring out the pudding. Advocates of either side should post pictures of themselves in bikinis and then we decide who is right. :tongue_smilie: