Yes, nuts too. Super healthy generally. I kind have a tricky relationship with nuts though because they do have some carbs, and it's really easy to eat a lot of them. So I try to stay away if just for self-control reasons. Almonds and macadamia nuts are particularly good for low carbers though.
The Sugar Conspiracy (how bad nutrition science made us fatter and unhealthier)
- Thread starter AstroLad
- Start date
- Status
Yes, nuts too. Super healthy generally. I kind have a tricky relationship with nuts though because they do have some carbs, and it's really easy to eat a lot of them. So I try to stay away if just for self-control reasons. Almonds and macadamia nuts are particularly good for low carbers though.
deadscreensky
Member
Pepperoni slices are my snack food of choice. Good stuff.
I love nuts, but I find when I start eating them I can't stop.
I love nuts, but I find when I start eating them I can't stop.
The theory of calorie balance is nonsense, so no, I wasn't talking about that, sorry. (The accuracy the body would need to maintain weight via calorie balance over decades -- which some people do -- would be crazy. Chapter 4 of Why We Get Fat breaks this down, but we're talking about an argument where even 20 calories extra a day would make everybody obese.) What these calories are used for (fat, muscle, activity, etc.) is determined by hormones. Easy example is to go back to these kids and talk about puberty. Girls enter puberty and put on fat, boys put on muscle and usually lose fat too. That's not because girls are lazier or eat more than boys do, it's because of hormones (in this case sex hormones) and their regulation of fat.
Yep, these are all good, and I wish there were more of them. Like jerky, you have to check the labels on cheese, but anything meat or cheese-based is great if you're not avoiding dairy. But it's not a meal. Be nice to be able to swing by a drive-through and buy a couple of hamburgers with no-carb 'buns' and sugar-free sauces. Actually, science really needs to crack no-carb bread. Maybe using cricket flour or something.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
To be even more accurate (and I think you only wrote it in the way you did for simplicity), the body does not "use" calories. It may break down certain things or convert others for energy usage, and that energy can surely be measured in calories, but the idea that all food stuffs can be reduced to calories as if they are equal in any way is just ludicrous.
Well you can get "protein style" at In 'n Out and a lot of the trendier burger places too now, so that helps. Sauces (including In 'n Out) are usually a no-go though because of the sugar content. As far as bread, I don't do this anymore but I used to take American cheese slices and put them in the microwave for 30-60s. They puff into almost these giant crackers you can use as bread.
I love occasionally making bunless cheeseburgers at home with sauteed onions.
maximum360
Member
I guess there may be a difference in the breakdown and digestion but I'm inclined to think not too much. Flour, the basic ingredient [of bread and pasta] is no longer a whole grain. You'll have similar insulin spikes as when eating stuff not made from whole grain. I think that's the big deception out there. When something is ground to flour it is no longer a whole grain. That's why you'll find a large correlation between individuals not eating bread or pasta anymore and weight loss. Refined products just mess you up metabolically [insulin spikes --> leptin resistance -> lethargy, weight gain, etc].
I will try this immediately. You may have just changed my life.
water_wendi
Water is not wet!
For snacks that have no cooking required.. pickles, pepperoncini, cold cuts, sliced hard cheese, string cheese, nuts/seeds, peanut butter/cream cheese for celery/cucumber, tuna, and lettuce (both for salad and for making wraps out of the meats/cheeses). If you dont mind a little cooking i do frozen vegetable steamer bags of cauliflower, broccoli, or green beans which i frequently pick up for about $1/bag. Not as good as fresh vegetables but frozen steamer bags i find to be leagues above canned.
Stuff like beef jerky ($$$) or whatever is good in a pinch but they tend to have too much sugar added in to them and always make me regret eating them. Pork rinds are okay unless the seasoning is loaded with sugar.
Stuff like beef jerky ($$$) or whatever is good in a pinch but they tend to have too much sugar added in to them and always make me regret eating them. Pork rinds are okay unless the seasoning is loaded with sugar.
Isn't it stupid how the human race is also fixated on finding THE ONE SINGLE CAUSE for issues?
Especially with this. You know the cause of obseity? Overeating everything. It's carbs fault, It's sugar's fault. It's fat's fault. It's proteins fault.
We need all of those things for sustenance, in the proper moderation. It's not complicated at all. Don't eat 4,000 calories a day (with way too many grams of everything, fat, sugar, carbs, etc) and only drink soda. Problem solved.
Find your balance of macros. Personally I stick to under 200g of carbs, under 30g of sugar, 70g of fat, and as much protein as i can get (gym and whatnot). That's helped me lose a ton of weight and stay in shape.
Especially with this. You know the cause of obseity? Overeating everything. It's carbs fault, It's sugar's fault. It's fat's fault. It's proteins fault.
We need all of those things for sustenance, in the proper moderation. It's not complicated at all. Don't eat 4,000 calories a day (with way too many grams of everything, fat, sugar, carbs, etc) and only drink soda. Problem solved.
Find your balance of macros. Personally I stick to under 200g of carbs, under 30g of sugar, 70g of fat, and as much protein as i can get (gym and whatnot). That's helped me lose a ton of weight and stay in shape.
deadscreensky
Member
You put it much better than I did, thanks.
For a stronger argument I finally got some time to start watching the video water_wendi linked earlier, and that seems to do a very authoritative job demolishing the calorie balance hypothesis.
The problem is that this isn't the problem. No rudeness is intended, but you're wrong. What's more, people believing this sort of thing is probably responsible for our current obesity epidemic. It's an actively harmful myth.
FreddieQuell
Member
I didn't think I was referring to any specific theory, but how is calorie balance nonsense? If you consume more food than your body needs it gets stored as fat. Do you disagree with that? And the idea you're arguing against of eating 20 more calories a day and becoming obese seems flawed. That would require a continuous increase in intake. If you simply started eating an extra X calories a day you would gain weight until a point and then wouldn't keep gaining without again increasing calories.
In the case of a boy going through puberty the body is prioritizing gaining muscle over gaining fat, same as what happens when someone lifts weights and eats at a surplus to gain muscle. But there is a limit to that, if they were to keep eating more they'd be gaining fat.
And I guess I should have asked this first, but are saying that for some people eating less calories won't cause them to lose fat?
Halcyon
Member
I think there should be a "fast food" place that serves more fresh organic non-gmo bullshit sorta in the vein of Chipotle. I think there's a growing market for that type of thing(because it doesn't exist for 1, and people are becoming more educated on health).
It would be nice to go to a place like Mcdonalds and grab a salad or a wrap but instead of the microwaved processed chicken, get some fresh meat on there and be on my way. That could apply to wraps, sandwiches, soups, etc etc.
It would be nice to go to a place like Mcdonalds and grab a salad or a wrap but instead of the microwaved processed chicken, get some fresh meat on there and be on my way. That could apply to wraps, sandwiches, soups, etc etc.
Pretty much.
Anyone that post something like "it's a conspiracy and THIS is the real truth" is 100% an hack. To say such a thing would be like knowing nothing of how science actually work and to pretend that you actually have an answer in a field as complicated as that? Please, sit down.
If you want to avoid getting fat and get diabetes, look at our diets from 60-70s years ago when we were much thinner and diabete was much rarer. Hint: we eated a lot of bread, just like Asia still eat a lot of rice.
EDIT: oh i see we're already at the point where calorie balance is nonsense. Well, America, stay exceptional i guess. You have all of the world to look at to understand how an actually good diet looks like but no, let's demonize nutrionisists and scientists because you can't be hassled to.
How is that wrong?
FreddieQuell
Member
I'm looking forward to the answer of this.
starchild excalibur
Member
See, it's shit like that honestly makes some people not even bother. I know scientific fields are imbued with the ability to take corrective stances on outmoded beliefs and studies, but when this lack of 100% solidarity applies to something that affects people's lives as directly as food it can feel incredibly overwhelming.
I've done low carb, high meat diets before and I can never get them to stick. I like meats, but I don't love them more than I like carbs. And even when trying to find faux-carb alternatives, I could never believe the lie long enough to keep it going. At some point, you may have to push aside what you like in the pursuit of what you need to do for good health, but damn if it doesn't make it more of an uphill battle.
ersocaster
Member
Poor != more physical. A quick Google search shows the opposite.
http://m.diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/content/60/11/2667.full
water_wendi
Water is not wet!
Heres a lecture by Gary Taubes called Why We Get Fat that explains why Calories in, calories out is meaningless.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEuIlQONcHw&nohtml5=False
I can't watch that at work right now, but am I correct in assuming from the "calories in, calories out" that it's saying that only looking at calories is wrong?
Because of course that is. If you eat 1,000 calories a day, but it's literally nothing but fat, so you have have 200g of fat, then yeah, you are going to get fat.
That's why I said it's a balance of the nutrients you are taking in. Every person is different of course, so my macros of carbs, fat, and protein might not be the numbers from someone else.
But I find it really hard to believe someone that says having the proper balance of those things is completely meaningless to your weight.
I actually forgot to mention Chipotle as a good place for low carbers. Just get the salad bowl with double chicken, and you can even do peppers and guac if you really want and still stay ~15g carbs.
deadscreensky
Member
Eating fat doesn't make people fat.
And yeah, I was going to point at that video that water_wendi linked. It's a fairly brief but accurate look at the problems of calories in, calories out.
Yes. Research backs this up, but I'll speak from my own experience instead. In my 20s I was obese and actually tried just this. Dropped to a severe semi-starvation diet (1200 calories was the goal, though I didn't always hit it), did hour+ of biking a day. Lost zero weight. (I recognize the scale is a poor indicator of this sort of thing, because muscle gains. But I wasn't shrinking in size either.)
Dropped carbs, boosted fat (and general food intake), lost 120+ pounds while gaining muscle.
Fat tissue is regulated by hormones.
Halcyon
Member
I try to keep the carbs in check, but when I do eat them it's usually from quinoa and brown rice.
I use what works for me, but I strength train which I think was the very key to changing my life.
FreddieQuell
Member
I obviously haven't watched the whole lecture, but are you saying that restricting calorie intake will not make you lose weight?
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
No, actually. Carbohydrate is the only macro nutrient which the human body does not require in any dietary capacity in order to function and even thrive.
You'll die if you don't eat protein and fat, but you zero carbs is completely fine.
Not to say that carbs can't be useful for certain people in certain situations, but they are completely unnecessary in terms of survival and maintaining health.
It is true that if you do not eat enough in order to meet your body's energy requirements, then it will respond in a variety of ways, including down-regulating certain functions in order to save energy, and breaking down tissue to be used for energy. At the same time, it is not absolutely *not* true that all food (when measured as potential caloric yield) you eat in excess of your body's energy requirements at that time will be stored as fat. The storage and release of fat is regulated by hormones and other factors.
I try to emulate the diets of people who get practical results with their diets. Basically, high protein food with complex carbs and plant fats. Works very well for me. It's too easy to get lost in research since it lacks the needed meta-analysis with enough variables. Genetics and microbial flora also play a big role.
I do alot of sprinting for ultimate Frisbee, and I can definitely tell that I don't play optimally if I haven't had enough carbs. They are a good energy source for me.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
Sure! In the post you quoted I did write, "Not to say that carbs can't be useful for certain people in certain situations."
Can be useful, but absolutely not essential.
FreddieQuell
Member
I would agree that 100% of the food you eat over your caloric requirements do not get stored in fat. It will also build muscle. Is there somewhere else it can go?
And based off of what you said, if you're overweight or obese, is restricting calories not a valid method to lose fat?
I think you'll see diminishing returns there. I don't believe calories in/calories out is a generalism that works for all people, and I don't believe that the human body is necessarily a "honest system" in regards to see (this is typically why you see skinny people who can eat more and never gain weight, as well as people who undereat and can't lose weight).
More importantly, I think what the video is hypothesizing is that fat cells over time can be conditioned to WANT to hold onto its energy stores such that even restricting calories won't be enough to lose weight. The type of food that is being eaten also needs to change.
water_wendi
Water is not wet!
There are biochemical processes at play that the caloric intake model does not address.
ersocaster
Member
Aren't carbs broken up into simple sugars which your body needs? Where else will you get that from?
FreddieQuell
Member
What processes are those and how much of a caloric deficit can they counteract?
Every time I've seen someone underweight who can't gain or vice versa, they've always been under or over estimating their intake.
And even if the fat cells get conditioned like this, there must be some point where that breaks down isn't there?
infinitys_7th
Member
No, you won't. That fat would be processed in ketone and used for energy in place of dietary monosaccharides.
You are not what you eat. The stomach breaks organic food polymers down, the intestines absorb the monomers (and gut flora break down certain ones further), and then cells metabolize the monomers for energy and structural components. Fat (as ketones), carbs (as monosaccharides), and protein (as glucose through gluconeogenesis) generate energy. They also build cell membranes (fat), organelles (all three), proteins, glycoproteins (carbs and protein), hormones (generally fat and cholesterol), etc.
The colesterol you eat does not influence your blood cholesterol unless you have a certain genetic predisposition. Fat eaten does not inherently become body fat - most body fat is stored monosaccharides.
Citation needed.
So you are saying I could literally just eat steak fat all day and be totally fine?
Halcyon
Member
if you ate your TDEE in that fat you wouldn't gain weight, but you would be unhealthy.
infinitys_7th
Member
Leptin resistance takes a long time to diminish, and it actively impedes weightloss by caloric restriction by causing the brain to think it is starving, which it technically is because fat stores are rendered inaccessible.
I guess what I'm getting at (and maybe what some of you are getting at) is that maybe the food you are eating isn't what makes you fat.
But can't we agree that inactivity does in fact make you fat? When you combine that with what you are eating, they go hand in hand (IE, if you are going hard at a sport or gym, you body needs a balanced diet to get all the nutrients it needs to perform and recover).
We've gotten to a place in society where "ain't nobody got time for that" in regards to exercise, so we keep trying to come up with ways to eat whatever we want and not have it effect body weight.
But can't we agree that inactivity does in fact make you fat? When you combine that with what you are eating, they go hand in hand (IE, if you are going hard at a sport or gym, you body needs a balanced diet to get all the nutrients it needs to perform and recover).
We've gotten to a place in society where "ain't nobody got time for that" in regards to exercise, so we keep trying to come up with ways to eat whatever we want and not have it effect body weight.
Yes, and I think that's where hormones comes into play. At some point in the early 80s onward, something changed regarding our intake of food (gov't recommendations --> pushes by mfgs of food --> changes in processing of food) have changed most people's hormones to want to store fat, regardless of the amount of calories they eat. But yes, it is generally calories in/calories out, but I'd still argue eating a high calorie diet devoid of refined sugars and carbs won't make you gain weight as fast as a diet of the same calories eating loads of processed foods/refined sugars.
Iorv3th
Member
How many carbs do you eat in a day?
I have type 1 as well but I generally eat around 100-120 a day. Some days like 80.
Halcyon
Member
Inactivity isn't strictly what is causing you to be fat though. You could have a low appetite and lay around all day and not gain weight. You won't be "healthy" but you won't be fat.
EarsOfASnake
Member
Exercise has many benefits to the human body and sure being active helps to combat obesity. However it really is a small part of a bigger picture and that is one that is being dominated by the food people eat, it's far more important and relevant to your overall health.
FreddieQuell
Member
When does leptin resistance become an issue? And what would be the consequence of maintaining a deficit through this time period where it is diminishing?
Actually I think my question is who is leptin resistance an issue for? Is it everyone or is dependent on diet or is it genetics?
Right, but in those situations, with a low appetite, what you are eating is just replenishing your daily bodily functions right?
Where the getting fat comes into play, is eating more than you need, and not doing anything.
infinitys_7th
Member
You obviously need protein for, well, proteins, and a small amount of carbs for some structures, but in general you would be perfectly fine. You do not need to eat carbs for energy if you are eating sufficient fat.
At the peak of my losing weight I ate dinners of steaks and hamburgers cooked in butter, topped with parmesan cheese, with broccoli with cheddar cheese on the side. Maybe some sautéed mushrooms too.
EarsOfASnake
Member
You're genetic make up decides how much of the hormone you will secrete, if you want this information then you would need to get that tested through something like 23&me.
- Status