Support NeoGAF

[NomarTyme]

Does anyone have a fricken list or something of the "safe" meals to eat. I swear everything is bad for you these days.

Here's my list.... Meat/eggs/more meat.

 

[scitek]

Best I could do. Top is from 1/1/10, bottom is last week.

 

[Al-ibn Kermit]

Here's my list.... Meat/eggs/more meat.

Why focus so much on protein? Also, you should be wary of the saturated fats in meat.

 

[teh_pwn]

As I understand, insulin makes you first store your carbs as glycogen (in the liver and then in the muscles) and then once your glycogen stores are filled up, then it converts the carbs into fat energy. You also burn glycogen before fat during exercise.

Assuming you keep your calorie count reasonable, why have a fat-centric diet?

Insulin is the primary fat storage hormone. Foods that increase blood glucose significantly cause toxic levels of blood sugar. Unless you're running a marathon or have perfect insulin sensitivity insulin is going to try to put as much glucose into muscles and organs as it can and then send the excess over to the liver to be converted to triglycerides and then finally put into the fat cell for fat storage.

Fat from body fat continuously is circulating in the body from fat cell into the blood stream as a fatty acid. Insulin is the primary regulator for the rate at which fat can be freed and circulate into the blood stream. Insulin also blunts glucagon, a hormone that is sort of the converse of insulin - fat metabolism instead of glucose metabolism.

Calories are irrelevant because the body's hunger mechanism is far more accurate of a gauge of when to eat. If you're just off by 10 calories per day in counting calories, your body will trend towards obesity or extreme thinness. The reason why people's natural hunger mechanism is disrupted is typically caused by:

1. Chronically excessive levels of insulin lock up energy internally into body fat, starving muscles and organs.
2. Leptin resistance caused by fructose, triglycerides blocking leptin to the hypothalamus, or a scarred hypothalamus due to hyperinsulinemia are likely candidates. Either way, low carb addresses all 3 common theories of leptin resistance.

Why would it speed up insulin resistance when it has a much lower glycemic index than glucose?

Because fructose is a poison. It can only be metabolized by the liver and it has severe negative health consequences when it is metabolized.

Taubes talked about the synergistic effect of fructose and glucose together, to be honest I'm not as familiar with it. The "sugar the bitter truth" guy talks about it in great detail.

 

[teh_pwn]

Why focus so much on protein? Also, you should be wary of the saturated fats in meat.

How are saturated fats bad for health? Do you have controlled studies showing conclusively the mechanism and the effect?

If you're concerned about heart health, there's virtually no data showing that saturated fats are bad for the heart. There's a hell of a lot of public health policies, but no data. If I'm mistaken, please correct me.

But what does seem to be a likely cause of heart disease is triglycerides. They make low density lipoprotein small, dense, and likely to get stuck in artery walls, causing plaque build up. Triglycerides are created when there's excess blood sugar that's approaching toxic levels, and what increases blood sugar?

I'm also not understanding why meat, eggs, protein/fat are inherently bad. It's what humans ate for 99.999% of evolution. Our bodies are quite capable of converting essential protein/fats into ketones for the brain/heart. However, there is absolutely nothing essential about carbohydrates. You can live your whole life without them (although it isn't necessary to).

A couple of good things that saturated fats do:
1. Increases cholesterol, taking transit via LDL and HDL. Not the small dense LDL type that tryglycerides creates, so heart healthy. And with the cholesterol, your body has plenty of raw materials for hormones, so you won't have sex hormone issues (viagra) and you'll be less likely to have depression, fatigue.
2. Better at making cell membranes than rancid vegetable oils.


Furthermore, there's a lot of interesting studies showing that animal fat from cattle on their natural diets (not on corn/grains) are loaded with CLA, vitamin K2. Extremely good for the heart and reduces the chance of cancer.

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2010/05/pastured-dairy-may-prevent-heart.html

 

[grumble]

It's funny how diets swing from one thing to the next all the time. It used to be carbs, then it became fat, then it became total calories, then it became carbs, then it became total calories cutting carbs first...

The idea of moderation just doesn't appeal to some people, who often hunt for the 'ideal' diet. Frankly, the complexity of the biological systems that make up the human body are mind-bogglingly complex and something as all-pervasive as nutrition is something we still have a lot of learning and study to do. Carbs aren't evil; there's nothing wrong with moderate carbs. Sure, if you're having 300g/day or eating sugar then there's probably an issue, but if you limit your carb intake to something semi-reasonable I don't see the issue. I regularly eat anywhere between 150-250g/day of carbs and have been steadily losing body fat and feel great.

In a similar vein, eating a ton of any one thing in general won't do you any favours. A well-rounded diet is key.

 

[teh_pwn]

It's funny how diets swing from one thing to the next all the time. It used to be carbs, then it became fat, then it became total calories, then it became carbs, then it became total calories cutting carbs first...

Yep, and I too am over simplifying it. 200 grams of carbs per day is probably fine, +/- depending on the type of carbohydrate. I just don't like the echoes of "saturated fat is bad", "count calories, it's all willpower." Kind of infuriating that we've been led to believe this despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

 

[Blackface]

It's funny how diets swing from one thing to the next all the time. It used to be carbs, then it became fat, then it became total calories, then it became carbs, then it became total calories cutting carbs first...

The idea of moderation just doesn't appeal to some people, who often hunt for the 'ideal' diet. Frankly, the complexity of the biological systems that make up the human body are mind-bogglingly complex and something as all-pervasive as nutrition is something we still have a lot of learning and study to do. Carbs aren't evil; there's nothing wrong with moderate carbs. Sure, if you're having 300g/day or eating sugar then there's probably an issue, but if you limit your carb intake to something semi-reasonable I don't see the issue. I regularly eat anywhere between 150-250g/day of carbs and have been steadily losing body fat and feel great.

In a similar vein, eating a ton of any one thing in general won't do you any favours. A well-rounded diet is key.

Complex carbs aren't bad, simple carbs are terrible for the human body. There is more to being healthy than losing weight or looking slim.

some people in this thread seem correlate being healthy with being slim or skinny and that couldn't be more wrong.

 

[Insaniac]

trying to lower my carb intake now, but how do you counteract all the protein you get? (Protein increase overall body acidity)

 

[teh_pwn]

trying to lower my carb intake now, but how do you counteract all the protein you get? (Protein increase overall body acidity)

Vegetables. You can still get your carb count lower than 50 grams (ketosis) and eat plenty of veggies.

 

[teh_pwn]

Does anyone have a fricken list or something of the "safe" meals to eat. I swear everything is bad for you these days.

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/how-to-succeed-with-the-primal-blueprint/

 

[teh_pwn]

So I went... 80% of a day with low carbs. I can eat healthy, whole wheat grains in moderation, but when I try to really cut the carbs, oh man does it drive me crazy. I think I am going to try to slowly ween myself off them as opposed to going to under 50-80g a day all at once.

I struggle to find tasty things to eat when I try to go "primal". I think I should pick up Mark Sisson's book, does it have good details on what exactly I can and can't eat? A list would be fantastic.

I think he also sells a cook book. Haven't read it.

Here's my biggest meal (stir fried):
Coconut oil
Pepperoni
2 chicken breasts
Red onion
Sun dried tomatoes
spinach
little bit of alfredo
Parmesan

Another meal:
Lean beef (because I'm too lazy to get pastured meat which has healthier fat)
Coconut oil
White onion
Taco Seasoning

Snacks:
Aged/real cheese blocks
mixed nuts

Breakfast:
Eggs/Sausage

that's the general theme. If you're hungry, you're not eating enough protein/fat. You may need a week to adjust to a low carb diet.

 

[NomarTyme]

Hey teh_pwn!

I bought coconut oil the day, but I didn't realize they have refine and virgin version. I brought the refine version! Its still good though.

 

[ch0mp]

Complex carbs aren't bad, simple carbs are terrible for the human body. There is more to being healthy than losing weight or looking slim.

Your body doesn't know the difference between carbs, they are all the same and used in the same way. One's slower absorbed that's it.

some people in this thread seem correlate being healthy with being slim or skinny and that couldn't be more wrong.

I really think more people do it for vanity than health.

 

[Al-ibn Kermit]

Insulin is the primary fat storage hormone. Foods that increase blood glucose significantly cause toxic levels of blood sugar. Unless you're running a marathon or have perfect insulin sensitivity insulin is going to try to put as much glucose into muscles and organs as it can and then send the excess over to the liver to be converted to triglycerides and then finally put into the fat cell for fat storage.

Yes...

Fat from body fat continuously is circulating in the body from fat cell into the blood stream as a fatty acid. Insulin is the primary regulator for the rate at which fat can be freed and circulate into the blood stream. Insulin also blunts glucagon, a hormone that is sort of the converse of insulin - fat metabolism instead of glucose metabolism.

Also yes, if your blood sugar is too high then of course your body will have no reason to break down the fat molecules. That's the basic way that insulin and glucagon regulate your metabolism.

Calories are irrelevant because the body's hunger mechanism is far more accurate of a gauge of when to eat. If you're just off by 10 calories per day in counting calories, your body will trend towards obesity or extreme thinness. The reason why people's natural hunger mechanism is disrupted is typically caused by:

1. Chronically excessive levels of insulin lock up energy internally into body fat, starving muscles and organs.
2. Leptin resistance caused by fructose, triglycerides blocking leptin to the hypothalamus, or a scarred hypothalamus due to hyperinsulinemia are likely candidates. Either way, low carb addresses all 3 common theories of leptin resistance.

No, calories should always be a bigger concern than paranoia over your "hunger mechanism" being borked. The hormone system adapts itself to your diet. Which is why you see people of different cultures with totally different diets, some getting 70% of their calories from carbs and others getting the same percentage from fats, being physically fit.

There's a theory that if you ate a large amount fructose, then it would lower your leptin levels but I don't know of any real concrete evidence. Of course, it is known that fat loss lowers your leptin levels and makes you hungry and to me that makes a much more compelling case as to why people are chronically obese then to assume that some new food product is largely responsible.

Because fructose is a poison. It can only be metabolized by the liver and it has severe negative health consequences when it is metabolized.

Taubes talked about the synergistic effect of fructose and glucose together, to be honest I'm not as familiar with it. The "sugar the bitter truth" guy talks about it in great detail.

I'm not sure who you're talking about but I'll look him up and I guess I'll finally get around to watching that documentary.

Even if some doctors are scared of fructose, there's just not enough evidence yet to make a definite opinion one way or the other about it. I have no problem with people eating something that they know is unhealthy but it really makes me mad if they suggest that a certain type of diet is healthier based on faulty/lack of evidence.

Personally, I just stick to artificial sweeteners whenever I want something sweet. It's obvious that both sucrose and fructose are bad for you.

How are saturated fats bad for health? Do you have controlled studies showing conclusively the mechanism and the effect?

If you're concerned about heart health, there's virtually no data showing that saturated fats are bad for the heart. There's a hell of a lot of public health policies, but no data. If I'm mistaken, please correct me.

I do need to read up more on the current research on those types of fats.

But what does seem to be a likely cause of heart disease is triglycerides. They make low density lipoprotein small, dense, and likely to get stuck in artery walls, causing plaque build up. Triglycerides are created when there's excess blood sugar that's approaching toxic levels, and what increases blood sugar?

I kind of already covered this point. I don't believe that people who have steady and reasonable carb-centric diets have any reason to develop an insulin problem.

I'm also not understanding why meat, eggs, protein/fat are inherently bad. It's what humans ate for 99.999% of evolution. Our bodies are quite capable of converting essential protein/fats into ketones for the brain/heart. However, there is absolutely nothing essential about carbohydrates. You can live your whole life without them (although it isn't necessary to).

We've also had 10,000 years of farmers subsisting on grains. Genetics doesn't play a big role into this though since human metabolisms are very good at getting necessary calories from wherever they can, as shown by how well different people in different cultures survive on everything from hunter-gatherer to agrarian diets.

Also, you said that carbs may lead to heart disease but that kills you well after your peak reproductive years so it wouldn't have an impact on natural selection.

couple of good things that saturated fats do:
1. Increases cholesterol, taking transit via LDL and HDL. Not the small dense LDL type that tryglycerides creates, so heart healthy. And with the cholesterol, your body has plenty of raw materials for hormones, so you won't have sex hormone issues (viagra) and you'll be less likely to have depression, fatigue.
2. Better at making cell membranes than rancid vegetable oils.
Furthermore, there's a lot of interesting studies showing that animal fat from cattle on their natural diets (not on corn/grains) are loaded with CLA, vitamin K2. Extremely good for the heart and reduces the chance of cancer.
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2010/05/pastured-dairy-may-prevent-heart.html

Those are very large claims, that saturated fats of farm animals are the best sources of those, but I'll look up the studies in the blog and see if there's any corroborating research. I'll generally approach any health blog with skepticism.

 

[LaneDS]

Awesome, gonna try that. Thanks teh_pwn, your posts are super informative and quite helpful, I'm sure I'm not alone in thinking that in here.

 

[Guileless]

We have a lot of noise in the system about what foods are 'healthy', but if you follow some basic guidelines you'll be doing OK.

--if it comes in a package and was made in a factory and has a long list of ingredients (number and/or letters), don't eat it.

--don't consume anything with high fructose corn syrup.

--don't eat anything cooked in an oil you don't know the provenance of.

In order to observe those rules, you have to follow this one:

--don't eat fast food.

And lastly,

--don't overindulge in carby fruits and veggies like bananas and potatoes.

 

[Entropia]

Best I could do. Top is from 1/1/10, bottom is last week.

That's tremendous! What have you been doing?

I really hate coming into this thread, I'm not sure why I can't seem to catch on with the whole weight loss thing

 

[BertramCooper]

In order to observe those rules, you have to follow this one:

--don't eat fast food.

It is possible to eat fast food occasionally and not be a huge tub of fat. Most places these days at least have some decent choices.

I've lost around 30 pounds in the past two months while going to Tim Hortons 2-3 times per week, along with an occasional trip to Subway.

You just have to go on their websites, get the nutrition info, and make smart choices.

 

[borghe]

Complex carbs aren't bad, simple carbs are terrible for the human body. There is more to being healthy than losing weight or looking slim.

some people in this thread seem correlate being healthy with being slim or skinny and that couldn't be more wrong.

ugghh.. I hate this line of thinking. simple carbs are most certainly not terrible for the human body. simple carbs in a less active person are more likely to be metabolized through insulin and stored as fat, yes... but how is it now that simple carbs are the "problem" and not the fact that said person is relatively inactive? however simple carbs are an excellent way to restore spent energy to muscles after exercising with how they are transferred and stored faster than complex carbs. They are also great (and typically not stored to fat in enough time) to carb load before seriously intense activities (like a marathon) the night before. Now I'm not saying everyone needs to start running marathons every week, but this whole idea of "my life is inactive so I need to find a low carb diet that can accommodate this lifestyle" is just frustrating. go out and get your 30 minutes of activity with an elevated heart rate a day. just that 3.5 hours a week will make a HUGE difference on your health.. a hell of a lot more than remaining relatively inactive and trying to control the types of food going into your diet.

The past two weekends I've eaten like crap.. partly to give myself a break (I've been pretty religious about my diet for the last 6 months) and partly just because of activities lined up.. furthermore my running has tapered off due to weather and time... and guess what... I STILL managed to lose a pound over the past two weeks. (4 more to go). I'm telling you. go out power walking for 30 minutes. do some pushups, situps, and no weight squats. jog for 30 minutes. walk to work. park 5-10 blocks away from work. do something for 30 minutes every day that gets your heart rate up, keep your calories at a reasonable level (don't even worry about deficits maintenance, etc), and watch the pounds fall off.

I won't add that processed foods aren't a part of what's ruining america's health.. but god damn if people sitting on their asses for 13+ hours a day isn't right up there with it. I respect all of the nutrition advice given in here, but I get dismayed that some of it seems revolved around being able to continue to leave a sedentary lifestyle. it's like fine tuning the engine and mechanics or a super sports car that's sitting on blocks with no wheels on it.

It is possible to eat fast food occasionally and not be a huge tub of fat. Most places these days at least have some decent choices.

I've lost around 30 pounds in the past two months while going to Tim Hortons 2-3 times per week, along with an occasional trip to Subway.

You just have to go on their websites, get the nutrition info, and make smart choices.

exactly. In the last 6 months I've had a quarter pounder with cheese here and there. I've had a bacon egg and cheese biscuit on occasion. I don't know what I'd do if I could NEVER make blueberry waffles for my family on Sunday mornings. Pizza is one of the great loves of my life. Hell, I LOVE food in general. It's about being smart about your choices, and if you are really craving something unhealthy, asking yourself "Have I been eating well? Do I really deserve this utterly delicious garbage?" If you're honest with yourself, making the choice that's right for you will be easy in that case.

starving yourself will lead to weight yoyo-ing. Denying yourself all of the foods you love will lead to you hating your diet (i.e. not calorie restriction but kinds of food you eat). It comes down to not eating like a fat ass, making sure that the majority of food you intake is a high quality food, and for god sake go get some exercise. Keeping on that track will allow you on occasion to eat the junk you love or go back for seconds every once in a while.

 

[scitek]

That's tremendous! What have you been doing?

I really hate coming into this thread, I'm not sure why I can't seem to catch on with the whole weight loss thing

I've been jogging and watching my portions during meals. I started jogging just a half-mile the first day, then moved up to a mile for a week, then added another half-mile. Now I jog 3-4 miles each time I go and I don't have to stop and walk at all due to my pacing. It's so routine now that I don't feel right unless I jog, so I really try to make a point of going.

Thank you for your reaction, though! I get that a lot from people that haven't seen me in a long time. Hell, I had a guy I used to work with pass right by me several times the other day without even recognizing me. :lol

 

[Guileless]

It is possible to eat fast food occasionally and not be a huge tub of fat. Most places these days at least have some decent choices.

I've lost around 30 pounds in the past two months while going to Tim Hortons 2-3 times per week, along with an occasional trip to Subway.

You just have to go on their websites, get the nutrition info, and make smart choices.

Yes it's possible, but the percentage of people who can lose 30 pounds in two months period, much less while eating fast food, is probably pretty low. If you are an overweight person wanting to improve eating habits and are confused by the cacophony of conflicting health advice, in my opinion the best long-term strategy is just to quit eating fast food cold turkey. If you avoid it for several months, you will lose the taste for it and begin to recognize it for the sugary garbage that it is. Plus, walking into a McDonald's or going through the Taco Bell drive-through at 11 pm, even if you plan to get something 'healthy,' may reawaken bad habits. There is no worse place to fall off the wagon.

 

[infiniteloop]

A list would be fantastic.

Take a look at p10 of this pdf:

http://liveprimal.com/LPrecipes.pdf

 

[BertramCooper]

Yes it's possible, but the percentage of people who can lose 30 pounds in two months period, much less while eating fast food, is probably pretty low. If you are an overweight person wanting to improve eating habits and are confused by the cacophony of conflicting health advice, in my opinion the best long-term strategy is just to quit eating fast food cold turkey. If you avoid it for several months, you will lose the taste for it and begin to recognize it for the sugary garbage that it is. Plus, walking into a McDonald's or going through the Taco Bell drive-through at 11 pm, even if you plan to get something 'healthy,' may reawaken bad habits. There is no worse place to fall off the wagon.

I don't disagree completely. It's hard to argue that completely cutting out fast food is a bad thing.

That said, for certain people it's just not reasonable. People whose jobs require extensive travel are particularly prone to go to fast food. And while one can certainly make an effort to prepare their own meals in advance, it's not always possible. As long as people are making smart choices in the drive thru, it won't necessarily hurt them in the long run.

Also, I've found that an occasional splurge meal - be it at a fast food place or somewhere else - can be a very good thing. People who deny themselves 100% of the time can be very vulnerable to falling off their diet. I've limited myself to about one to two splurge meals per week and it's actually become a very positive way to keep my diet going.

 

[Salaadin]

One of favorite fast food meals when I need to eat it is that Bacon Ranch Salad with Grilled Chicken and Vinagrette dressing and a Fruit and Walnut snack salad from Mcdonalds.

 

[Bowser]

If you do go fast food, this book is pretty invaluable:

You can also use their website: http://eatthis.menshealth.com/home

 

[BronzeWolf]

Seems like another "FAT is BAD" book

 

[Bowser]

Seems like another "FAT is BAD" book

It's not, the same guy wrote this book:

In the nutrition section, he talks about how fat is needlessly vilified. This book is what kickstarted my desire to lose weight (lost 35 lbs over the course of 8 months). And despite the title, it's not about following a magical diet that gives you abs (in fact, he mentions how he hated the title of the book since he knows what people would think when they saw it :lol).

 

[TheRagnCajun]

I don't disagree completely. It's hard to argue that completely cutting out fast food is a bad thing.

That said, for certain people it's just not reasonable. People whose jobs require extensive travel are particularly prone to go to fast food. And while one can certainly make an effort to prepare their own meals in advance, it's not always possible. As long as people are making smart choices in the drive thru, it won't necessarily hurt them in the long run.

Also, I've found that an occasional splurge meal - be it at a fast food place or somewhere else - can be a very good thing. People who deny themselves 100% of the time can be very vulnerable to falling off their diet. I've limited myself to about one to two splurge meals per week and it's actually become a very positive way to keep my diet going.

I agree that cheat meals are okay once in a while. I've never really bought the 'I can't eat healthy cause I travel' excuse though. I've been on the road. You really need to look no further than a mall food court and chances are there's some healthy options there.

 

[BronzeWolf]

It is a terrible excuse.

A chicken salad with no soda and dressing with a side order of bacon is an excellent option.

Omelette's are pretty much everywhere

And steak and meat without fries and soda are as good as it gets

 

[Guileless]

Everyone's different and if cheat meals work for you then you should do that. But if someone is really overweight and confused, cheat meals could be more trouble than they're worth considering the ubiquity and temptations of fast food. I would say just try going two months without eating it and get your body chemistry back under control before you start with cheat meals involving a lot of sugar and carbs.

 

[teh_pwn]

No, calories should always be a bigger concern than paranoia over your "hunger mechanism" being borked. The hormone system adapts itself to your diet. Which is why you see people of different cultures with totally different diets, some getting 70% of their calories from carbs and others getting the same percentage from fats, being physically fit.

So you think that sometime in the 1970s people suddenly decided to willfully eat more calories than they needed, or exercise less? If this were the case, the little data we have would show that people exercise less and/or eat more.

However what the data shows is that:
1. We exercise more than the late 1980s.
2. We do eat more calories, almost entirely from carbohydrates.
3. We eat more carbohydrates, particularly sugar, corn syrup, wheat, and other grains.
4. We eat less animal fat, and more polyunsaturated fats from vegetable oils.

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/12/us-weight-lifestyle-and-diet-trends.html

So as you can see, the American diet changed between 1977-2007. People did adapt. More insulin = higher body fat % setpoint. People got fatter.

So what is your theory to the cause of the increase of obesity? Do you think it's just a conscious decision to overeat? Do you think that human biology would have been naturally selected over millennia to constantly be in a state of rabid hunger such that the person would eat themselves into sickness and death?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SNC6Q8FcBY&feature=related

Do children grow taller because they overeat? Why not then, but with fat accumulation? Why is growth regulated by growth hormone, but fat not driven by a hormone - insulin?

Animals on their natural diet are fit and healthy. They don't count calories, and in many habitats they have over abundance of food.

I'm not sure who you're talking about but I'll look him up and I guess I'll finally get around to watching that documentary.

Sugar the bitter truth:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

Gary Taubes, "Good Calories, Bad Calories" (7 parts)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIGV9VOOtew


To support your "calories in, calories out, the body is a combustion engine" theory, you have to explain why tribes eating grains with less calories than needed are obese. You also have to explain why their kids are starving. This is part 2 of Taube's presentation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQlADI7omUQ&feature=related

Even if some doctors are scared of fructose, there's just not enough evidence yet to make a definite opinion one way or the other about it. I have no problem with people eating something that they know is unhealthy but it really makes me mad if they suggest that a certain type of diet is healthier based on faulty/lack of evidence.

Do you have any evidence that saturated fat is bad?

You're mad that I'm recommending that people consume less fructose based on the evidence that we have? Sure, I'd agree that it's premature for the government to ban fructose. But they've already done quite a bit of work pushing grains and demonizing saturated fat (previously ALL fats were demonized until the late 1980s). Someone personally advocating the pritikins diet doesn't bother me, but having the government tell everyone to eat pritikins does.

Personally, I just stick to artificial sweeteners whenever I want something sweet. It's obvious that both sucrose and fructose are bad for you.

I'd agree, but to equate fructose with glucose is an oversimplification. Potatoes have a higher glycemic index than glucose - ie it raises glucose in the blood faster than glucose as a food. At least glucose can be metabolized by cells around the body. Fructose can *only* be metabolized by the liver, and it byproducts of it are uric acid (raises blood pressure).

I don't believe that people who have steady and reasonable carb-centric diets have any reason to develop an insulin problem.

Insulin and glycerol-3-phosphate are necessary to store and maintain body fat. Insulin is secreted in the body in response to blood glucose. The more blood glucose, the more insulin. Carbohydrates increase blood glucose the most. Glycerol-3-phosphate is created from glucose metabolism.

Carbohydrates drive insulin, insulin drives fat accumulation. Carbohydrates are literally fattening.

http://health.howstuffworks.com/fat-cell2.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiEtsVPUXmo&feature=related#t=4m40s

With that said, that doesn't mean everyone gets fat on the same amount of carbohydrate. It depends on the individual's insulin sensitivity, and the glucose load.

I'm saying that obesity is a disorder of excess fat accumulation, and that the best way to reverse this disorder is to minimize the hormone largely responsible for fat accumulation.

We've also had 10,000 years of farmers subsisting on grains. Genetics doesn't play a big role into this though since human metabolisms are very good at getting necessary calories from wherever they can, as shown by how well different people in different cultures survive on everything from hunter-gatherer to agrarian diets.

You may think that's true, but do you have any examples of cultures eating wheat, sugar, corn syrup, potatoes and staying healthy?

I can give you examples of tribes that ate over 50% of their diet as fat - the Inuit, Eskimos, and New Zealand tribes (coconuts oil = saturated fat).

Also, you said that carbs may lead to heart disease but that kills you well after your peak reproductive years so it wouldn't have an impact on natural selection.

That's true, but it's not just heart disease. Grains also cause fatigue, inflammation (injury), making you less attractive to potential mates and less likely to escape predators. But I admit we're getting to the level of extreme speculation.

There's a theory that if you ate a large amount fructose, then it would lower your leptin levels but I don't know of any real concrete evidence. Of course, it is known that fat loss lowers your leptin levels and makes you hungry and to me that makes a much more compelling case as to why people are chronically obese then to assume that some new food product is largely responsible.
....
Those are very large claims, that saturated fats of farm animals are the best sources of those, but I'll look up the studies in the blog and see if there's any corroborating research. I'll generally approach any health blog with skepticism.

It's a scientifically absurd claim to say that saturated fats are bad without any controlled data to prove it.

Here are some studies showing fructose causing health issues:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18703413
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17158419
http://www.nature.com/ki/journal/v74/n4/abs/ki2008184a.html

http://www.slideshare.net/nephron/uric-acid-fructose-and-hypertension


Stephan has a pHD in neurobiology and specializes in obesity research. His blog has some good stuff about leptin & hunger.

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/search/label/leptin

Here's a recent interview of Stephan, sort of a light summary for people that don't like reading:

http://thehealthyskeptic.org/podcasts/THSpodcast_episode1.mp3


And I found a study on saturated fats, but it basically says there's no correlation either way with heart disease and saturated fat:

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/short/ajcn.2009.27725v1

Results: During 5–23 y of follow-up of 347,747 subjects, 11,006 developed CHD or stroke. Intake of saturated fat was not associated with an increased risk of CHD, stroke, or CVD. The pooled relative risk estimates that compared extreme quantiles of saturated fat intake were 1.07 (95% CI: 0.96, 1.19; P = 0.22) for CHD, 0.81 (95% CI: 0.62, 1.05; P = 0.11) for stroke, and 1.00 (95% CI: 0.89, 1.11; P = 0.95) for CVD. Consideration of age, sex, and study quality did not change the results.

Conclusions: A meta-analysis of prospective epidemiologic studies showed that there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD. More data are needed to elucidate whether CVD risks are likely to be influenced by the specific nutrients used to replace saturated fat.

 

[MoxManiac]

I don't think artificial sweetner is that much better for you. It actually causes acne breakouts for me. Plus I read that it tricks your body in that it gets something sweet then prepares for an onslaught of calories that never comes - not sure about that though.

 

[ItAintEasyBeinCheesy]

How's about wraps, like tortillas and stuff, are they a good substitute for bread or just as bad?

I've been having chicken, lettuce, tomatoe wraps...... tasty shit. Had bacon, egg and chicken ones last night

 

[elrechazado]

How's about wraps, like tortillas and stuff, are they a good substitute for bread or just as bad?

I've been having chicken, lettuce, tomatoe wraps...... tasty shit. Had bacon, egg and chicken ones last night

Depends on the wrap. Lots are the same as bread - just more compact. Eat that stuff you're eating without the carb wrapper and it's even better. I had an epiphany that I could eat my tuna sandwiches without the bread, as silly as that sounds (as if that's a great discovery). Just because I've eaten tuna on bread my whole life doesn't mean you have to

http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts/baked-products/5120/2
tortilla

http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts/baked-products/4872/2
bread, one slice

Basically a push if you assume two pieces of bread.

 

[Community Forum]

I like those tortillas that are really high in fiber.

 

[teh_pwn]

Depends on the wrap. Lots are the same as bread - just more compact. Eat that stuff you're eating without the carb wrapper and it's even better. I had an epiphany that I could eat my tuna sandwiches without the bread, as silly as that sounds (as if that's a great discovery). Just because I've eaten tuna on bread my whole life doesn't mean you have to

http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts/baked-products/5120/2
tortilla

http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts/baked-products/4872/2
bread, one slice

Basically a push if you assume two pieces of bread.

Tortillas and bread are almost the same thing.

If you're trying to lose fat, probably want to drop the toritillas. But you can continue to eat them and lose fat steadily, given that your net carb intake is < 150 grams (+/- individual tolerance).

That's why in my examples of meals that I eat, my beef + taco seasoning lacks tortilla. It actually has a lot more flavor...bread by itself really isn't that tasty.

 

[ItAintEasyBeinCheesy]

Cool cool....... will just eat it out of a bowl instead of the wraps.

 

[ch0mp]

It's not, the same guy wrote this book:

In the nutrition section, he talks about how fat is needlessly vilified. This book is what kickstarted my desire to lose weight (lost 35 lbs over the course of 8 months). And despite the title, it's not about following a magical diet that gives you abs (in fact, he mentions how he hated the title of the book since he knows what people would think when they saw it :lol).

This is also what started me off. The book came with Mens Health magazine and it set me down a long path to health, and weight loss.

Depends on the wrap. Lots are the same as bread - just more compact. Eat that stuff you're eating without the carb wrapper and it's even better. I had an epiphany that I could eat my tuna sandwiches without the bread, as silly as that sounds (as if that's a great discovery). Just because I've eaten tuna on bread my whole life doesn't mean you have to

I've been making a 'beef taco salad' without the taco shells lately, just in a bowl. Delicious.

 

[teh_pwn]

Hey teh_pwn!

I bought coconut oil the day, but I didn't realize they have refine and virgin version. I brought the refine version! Its still good though.

I've got refined too. Only coconut oil at HEB (Texas grocery chain, like Kroger/publix). Not sure if refined makes it worse. I think as long as it's fresh, it should be good. It's not like raw cane being refined into table sugar.

 

[ItAintEasyBeinCheesy]

Whats the difference between oils, i use olive oil, says it has not carbs etc on the back.

 

[teh_pwn]

Whats the difference between oils, i use olive oil, says it has not carbs etc on the back.

Couple of things to consider with oils:
1. How well the body can use it. It's not just about calories, the body uses fat as raw materials for cell membranes for example.
2. How well the oil holds up in heat.

Extra virgin olive oil is great, but keep it cool or very low heat. Fish oil (that's molecularly distilled to remove heavy metals) is very good too, also cold.

Butter for low-medium low heat. If it's from pastured cows, it's got CLA and vitamin K2, which crazily enough makes it very heart healthy.

Coconut oil for medium-high.

For high heat, I think you want to use Palm oil. I don't cook at high temperatures so I don't know.

Maybe lard too for high heat? The newer data seems to be showing that animal fats are healthy if the animal ate it's natural diet. Cows that are mass fed grains/corn tend to have less healthy types of body fat, whereas grass fed have the CLA and vitamin K2.

Things to avoid: Soybean, cottonseed, rapeseed/canola, certain types of safflower (one is good, the other is bad, I don't remember). Basically any vegetable oil that wasn't part of the human diet before 1900 should be avoided like the plague. And avoid trans fats - "*hydrogenated * oil". Don't look at the "trans fat" #. Food industry twisted the rules so they can trans fats and say they have 0.

I fucking hate soybean oil because it's in everything. Recently I looked at the ingredients of every "Buttermilk Ranch" dressing...at least 10 different brands. The first ingredient was always soybean oil and then buttermilk. I'm going to have to start making my own dressings.

 

[Aesius]

I think I'm in on the low carb thing. How does this sound for a daily diet:

Breakfast: 3 large eggs, 3 pieces of bacon OR 3 round sausages
Lunch: Turkey sandwich on whole wheat roll with mustard and small dab of mayo
Snack (whenever I'm hungry): Handful of mixed nuts, hard boiled egg
Dinner: Sauteed/grilled chicken with zucchini/squash/onions

After workout: Protein shake with 1% milk

I know it's probably not perfect, but I've found that I can follow it pretty well. Substitute any lunch or dinner with possible Turkey burger (on lettuce), salmon fillets, tuna sandwich on whole wheat bread.

Basically I'd like to limit myself to a single meal with a carb - i.e. a sandwich on whole wheat.

 

[Escape Goat]

I got weighed at the doc today and I have gained 20lbs this past year. I was shocked. So once I get my fucked up arm back into shape I plan to get the rest of my body back into shape! Thanks for getting me going again, GAF

 

[Tashi]

Splurged this past weekend when I visited my friends. Too much beer. Gotta hit the gym hard this week. Lots of cardio, wish me luck! :lol

 

[Community Forum]

It's not, the same guy wrote this book:

In the nutrition section, he talks about how fat is needlessly vilified. This book is what kickstarted my desire to lose weight (lost 35 lbs over the course of 8 months). And despite the title, it's not about following a magical diet that gives you abs (in fact, he mentions how he hated the title of the book since he knows what people would think when they saw it :lol).

Damn you impulse buys, I just bought this off Amazon!

Thanks for the recommendation!

 

[saunderez]

Here's a work in progress for me. I've lost around 20kg over the last 3-4 months with diet and exercise, I don't know exactly how much because I didn't start weighing myself until I was around 100kg . I maxed out at 136kgs the last time I decided to go on a health kick and I'd say I reached at least 115kg this time. As of this morning I'm 93.4kg (5ft 11") and still need to lose a bit more to get rid of my love handles and gut. The aim this time is to not go off the rails like I did the last time when I put all the weight back on over a 2 year period.

Ignore the fact Before and After are on the wrong sides...I was tired and lazy when I put this together. And ignore the new shot too, I look like I haven't slept in about a year.

 

[borghe]

So you think that sometime in the 1970s people suddenly decided to willfully eat more calories than they needed, or exercise less? If this were the case, the little data we have would show that people exercise less and/or eat more.

However what the data shows is that:
1. We exercise more than the late 1980s.
2. We do eat more calories, almost entirely from carbohydrates.
3. We eat more carbohydrates, particularly sugar, corn syrup, wheat, and other grains.
4. We eat less animal fat, and more polyunsaturated fats from vegetable oils.

kind of just wanted to address your list. First off, we most certainly started eating more after the 70s. Portion sizes went up, serving sizes went up, and overall quality of food went down.

1. I think this statistic is incredibly misleading. While gym memberships and exercise equipment and programs' sales went up, I don't think there's any conclusive proof that as a society we exercise more. However, there ARE plenty of studies out there showing kids in fact ARE exercising less, and these kids are turning into adults exercising less. Just look at this thread alone. Sure you have your posters exercising in here, but there are also plenty of posters talking about diet mainly with a lack of emphasis on exercise, or even saying there is little time to exercise.

2. almost entirely is BS. Carbohydrates take up a majority of the "new" calories we consume, but that's because of the nature of carbs. They are the easiest and, yes, cheapest form of food to produce. Grains, veggies, and processed foods are easier and cheaper to produce than proteins.. likewise fats and oils are also easier and cheaper to produce than protein. It comes down to economics which sucks, BUT, those portions haven't scaled too much differently percentage wise than we were consuming before.

3. same point as above really. There is very little factual proof that our dietary makeup in the average person today has changed from 30-50 years ago outside of the processed part. but carbs, protein, and fat have all stayed in similar quantities over the years. just look at the number of years things like twinkies, potato chips, popcorn, french fries, etc has been around. This isn't exactly new stuff.

4. you are absolutely correct on this one. Unfortunately for all of your going on about saturated animal fats, which I don't necessarily disagree with, with animal fat comes animal cholesterol, which IS (or at least can be) very bad for humans. Arterial plaque, high blood pressure, and heart disease. It comes down to eating the right kind of animal fats that are lower in cholesterol vs. the high saturated fats high in bad cholesterols. And yes, we moved to polyunsaturated fast from vegetables to reduce cholesterol and only in the past 15 years have we been finding that this was a horrible change and now trying to instead move to low polyunsaturated fast and moving to monounsaturated fast... the problem there is these good fats cost an arm and a leg (olive oil, coconut oil, peanut oil, etc).

I don't entirely disagree with you on your point of view of the other makeups of our diets (i.e. not having to do with carbs) but your attack on carbs really infuriates me because I feel it promotes a sedentary lifestyle.. "don't eat carbs because sitting on your ass doesn't consume carbs and they'll be turned to fat". I know that's not exactly what you're saying, but again it's how it kind of comes off.. better to reduce your carbs than to increase your activity. and the other belief of low carbs, that fat is just as good an energy source as carbs, is just blatantly wrong. for everyday energy sure, fat will keep you going, but for intense exercise and work, fat simply takes way too long to convert to energy for it to be a satisfactory replacement for carbs.

lowering carb intake should NEVER be a substitute for lack of exercise or activity. people's goals should NOT be weight loss.. NEVER JUST weight loss. the goal should be to get healthier, and without an increase in activity and/or exercise that can't possibly happen.

 

[VOOK]

Alright GAF, I've lost 63kgs (138 pounds) in 12 months.... but yeah not sure if I should put pictures up :/

Or 34.4% of my total weight.

 

[borghe]

Alright GAF, I've lost 63kgs in 12 months.... but yeah not sure if I should put pictures up :/

Or 34.4% of my total weight.

:O

holy shit.. congrats.

as for pictures, it's definitely a different comfort zone for some compared to others... but I promise you know matter how you look, you look a shitton better than you did a year ago.

congratulations again.