Slashdot Mirror


Book Review: The Healthy Programmer

benrothke writes "Diet books are literally a dime a dozen. They generally benefit only the author, publisher and Amazon, leaving the reader frustrated and bloated. With a failure rate of over 99%, diet books are the epitome of a sucker born every minute. One of the few diet books that can offer change you can believe in is The Healthy Programmer: Get Fit, Feel Better, and Keep Coding. Author Joe Kutner observes that nearly every popular diet fails and the reason is that they are based on the premise of a quick fix without focusing on the long-term core issues. It is inevitable that these diets will fail and the dieters at heart know that. It is simply that they are taking the wrong approach. This book is about the right approach; namely a slow one. With all of the failed diet books, Kutner is one of the few that has gotten it right." Keep reading for the rest of Ben's review. The Healthy Programmer: Get Fit, Feel Better, and Keep Coding author Joe Kutner pages 220 publisher Pragmatic Bookshelf rating 9/10 reviewer Ben Rothke ISBN 978-1937785314 summary A diet and lifestyle guide that works for all, not just for programmers. While the title of the book says it's for programmers, it is germane to anyone whose job requires them to be at a desk for extended amounts of time.

Kutner is himself a programmer who builds Ruby and Rails applications, and a former college athlete and Army Reserve physical fitness trainer.

The book focuses on two areas that require change: regular exercise and proper nutrition; and it details the steps necessary to create a balanced lifestyle.

While popular diet books require rapid and major lifestyle changes and promise quick weight-loss, the book notes that small changes to your habits can provide the long-term effects that can improve your health. The book focuses on incremental changes and sustainability, not about losing x pounds in x weeks.

The book is different (read: effective) as opposed to other diet and lifestyle books, in that its goal is to make your healthy lifestyle pragmatic, attainable, and fun. It is only with those aspects that long-term change be possible.

As to programmers, Kutner writes that programming requires intense concentration that often causes them to neglect other aspects of their lives; the most common of which is their health. People's bodies have not evolved to accommodate a lifestyle of sitting and there are many negative health effects from it.

The book takes a start small approach, rather than one of drastic changes. In chapter 2, it notes the myriad benefits of walking. It states that walking is a powerful activity that can stimulate creative thinking (a required trait for a good programmer) and is a great way to bootstrap your health. The chapter details the ways in which a few short walks during the day can have a dramatic positive effect on your life.

Chapter 3 is about the dangers of chairs and sitting for long periods of time. It details a number of ways to counter the dangers of sitting. It also notes that while sometimes you simply can't get away from your chair, and when that happens, you can make sitting less dangerous by forcing your muscles to contract without even getting up. It then details a number of different calisthenics to use to do this.

Chapter 4 – Agile Dieting — is perhaps the best part of the book. It details how to fight the real causes of weight gain and details proven solutions that work. That chapter repeatedly uses terms like iterative, sustainable, slow to show what it really takes to lose weight and achieve a healthy lifestyle.

Kutner notes that most of the popular fad diets are idiosyncratic and unbalanced. They will provide short-term benefits, but ultimately fail miserably. The chapter quotes research data on what needs to be in a balanced diet. It then notes that almost every fad diet violates those needs. Nutrition needs to be rounded and well-balanced and the fad diets for that reason will only work in the short term.

This book is everything the fad diet books are not and this is most manifest in chapter 4 where Kutner writes one should cut calories slowly. This is based on research which shows that quick drastic weight loss is counterproductive. While the fad diets talk about drastic caloric changes, Kutner suggests dropping your intake slower, about 100 calories every two weeks until you get you your targeted caloric intake level.

While much of the book is on fitness and nutrition, it takes a complete body approach. Chapter 5 details the importance of eye health. This is an important topic since the average programmer spends much of their week behind a monitor.

Kutner writes about computer vision syndrome (CVS); an eye condition resulting from focusing the eyes on a monitor for extended amounts of time. Symptoms of CVS include headaches, blurred vision, neck pain, redness in the eyes, fatigue, eye strain, dry eyes, irritated eyes, double vision, vertigo/dizziness, polyopia, and difficulty refocusing the eyes. The book also details methods in which to minimize the effects of CVS, and how not to become a victim of it. Kutner writes that CVS is what most programmers refer to as life. But it does not have to be that way.

The rest of the book covers other physical ailments that plague programmers. This runs the gamut from headaches, backaches, wrist problem, carpel tunnel, head strain and much more. Most of these problems can be obviated if one follows proper ergonomics practices and employs some of the physical conditioning detailed in the book.

Another theme of the book is using goals as an impetus for change. The book lists 16 goals which can be used as a progressive framework to improve your health. These goals include buying a pedometer, finding your resting heart rate, getting a negative result on Reverse Phalens test and other lifestyle changes.

Given the preponderance of obesity, diabetes and other maladies associated with a sedentary lifestyle, this may be one of the most important non-programming books that every developer should read and take to heart.

The book has hundreds of bits of excellent advice and subtle lifestyle suggestions that over time can make a significant difference to your health.

The author has a web site and an iPhone app that can be referenced for additional help. The book is full of sage and pragmatic advice. It has no celebrity endorsement, no gimmicks or false claims; meaning it has a high chance of working.

The book concludes with the observation that programmers often say the hardest part of software development begins when a product is released. The real work, maintenance, continues on, much like your health. You must sustain a stat of wellness for the rest of your life, and you need to continue setting goals, iterating and making small improvements.

For many programmers, they love their job but not the lifestyle problems that come with it. For the programmer that wants the challenges of the professional and the benefits of a healthy lifestyle, The Healthy Programmer: Get Fit, Feel Better, and Keep Coding, may be a life changing book, and should find its rightful place on every programmer's desk.

Reviewed by Ben Rothke.

You can purchase The Healthy Programmer: Get Fit, Feel Better, and Keep Coding from amazon.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews (sci-fi included) -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.

461 comments

  1. Rreasonable response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Diet books are literally a dime a dozen. They generally benefit only the author, publisher and Amazon, leaving the reader frustrated and bloated. With a failure rate of over 99%, diet books are the epitome of a sucker born every minute. One of the few diet books that can offer change

    That is where you should stop reading. When someone tells you nearly everything in a category is ineffective, then offers you something in that category as somehow worth your money, something stinks.

    1. Re:Rreasonable response by Steve_Ussler · · Score: 0

      That might be true for most things. But for diet books, it seems to ring very true.

    2. Re:Rreasonable response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      For the most part, people don't need books on diet to know how to eat healthily. Intelligent people who have Internet access even less so. Another diet book is the last thing anybody needs.

         

    3. Re:Rreasonable response by AAWood · · Score: 5, Informative

      I stopped after "literally a dime a dozen". Unless we're talking at a discount book shop closing sale or a car boot, the word is "figuratively".

    4. Re:Rreasonable response by Grax · · Score: 1

      Here's a nickel. I'll take six. Does that include shipping?

    5. Re:Rreasonable response by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      That might be true for most things. But for diet books, it seems to ring very true.

      But there is no reason to believe that this book is different. The entire premise that the "go slow" approach is new, is baloney. Plenty of diet books advocate a "go slow", lifestyle approach to dieting, and there is no reason to believe that programmers need a different diet than any other office workers.

    6. Re:Rreasonable response by gazbo · · Score: 2

      Especially from a glowing review that explains how it's a book that is effective due to its non-quick-fix approach, and yet Amazon tells me was published less than 6 weeks ago?

    7. Re:Rreasonable response by quantaman · · Score: 1

      Diet books are literally a dime a dozen. They generally benefit only the author, publisher and Amazon, leaving the reader frustrated and bloated. With a failure rate of over 99%, diet books are the epitome of a sucker born every minute. One of the few diet books that can offer change

      That is where you should stop reading. When someone tells you nearly everything in a category is ineffective, then offers you something in that category as somehow worth your money, something stinks.

      If the author is saying that then something stinks, if the reviewer is saying that then the reviewer is probably just ignorant about that category.

      It's no mystery how to eat healthy, the mystery is getting people to do it.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    8. Re:Rreasonable response by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 2

      >It's no mystery how to eat healthy, the mystery is getting people to do it.

      That's odd. Many people think vegetables, antioxidants, grains and a low fat intake are all healthy, when the opposite is true. The mystery is why people keep promoting these diets when the science is clear that they are hogwash.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    9. Re:Rreasonable response by jnork · · Score: 1

      Anybody using the word "literally" figuratively needs to be taken out and shot. Literally.

      --
      Cleverly disguised as a responsible adult.
    10. Re:Rreasonable response by gregor-e · · Score: 1

      Diets fail because you have to eat consciously. Eating, like breathing, is a "voluntary" behavior. We can exert control over it if we think about it. But in the long run, our automatic processes eventually take over. Think of it like this - your doctor tells you that unless you start filling your lungs to capacity most of the time, you're going to gradually develop a potentially fatal lung disorder. No problem, you just have to breathe slower and deeper breaths. It is in your voluntary control. Now let's see how long you can keep it up. Dieting is much the same, requiring us to override our automatic behaviors on a daily basis for the rest of our lives. We can do it, for a while.

      This book and all others that require continuous conscious intervention over eating will and do ultimately fail. Every one of them.

    11. Re:Rreasonable response by kperson · · Score: 1

      I stopped reading your comment after "I stopped after...".

    12. Re:Rreasonable response by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      When someone tells you nearly everything in a category is ineffective, then offers you something in that category [...]

      ...that's the open source way, isn't it?

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    13. Re:Rreasonable response by antifoidulus · · Score: 1

      Bob Garfield, you are on slashdot?

    14. Re:Rreasonable response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many people [who?] think vegetables, antioxidants, grains and a low fat intake are all healthy, when the opposite is true

      Eating vegetables is a health risk why? [Citation required]; Vitamin C, E etc. is dangerous why? [Citation required]; Grains will kill you how? [Citation required]; Lowering fat intake is bad because? [Citation required].

    15. Re:Rreasonable response by the+grace+of+R'hllor · · Score: 2

      Grains are easy sources of carbohydrates (good if you're not a sedentary society, and food is scarce). Antioxidants are overhyped, and fats aren't just fuel and are necessary, it's true.

      But vegetables being unhealthy? I assume you're with the paleo crowd, who eat too much meat. If you look at extant hunter/gatherer societies, the closer you get to the tropics (or at least, regions with lots of greenery), the more those people eat vegetables. The people who live the longest in the world live on pasta/rice, vegetables, fish and only some meat. Vegetables are big sources of micronutrients, and meat is a great supplement.

      Please point me in the direction of representative research that says otherwise.

    16. Re:Rreasonable response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's your claim that vegetables are unhealthy?

    17. Re:Rreasonable response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you stop reading after first language error that you encounter then you would have quite a lot of free time to other activities than reading, I'd say.

    18. Re:Rreasonable response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I stopped reading.

    19. Re:Rreasonable response by Quirkz · · Score: 1

      If I had a dollar for every financial book that said, "all other books are get-rich-quick scams, but THIS book teaches you how to earn money slowly, steadily, and wisely," I would have gotten rich very quick after all. I feel the same way about diet book claims like this one.

        Yes, it's true that a slow and steady is going to be more effective in the long term, and it's true there's a lot of methods pushing quick and easy options that are very poor, but it's an equally established cliche that quick and easy doesn't work and here's the "one true way".

    20. Re:Rreasonable response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People who always take the word "literally" literally are blind to the nuances of the way the language is used in its current form and need to literally stop being upvoted.

    21. Re:Rreasonable response by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      Most vitamins are fat soluble. You want vitamins? Eat fat.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    22. Re:Rreasonable response by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      They get in the way of eating nutrient dense foods. Some are toxic.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    23. Re:Rreasonable response by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      Grains are an easy source of cancer.

      Cancer followed humans around as they adopted agriculture. It's no coincidence that the earliest documented cases of cancer were from the Egyptians who were also expanding their society by being early adopters of agriculture.

      In the China Study data, the strongest univariate association is between wheat consumption and cancer. I don't think the cancer is causing the wheat, but it might be the other way around.

      Paleo dieters would not be impressed with my diet.

      I'm not getting sucked further into this discussion. I could gather a bunch of links to papers that read, but Hyperlipid's links are more comprehensive than mine and they come with sound interpretation.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    24. Re: Rreasonable response by davesag · · Score: 1

      The book has been in beta as an ebook for about a year. I admit I was one if those beta readers, alas I never actually got around to opening it. The hard copy version is sitting on my dining room table right now glaring at me.

      I guess I should actually read it at some stage.

      --
      I used to have a better sig than this, but I got tired of it
    25. Re:Rreasonable response by RockinRoller · · Score: 1

      Not sure your point.... Book out 6 weeks, 6 minutes or 6 years... If its the truth...so be it.

    26. Re:Rreasonable response by RockinRoller · · Score: 1

      Didnt you just do that very same thing in your reply? :)

  2. Welcome to the publishing industry, newbie critic. by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 1

    Let me fix that for you:

    Books on (any subject) are literally a dime a dozen. They generally benefit only the author (as long as the author is using the book for publicity), publisher (financially) and Amazon (to drive traffic to competing or complementary products), leaving the reader frustrated and bloated (99% of time).

    >> Diet books are literally a dime a dozen. They generally benefit only the author, publisher and Amazon, leaving the reader frustrated and bloated.

    Welcome to the publishing industry, newbie critic.

  3. As Mark Twain said: by Steve_Ussler · · Score: 5, Funny

    Whenever I get the urge to exercise, I lie down until the feeling passes away. :)

    1. Re:As Mark Twain said: by rwa2 · · Score: 1

      Gee, thanks for making me GIS for Samuel Clemens... apparently there are more topless pics of him out there than I cared to see.

    2. Re:As Mark Twain said: by Steve_Ussler · · Score: 0

      GIS?

    3. Re:As Mark Twain said: by Ferrofluid · · Score: 0

      Google image search?

    4. Re:As Mark Twain said: by black3d · · Score: 1

      Just because I know this information is vitally important to the continuation of the species, this quote was misattributed to Twain 20 years after he died. Extensive research on the phrase: http://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/06/09/urge-to-exercise/

      --
      "The true measure of a person is how they act when they know they won't get caught." - DSRilk
    5. Re:As Mark Twain said: by Steve_Ussler · · Score: 0

      Thank u for the clarififcation

    6. Re:As Mark Twain said: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I remember Mortimer Adler saying this.

  4. Hunger diet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Only eat when you are hungry. Too many people think 3 meals are mandatory. Too many people go out during lunch, eat a huge meal and come back bloated and tired. Stay hungry. Eat until you are satisfied. Stop eating when you feel nourished.

    Try it. It works.

    1. Re:Hunger diet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This is the sure way to possibly lose weight but not body fat giving you a higher body fat percentage and thus making you less healthy. Eating multiple small meals a day keeps your metabolism high and thus you burn more fat

    2. Re:Hunger diet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the converse may be true. Checkout the warrior diet sometime. There is evidence to suggest that eating one large meal towards the end of the day will keep your hormone levels more optimal throughout the day (in a mild-fasting state). Also, during a fasting state, you are more mentally alert.

    3. Re:Hunger diet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Both of you are idiots and numerous peer-reviewed studies have shown that for an equal amount of daily food intake, it makes no discernible difference whether you eat it in one large meal or twelve-plus smaller ones.

    4. Re:Hunger diet by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well said.

      I knew a physical education instructor and his rules were simple:

      1. If you're not hungry, don't eat
      2. If you're hungry, eat.
      3. When you're not hungry anymore, stop eating.

      This sounds simple, but it can be difficult to practice. First, food is a social thing. We all get together and have lunch or dinner. So it's tough to tell the crowd, "You go ahead--I'm not hungry yet."

      Also, if you're going out, the restaurant decides the portions and they do so based upon various factors that have nothing to do with your appetite. Yet, many of us were told to clean the plate because children are starving in Europe. At the very least, it was considered rude to not finish your food--your mother spent some time cooking it so you'd better eat it. And that lives with us into our adult lives.

      The other good point about this is time. My sister is quite overweight. She's done some things about it and she's losing the weight. But as an instructor pointed out, "You spent 20 years putting on that weight. It's not going to all come off in 20 days."

    5. Re:Hunger diet by St.Creed · · Score: 1

      Staying hungry by eating only about 70% of the calories you should normally eat, is currently the only method known that will increase your lifespan (apart from stopping behaviours like smoking or running naked across snakepits, or trainsurfing). Unfortunately, it's pretty hard to focus on your daily life if you are consistently hungry. But going slightly hungry is pretty good for your health.

      On the other hand, I had a standard fat percentage of 12% and when I started working out it dropped a few points. I can tell you that at 10%, I really don't feel too good anymore. YMMV but at 13% I feel much better.

      --
      Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
    6. Re:Hunger diet by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 4, Informative

      I have a better diet.

      Eat less. Exercise more.

      You're done here.

    7. Re:Hunger diet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait what?

      If you replace your BMI fat with muscle you can get an amazingly low BMI. If all you're doing is cardio maybe that might make you feel worse cause your body can no longer fuel itself, but any trainer will tell you to replace fat with muscle, not just lose the weight.

      Who knows, you might even be able to finish those oversized meals and burn through them without gaining a calorie with enough muscle.

    8. Re:Hunger diet by MrEricSir · · Score: 1

      This is the sure way to possibly lose weight but not body fat giving you a higher body fat percentage and thus making you less healthy. Eating multiple small meals a day keeps your metabolism high and thus you burn more fat

      Despite the fact that almost every diet book parrots this point verbatim, I've yet to see anyone present any evidence showing this to be true.

      --
      There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
    9. Re:Hunger diet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stay hungry.

      Eat until you are satisfied.

      These are competing statements for most people. The thing people giving such advice forget is that the person has to know what satisfied is SUPPOSED TO mean. Then the above statements make sense. So maybe instead you should point out that full/bloated is not the same as satisfied?

    10. Re:Hunger diet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If this works for you, consider yourself lucky. Once my metabolism slowed down after getting into my late 20s, I started gaining weight. This is despite having a large incentive to stop eating when full or not eat when not hungry, as I cook the vast majority of my meals for myself. The less I eat at one meal, the more leftovers I have so I don't have to cook the next night. I had gained 20-30 lbs and it looked like I was continuing to gain more before I got into a routine to reverse that, which involved some drastic changes to some meals and more exercise. Even though I am on my feet most of the day, and my meals were already about a 25-25-50 ratio of meat to grain to veggie, I didn't really see any change until I completely removed grain from breakfast and lunch, and from some dinners, and regularly exercised (the diet change seemed to be the larger part, as after a leg injury, I continued to lose weight despite a month long break in exercise).

    11. Re:Hunger diet by infidel_heathen · · Score: 1

      [Citation needed] for all three of you ACs.

    12. Re:Hunger diet by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      That works for some people, but not everyone. There are a lot of people out there who, by eating when hungry and stopping when they aren't hungry, will eat more than they burn and thus gain weight slowly.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    13. Re:Hunger diet by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      I recently {little over 6 months worth of work} lost about 20lbs and will probably keep it off. I started by not eating until I was miserable {which is easy to do when you have that favorite meal} and I looked up some easy exercises I could do in the office over my breaks or lunch in about 10 minutes {I really wanted to know how to strengthen my lower back}. I am back down to a 30 inch waist after getting up to 34 and my back doesn't hurt after i mow the lawn.

    14. Re:Hunger diet by happyhamster · · Score: 1

      >> Staying hungry by eating only about 70% of the calories you should normally eat, is currently the only method known that will increase your lifespan

      That theory has been debunked. It appears to work for simpler animals like rats. However, a recent comprehensive study of monkeys showed that calorie restriction produced no meaningful difference in lifespan. Since humans are genetically closer to monkeys than rats, that's how it would likely work for us too. Healthier diet, on the other hand, did seem to make a difference.

      The article has more info: http://www.myhealthwire.com/news/diet-nutrition/64
      A link to actual study: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v489/n7415/full/nature11432.html

    15. Re:Hunger diet by gmuslera · · Score: 1

      Exercise should be mandatory too, even if is just walking for half an hour or things like that. Not just for weight control, also helps in general health and brain function.

    16. Re:Hunger diet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you replace your BMI fat with muscle you can get an amazingly low BMI.

      No (see last paragraph in section). The calculation of BMI is based on height and weight without taking into account muscle mass and other factors. It should be used only as a first indication of whether further clinical attention is needed.

      - T

    17. Re:Hunger diet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've been doing the 5:2 diet (food strategy really, because you should do this until you die).
      Eat only 600 calories (500 for women) on two non consecutive days in the week. For the rest of the week you do what you want.

      Because you only diet 2 days out of a week, you are only hungry on those two days. With other diets you are hungry every day and thus you will not be able to sustain that over a long period.

      I went from 135 kg to 114 kg in 10 months.

      This alternate day fasting diet also has health benefits beyond those benefits you get from loosing weight. It should increase your effective (healthy) live by about 20 years.

    18. Re:Hunger diet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, eating only 1500 calories a day (for a man) will make him almost super human, extend live span about 20 years, incredible reflexes and balance.

      For people without such a strong mind, you can do alternate day fasting, in my case I do 5:2, 2 non consecutive days in the week I only eat 600 calories (women 500). On the other 5 days I eat what I want.

      Effectively this will reduce you calorie intake to about 70% of normal. Simple by eating little on those 2 days, and because your stomach will reduce in size and thus eat less on those other 5 days (although the day after you will eat about 115%). Hunger itself will do some interesting things to the body, it will create different hormones and reduce others. In effect hunger will make your body repair itself at the cell level.

    19. Re:Hunger diet by bhiestand · · Score: 1

      Given the subject, I think it would be quite helpful to post some links about those exercises :)

      I use kettle bells and similar at home, and I've done a lot of different types of workouts over the years, but I haven't really found anything that would be easy and non-disruptive in the office

      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
    20. Re:Hunger diet by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      Theoretically appealing, but poor results in practice. If it were really that simple, nobody would be overweight. There are limits to willpower that have to be respected, and it is simply impossible to tolerate being hungry all the time.

      I went to a keto diet in March 2012, lost 80 pounds in seven months, and have kept it off since. The primary advantage is the lack of hunger during weight loss, which means that you aren't constantly using limited supplies of willpower just to make it through the day.

    21. Re:Hunger diet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you noticed the part of the Nature article abstract that noted that ther results were opposite to those of another monkey study. So don't be too sure just yet.

    22. Re:Hunger diet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, yes, "debunked" by a single experiment not reproduced by anyone else, seasoned with some retrospective rationalizations. Don't you just love cognitive bias in science?

      FWIW, I'm not advocating either position, just pointing out the obvious.

    23. Re:Hunger diet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are limits to willpower that have to be respected, and it is simply impossible to tolerate being hungry all the time.

      If you're hungry, you're on a fad diet. Somebody above posted the true situation. When you're hungry, eat. When you're not hungry, stop eating. It's that simple, you're not going to overeat if you resolve to not eat after your hunger has been satiated.

      There are three main difficulties with that approach. Two of them were outlined by the poster above as well. Eating is a social activity, and you tend to go out and eat with people whether you're hungry or not. Also, we've been conditioned to clean our plates since we've been kids, so we tend to eat until the food is gone instead of eating until the hunger is gone. The third issue is that we like to eat tasty things. You're no longer hungry, but you want that ice cream. You want those m&m's. Here's the trick: when you feel the craving to eat that dessert, wait until you're hungry, then eat it. Skip a normal meal and eat that ice cream instead. No, it's not nutritious, but if you're dealing with weight issues it's healthier than eating your meal AND eating the ice cream, and it's more realistic. You're not going to be able to not eat what you crave.

      Believe me, it's not a big deal. You're not going to be eating crap every day if you do that. After two days max of eating sweets instead of meals, you'll want real food and will snob the desserts.

    24. Re:Hunger diet by judoguy · · Score: 1, Informative
      Nope.

      The incorrect calories in/calories out model doesn't work. Our bodies don't count calories. They store or use fat completely based on hormones. Insulin and glucagon primarily. These hormones are hugely affected by the type of calories, not the number of calories.

      And yes I am an expert. I'm a USA Judo coach concerned with keeping competitors literally lean and mean.

      I follow my on advice. After decades of eating massive carbs, I weighed around 215 and had terrible lipid panels. 3 years after learning about the hormonal effects of diet, I'm around 175 lbs (less than 81kg), eat several dozen eggs a week, lots of meat and fats. Fabulous lipid panels and feel great. So do other people who eat like me.

      The "conventional diet knowledge" is foisted on us by the true fad diet market, i.e., the people who ignore the massive amount of research because they KNOW fat is bad for you. They don't need no steekin' research!

      --
      Peace is easy to achieve, just surrender. Liberty is much harder get/keep.
    25. Re:Hunger diet by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      Indeed. I can think of a few studies that refute the statements by the ACs above.
      I had red meat with extra butter for lunch. I cheated a little and added four pickled chilli peppers because they're tasty, even though they're vegetables.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    26. Re:Hunger diet by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 2

      The reverse is true. The long period of fasting associated with once-a-day eating tends to lead to reduced insulin during the day, enabling the fat cells to release FFAs and promote fat burning.

      Eating all day keeps the insulin high all day, telling the fat cells to hang on to their fat and make more from all the excess glucose in the blood stream. Unless you stick to eating only fat with a little protein.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    27. Re:Hunger diet by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      I have a home office so... I actually kick my chair out and do sit ups, squats, toe touches, leg lifts, and cat rolls {yeah I know my wife laughs too}.

      I do up to number 12. The hardest part is getting into a habit of doing it everyday and not stopping. 15 - 20 repetitions 3 times a day don't even break a sweat.

      http://www.webmd.com/back-pain/lower-back-pain-10/slideshow-exercises

    28. Re:Hunger diet by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      Oh and yeah I do know that some of these are not recommended but I've not had back surgery or any other back condition... I just happened to be out of shape from sitting at a desk all the time and had noticed that it was taking a toll on my waist and that when I did a lot of physical work I would have sore muscles.

    29. Re:Hunger diet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Serious question: Do you eat BIG eggs and meat (i.e., that which comes with antibiotics and hormones) or do you angle toward organic/grassfed/yadayada?

      You might be interested to know that there's research in the last ten years that supports your diet. It's not all "Ornish."

    30. Re:Hunger diet by greg1104 · · Score: 1

      Counting calories and/or exercising doesn't work. Never had, never will. Your body's fat regulation has too many feedback mechanisms for varying calories to matter very much. Check out "Why We Get Fat: And What to Do About It" by Gary Taubes if you want to get a referenced look at debunked ideas in this area.

    31. Re:Hunger diet by _xen · · Score: 1

      If you're hungry, you're on a fad diet. ... When you're hungry, eat. When you're not hungry, stop eating. It's that simple

      So I have to go an on fad diet before I'm ever allowed to eat?! Wow, I'm definitely not buying your book!

    32. Re:Hunger diet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How unconvineint it must be for you with the overwhelming amount of clinical studies that *all* (not a single one has failed to prove this) show that calories in/out work in healthy adults with normal eating habits.

    33. Re:Hunger diet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you're hungry, eat. When you're not hungry, stop eating. It's that simple, you're not going to overeat if you resolve to not eat after your hunger has been satiated.

      No, it's not that simple for many people. For those people the sense of being "not hungry" doesn't appear until it's too late and overeating has already occurred. A better method is required for those. Your advice is sound in general, but for many people that generality isn't enough, unfortunately.

    34. Re:Hunger diet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're not hungry, don't eat
      If you're hungry, eat.
      When you're not hungry anymore, stop eating.

      The above is terrible advice, actually. It is good advice only if what you are eating is nutritive. If what you are eating is bread and/or other refined carbohydrates, this advice will make you fat. Breads and other garbage foods will fill you up with calories and not leave you feeling full. In order to feel full, you have to have fiber and fat.

    35. Re:Hunger diet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How unconvineint it must be for you with the overwhelming amount of clinical studies that *all* (not a single one has failed to prove this) show that calories in/out work in healthy adults with normal eating habits.

      You, sir, are a buffoon. The type of calories and when you eat them is far more important than the caloric count. If you eat a 1000 calorie breakfast, skip lunch, and eat a 1000 calorie dinner, you will gain more bodyfat than someone who eats 6 meals of 400 calories each.

    36. Re:Hunger diet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Counting calories and/or exercising doesn't work. Never had, never will.

      You're an idiot. Of course exercising works. Counting calories can be an effective way to reduce gains in bodyfat, but exercise is a proven winner.

  5. Hah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Author Joe Kutner observes that nearly every popular diet fails and the reason is that they are based on the premise of a quick fix without focusing on the long-term core issues.

    Nothing wrong with a quick fix, but the weight also needs to be maintained. Or you snap right back.

    1. Re:Hah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup, that is my current trial. A few years or so I simply reduced the calories I was eating and dropped a good 25 pounds, but it took time to do. However, I was in a good place to do that. I didn't have ready access to food at work, and what there was of it, I had to pay through the nose for. Eat 2000 calories a day, and no more. No matter what.

      Now, I'm at a new job where they are always feeding us free food and I'm across the street from a supermarket. I find myself unable to rely on simply allowing my surroundings to keep me from overeating and the weight isn't completely back, but I need to revise my strategy because it is going up again substantially.

      My solution was not a quick fix, it took months to get all that weight off, but it does show that you have to really get yourself in the right frame of mind and in the right habits to make sure there is no temptation to overeat. And overeating is very, very easy to do if you like food. You have to take your failures with your successes and just keep on doing it. I have no doubt that I'll be back down where I want to be, but I know I'll need to take the time to do it.

      What I would suggest are not "diet" books, but rather sources of information where you can determine what you can eat to get all the nutrition you need, and what a healthy weight/body fat index might be for your height/body type. I do find cookbooks that can give you tasty meal options with the right nutrients and portion sizes are useful. Certainly, no need for special "diet" food unless you have specific issues and are under medical care. I actually lost all of my 25 pounds drinking normal soda and eating just about whatever I wanted. I don't know if I would suggest that for everyone, but it is doable.

  6. Poor western health happens for a reason by intermodal · · Score: 2

    Dieting is problematic for one huge reason. People generally go about it in the most unhealthy of ways. Balance and portion control elude much of the West in this day and age. I know I'm certainly guilty of it, and I feel crappy healthwise.

    Sitting is a huge problem too. Long commutes are similarly problematic. People often neglect to realize how much time they spend just sitting at the office, only to sit for 45 minutes or more both on the way to and from work, and then what little time is left is spent largely sitting at home.

    Weather is also problematic, especially in climates where spending time outside is often impractical. The heat of Texas and the cold of some other region I've never lived in are made further difficult by the relative ease of Western life today. Gone are the days when outdoors is usually more pleasant than indoors in hot weather thanks to A/C, and modern heating soruces have all but eliminated the reason to be outside during cold winters except to get to and from heated vehicles. As a result, it's harder to handle the outside temperatures as one never acclimates to it.

    --
    In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
  7. calories consumed = calories needed by _UnderTow_ · · Score: 4, Informative

    There's an almost magic weight loss formula I've followed that just works. I was going to write a book about it, but as it turns out it would be more of a pamphlet or brochure in length.

    Just make sure the following is true: calories consumed
    I've been monitoring my calorie intake using a free app (My Fitness Pal) and it's been working great. I can scan barcode for just about anything that has one (it sometimes doesn't find odd things I might purchase in, say, an Asian Grocery). You punch in what your goal weight is, and how much you want to lose per week and it calculates your calorie intake and keeps track of how much of various nutrients you're getting (Sodium, Potassium, etc).

    I told the app I wanted to lose 2 pounds per week, and over 15 weeks lost exactly 30 pounds. It takes a bit of discipline, but it helps develop the habits you'll need to keep the weight off.

    1. Re:calories consumed = calories needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This generally works for a large swath of people. However, there are a lot of factors that can make understanding how many calories you need difficult. You need to know your basil metabolic rate to really do this. If you are changing your excersize habits at the same time, this metobolic rate will not be a static value by a long shot.

    2. Re:calories consumed = calories needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was waiting for you to tell m how much money you made from home as well...

    3. Re:calories consumed = calories needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There's an almost magic weight loss formula I've followed that just works. I was going to write a book about it, but as it turns out it would be more of a pamphlet or brochure in length.

      Just make sure the following is true: calories consumed [crickets chirping]

      Bahahaha. Yep, (calories.consumed) returns 1. I better start losing weight by the end of the day.

    4. Re:calories consumed = calories needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      For a lot of people, eating only what their body needs leaves them feeling hungry all the time. That feels different for everybody. I don't mind feeling hungry. I actually prefer it over feeling full. When my wife is hungry, she feels MISERABLE.

      So the key to a lot of these diets is finding food that's bulky, slow to digest, yet still low in calories. A healthy low calorie dinner doesn't do her any good if she's starving two hours later.

    5. Re:calories consumed = calories needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was going to write a book about it, but as it turns out it would be more of a pamphlet or brochure in length.

      You could still write it, and release it for free on Internet.

    6. Re:calories consumed = calories needed by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      You need to know your basil metabolic rate to really do this.

      That's no problem. I'll head to the greenhouse right away.

    7. Re:calories consumed = calories needed by ljw1004 · · Score: 2

      I can scan barcode for just about anything that has one (it sometimes doesn't find odd things I might purchase in, say, an Asian Grocery).

      How many people have diets that fit into this "scan barcode" thing? Doesn't it require that you fall into a "industrialized food" diet, full of prepackaged stuff? Here's my diet from yesterday. I haven't been able to find any app that makes it convenient to type in...

      Most of the dishes we make from scratch, from items we bought in bulk, with things like butter and olive oil and salt added to taste. That means it's a pain to look everything up by name on the computer, a pain to weigh out the amounts of everything we make, a pain to type those amounts in, and a pain to figure out how much of each serving dish I took vs how much my wife took.

      BREAKFAST: rolled oats cooked in a saucepan for the whole family, cooked with some mixture of milk and water by my wife, of which I take a portion size that seems right and add currants to taste. [I can find the calorie values for oats, water, currants, but don't have a clue how much I consumed]

      LUNCH: my wife prepared a sandwich of rye bread with herring fillets from ikea and a bit of spreadable cheese, then a bag with chopped up carrots from our CSA-box (Community Supported Agriculture), and two unusually small pears, and a peach. [I can find calorie values for bread, but not for individual pieces of fish, and my wife didn't weigh out the cheese, and I have no idea how many carrots I ate].

      DINNER: a bunch of swiss chard including stems, cooked in some olive oil, then flambe'd with whiskey, then adding more oil or vinegar or salt to taste, shared amongst the family where we don't all measure it. Some boiled rice which again I didn't weigh. A CSA lettuce with some cornichons and olives thrown in, mixed with olive oil and balsamic vinegar, to taste, and divided amongst the family. A slice of the apple crumble that my wife cooked last night, not from recipe.

    8. Re:calories consumed = calories needed by MozeeToby · · Score: 1

      It's actually very simple to calculate your metabolic rate at home. Weigh yourself daily, track your calories daily, continue doing so until you can pick an accurate starting and ending weight, keeping in mind that A) your body weight fluctuates up to 5lbs from day to day based on what you've had to eat or drink and B) just the act of writing down your calories is probably going to cause you to lose weight. Once you have a start and end weight, take the sum of all the calories you've eaten over that time period and subtract your weight delta (in lbs) times 3500 (approximate number of calories in 1lb of fat), then divide by the number of days. There, your average calorie burn over that time period, accurate to a couple percentage points unless you had radical weight change (gaining lots of muscle mass for instance).

      Lets say weigh yourself at day 1 to be 190lbs and at day 30 to be 185, and you eat 2700 calories per day. You ate 81000 Calories (2700 * 30). You lost 17500 (5 * 3500) Calories worth of fat. Your metabolic rate is (81000 + 17500) / 30 days = 3283 Calories per day.

      Then, you can say you want to lose 2lbs per week (about as fast as you want to lose weight if you don't want to be miserable). 2lbs means you need to cut 7k Calories per week, so 1k per day. You can eat ~2300 Calories per day. You continue tracking calories, continuing weighing yourself, and continue adjusting the Calorie intake accordingly to adjust for changes in metabolism along the way. And guess what? All the crap about what you eat and when and how it affects your metabolism? Doesn't matter, because it's all tailored directly and perfectly to you and your lifestyle. And besides, if you hold hard and fast to your daily Calorie targets you'll learn really quick that a cheeseburger and fries for lunch isn't worth being hungry the rest of the day.

    9. Re:calories consumed = calories needed by cwarrior · · Score: 2

      I'll second the value of using myfitnespal. It's cross-platform and much of the data is contributed. Very powerful software that works surprisingly well. Don't have a source, but I've heard that people who journal their food intake are twice as likely to lose weight over those who do not journal. For many, just keeping a record of how much you consume helps keep it under control. Adding light to moderate exercise on top of it, and that's 90% of everything you need to know to effectively lose weight.

    10. Re:calories consumed = calories needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, this doesn't work for everyone.

      Let's ignore the myriad biological feedbacks that try to keep weight steady, and how they change your metabolic rate.

      Let's ignore the hormone effects of caloric restriction. ... a "calorie" consumed isn't constant depending on time of day. gut health, macronutrient concentration, etc.

      CICO doesn't work, especially if you have a deranged metabolism.

    11. Re:calories consumed = calories needed by sunderland56 · · Score: 1

      LUNCH: .... rye .... cheese ....

      DINNER: .... whiskey .... oil .... salt .... apple crumble ....

      Let me guess.... you're a computer programmer, right?

    12. Re:calories consumed = calories needed by ljw1004 · · Score: 1

      :) I am. I never realized I ate such predictable foods!

    13. Re:calories consumed = calories needed by demonlapin · · Score: 2

      Or just find foods that sate, like protein and fat. Keto diet isn't for everyone, but if you haven't tried it and you want to lose weight, you should give it a run.

    14. Re:calories consumed = calories needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't help much if you aren't measuring the portions, but I've found that for things I make often enough the following site helps:

      http://nutritiondata.self.com/

    15. Re:calories consumed = calories needed by _UnderTow_ · · Score: 1

      Yes, not everything has a barcode, but the app I'm using has a search function that allows you to either add the ingredients or the food item if the barcode is unavailable (at a restaurant for example). You can can also save a given meal or food item for easy addition later. I frequently make Thai Curry from store-bought curry paste. The paste itself has a negligible amount of calories, and is less calorie dense than coconut milk. So I just scanned the barcode for the that, added in some ballpark figures for whatever vegetables I added, and logged how much meat and rice I used. Now whenever I eat that, I can just go to my pre-saved meal and adjust the amount of rice or curry sauce I use and I'm good to go.

      Your measurements don't have to be exact. When I guess at something I try to err on the side of logging more than I actually ate. Doing otherwise is really just lying to yourself.

    16. Re:calories consumed = calories needed by _UnderTow_ · · Score: 1

      I have no statistics to back this up, but I'd guess that for the vast majority of people CICO (Calories In Calories Out) works just fine.

      As I said in my original post, for the first 15 weeks I did this I lost 30 pounds. The ONLY thing I looked at was how many calories I consumed and I kept my intake at or near what MyFitnessPal suggested. Some days I was over, some days I was under. On average I stuck to the limit and the graph of how much weight I lost was an almost straight line.

      My wife had an exactly similar experience. We both started at the same time and after the same period of time passed we had each lost the same amount of weight. Any of my friends that started using the app, and honestly followed the calorie limits saw similar weight loss.

    17. Re:calories consumed = calories needed by _UnderTow_ · · Score: 1

      After dieting for a while and logging what I ate, I started avoiding calorie dense foods like rice and breads. They put me too close to my daily limit, too fast.

      I found myself eating a lot of fresh vegetables and I avoided eating beef (one of the more calorie dense meats). It's really pretty simple.

    18. Re:calories consumed = calories needed by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 1

      I'm a myFitnessPal user as well, and I'm very much in the same boat that you're in.
      Very rarely did the barcode feature come in handy, and entering meals made from scratch is rather annoying.
      You have to look up each ingredient in myFitnessPal's database and enter in the quantity manually. Unless, of course, you prefer to simply create a new entry in their database for whatever food/ingredient you're working with. It's a bit cumbersome when you just want to know the stats for an avocado and myFitnessPal has 20 different entries for avocado, some wildly different than others (for the same serving size).

      When you're in this situation, things can go one of three ways:
      1) You stop using myFitnessPal because it's annoying and time consuming.
      2) You keep using myFitnessPal and spend a lot of time itemizing your diet.
      3) You keep using myFitnessPal and end up discovering some surprisingly low-calorie nutritious meals that are actually delicious, which you find yourself making very regularly

      My own experience was a bit of 2) followed by mostly 3). I prefer deliciousness over variety, so I eat a variant of BLT for dinner almost every day. Since I eat it so regularly, it's already in my myFitnessPal cache, and re-entering it is only a couple taps on my phone. Of course entering it for the first time was a huge chore, but now it really isn't that bad at all.

      Basically, if what you ate yesterday is what you frequently eat, myFitnessPal will only steal an hour of your life once. All subsequent days with these meals will only take you a minute or two to log. If, on the other hand, your diet varies quite a bit, you'll likely find little use for myFitnessPal unless you're truly obsessed with your health or you have a life with lots and lots and lots of leisure time.

      For me, it works. It really opened my eyes to problem areas in my diet (who knew Dogfish Head IPAs had so many god damn calories?!) and helped me identify meals that I really enjoy that are exceptionally nutritious and low in calories. It allowed me to target some low-hanging fruit and lose 20 pounds in 6 months. I've since stopped using it, but have taken away a number of lessons in staying healthy.

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    19. Re:calories consumed = calories needed by _UnderTow_ · · Score: 1

      MyFitnessPal allows you to set your activity levels. When I started I chose 'Sedentary' and I left it there for the entire period of my weight loss, as I wanted to err on the side of caution.

    20. Re:calories consumed = calories needed by ljw1004 · · Score: 1

      I totally experienced your (3). There's a "healthy raw-food vegan" restaurant near where we live which makes delicious Tiramisu. We'd always assumed it was healthy as well as delicious because of where it comes from. We bought the recipe, made it, felt very proud of making such a healthy delicious dish. A while later we entered the raw ingredients into Livestrong's "MyPlate" and got an incredible figure of 700 calories per portion, most of it fat. Wow.

    21. Re:calories consumed = calories needed by greg1104 · · Score: 1

      CICO does not work in the long term for the majority of people. Everyone who has statistics says so. The idea that it's useful is a pop culture phenomenon. Most of the weight loss in the first few months of an exercise program are water.

      Both diet and exercise changes can lose fat that way for a while. Your body will fight you to return the lost weight eventually though. There's really no proof CICO works at all in the long term. There's a long list of studies debunking each angle of the problem (and how the wrong ideas spread) detailed in "Why We Get Fat: And What to Do About It" by Gary Taubes I can't do justice to here. Data since that was published, like the 2011 Harvard study results, continue to show CICO is busted in all kinds of ways as a useful model.

    22. Re:calories consumed = calories needed by russotto · · Score: 1

      Calories In Calories Out has one major flaw, and that's the inability to actually measure calories out, which is in part a function of calories in. It also has the usual flaws of dieting, which is that few dieters accurately and honestly measure food intake.

    23. Re:calories consumed = calories needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Besides some less frequent cases most of would do with some mild exercise, making regular pauses in your work even if just to go to the kitchen to get a coffee, standing at workplace is also good, balanced diet etc, and common sense approach to the problem. I do not mind having a bit of a belly if my mood is good and I feel OK. I do exercise, I walk a lot, I try to avoid frustration coming from reading about all the miracle diets and quite frankly going one sided diet cannot be right and it seems they indeed are not. I find quest for a pill or some other wonder without hard work is just silly. OC if your only exercise is keyboard typing and tv watching then you will gain weight and your heart will get sick much earlier than it should. I can imagine even if you do keto-diet without fixing your bad habits you will have a problem anyway.

    24. Re:calories consumed = calories needed by fuzzyf · · Score: 1

      I used to think that myself. But then I started researching some facts and now I'm not so sure. Calories used to be calculated based on how much heat it produced when burned. Since we don't crap ashes it would seem that this process is a bit inaccurate.

      Also; the body needs some fattcy acids (ex. Omega-3) that it can't produce itself. What happens when the food you eat contains these acids? are they converted to energy or are they being used in a different manner?

      I don't think this is as simple as some people think.

    25. Re:calories consumed = calories needed by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      YMMV, of course, but I dropped 80 lbs (275->195) in seven months without exercise, without calorie counting, and without portion control, and have maintained that loss for ten months, solely by eliminating almost all carbohydrate from my diet. I do eat green vegetables ad lib and cautious amounts of tomato and onion, and I drink whiskey and vodka when I feel like it.

    26. Re:calories consumed = calories needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A) your body weight fluctuates up to 5lbs from day to day based on what you've had to eat or drink

      I find that weighing myself only at a particular time of day greatly reduces the amount of fluctuation. I weigh myself after I've had breakfast, a shit and a shower and find my weight is pretty consistent from day to day.

    27. Re:calories consumed = calories needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When my wife is hungry, she feels MISERABLE.

      Tell her to stop eating so much bread and other simple carbohydrates. Tell her to eat more fiber: nuts, chickpeas, lentils, coconut flour, fruits, vegetables. Problem solved.

  8. Good premise, but too much work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm lazy.

  9. Didn't we just... by barlevg · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Didn't we just have an article this morning (EST) about how Twinkies were the programmer's "Breakfast of Champions?"

    1. Re:Didn't we just... by Steve_Ussler · · Score: 0

      Want to make the correlations? Sitting programmers, high carbs.no wonder diabetes is epidemic.

    2. Re:Didn't we just... by Valdrax · · Score: 1

      Someone doesn't get self-deprecating humor.

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
  10. Slashdotted by jonyen · · Score: 1

    Only one more paperback copy left in stock on Amazon! (as of this posting)

  11. magnet please? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ok you convinced me, where do i download it from?
    I hope you're not expecting me to pay for it

    1. Re:magnet please? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope you're not expecting me to pay for it

      It does not matter anyway, as no one loses anything if you make a copy.

    2. Re:magnet please? by nullchar · · Score: 1

      It does not matter anyway, as no one loses anything if you make a copy.

      Except your waistline!

  12. The Hacker's Diet by jones_supa · · Score: 3, Informative

    Well, as we are looking at the category of "diets tailored for programmers", I guess The Hacker's Diet is an obligatory mention. I guess most of you know that book already though. Tell me if you know any others.

    1. Re:The Hacker's Diet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where's the book for 'diets tailored for programs, how to reduce bloated code'

  13. Re:Don't eat so goddamned much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you've obviously never worked out AC.

  14. Balance exercise with diet by ackthpt · · Score: 1

    To clear my head and take my mind off the predicaments of coding I try to get regular exercise. I'm fortunate enough to live near several very large open space parks, state parks and county parks.

    I hiked about 8 miles in the mountains on Sunday. You can't exert energy like that and then eat and drink garbage, your body knows what it needs and tells you by rather convincing means. Headaches, cramps, lethargy and such are symptomatic of eating poorly. A bag of chips and a soda after a 90 mile bike ride is guaranteed to make me utterly ill. Fruit and raw almonds after exertion along with water replace energy, protein and electrolytes which have been consumed in effort.

    Sitting at the desk and slogging through code isn't much different than muscle exerting - the brain seeks it's own fuel, quite a bit of sugar, but I find processed sugar gives me sugar rushes and headaches, followed by lethargy. Fruit sugar works more effectively and goes into the blood quicker. Tea rather than overstrong coffee or soda (with its high fructose corn syrup) I try to avoid. Marathon development sessions go more smoothly when I resist the urge to eat fried foods, sugar glazed stuff, too much salt and beverages which overly stimulate me - I don't need no stinkin' "energy" drinks (instant ice tea and Tang are more effective anyway and way cheaper.)

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    1. Re:Balance exercise with diet by rwa2 · · Score: 1

      This.

      Go find some exercise you enjoy, and set up a routine where you get to do it. Your body will adjust (over 6-12 months) to whatever shape you need to do that exercise more effectively.

      Fad / deficiency / hunger / starvation diets just trigger your body to go into "hoarding mode", as you were evolved to do to get through a few months of winter scarcity. Keep your metabolism up by feeding yourself well and exercising well, and you'll train your body to just take what it needs and pass the rest.

      I think most nerds are just too bored with most gyms and exercise routines. Hiking / biking / exploring is a great way to make exercise more cerebral. Also you might enjoy enrolling in some form of Martial Arts (though certainly shop around for good school that isn't too focused on sparring and beating people up) where you can concentrate on translating the wisdom of the ancients into modern physics and biomechanics hacks.

    2. Re:Balance exercise with diet by ackthpt · · Score: 1

      This.

      Go find some exercise you enjoy, and set up a routine where you get to do it. Your body will adjust (over 6-12 months) to whatever shape you need to do that exercise more effectively.

      Fad / deficiency / hunger / starvation diets just trigger your body to go into "hoarding mode", as you were evolved to do to get through a few months of winter scarcity. Keep your metabolism up by feeding yourself well and exercising well, and you'll train your body to just take what it needs and pass the rest.

      I think most nerds are just too bored with most gyms and exercise routines. Hiking / biking / exploring is a great way to make exercise more cerebral. Also you might enjoy enrolling in some form of Martial Arts (though certainly shop around for good school that isn't too focused on sparring and beating people up) where you can concentrate on translating the wisdom of the ancients into modern physics and biomechanics hacks.

      I practiced Tae Kwon Do for about a year and a half, until my left knee limited my advancement. The master of the school was adamant any reports of students using their knowledge to harm others or even show off was ground for permanent expulsion (so popular was the school there was only room for so many students.) Focus on patterns and form in practice was so total it was terrific for clearing the mind. Sometimes you just need to let go of perplexing problems so when you embrace them again you do so with a fresh look often seeing the obvious which was overlooked at the cost of much frustration.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    3. Re:Balance exercise with diet by camperdave · · Score: 1

      You can't exert energy like that and then eat and drink garbage, your body knows what it needs and tells you by rather convincing means. Headaches, cramps, lethargy and such...

      I'd rather it tell me what it needs by inducing a halo effect around the required food along with an auditory hallucination of a choir singing "Ah".

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    4. Re:Balance exercise with diet by s122604 · · Score: 1

      "The master of the school was adamant any reports of students using their knowledge to harm others"

      That's ok, if you ever tried using Tae Kwon Do in a street fight against and even moderately physically fit/skilled opponent you'd just end up on your backside getting choked/pummled anyways....

    5. Re:Balance exercise with diet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      another use case for google glass it seems!

  15. Not a new concept by dkleinsc · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The Hacker's Diet did this quite a while ago.

    The concept is pretty simple: To lose weight, eat fewer calories than you burn. To not gain weight, eat only as much as you burn. You can increase how much you burn with exercise, or you can decrease how much you eat, or both. Anything else as far as dieting is concerned is window dressing.

    --
    I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    1. Re:Not a new concept by djupedal · · Score: 1

      +1 mod up.

    2. Re:Not a new concept by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can also lose weight by laying in a bed 24/ and being tube feed like 700 calories a day. It's a really shitty thing to do to your body though and absolutely terrible for your health. Claiming that you can just 'eat less calories' and be healthy isn't entirely correct.

    3. Re:Not a new concept by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      Anything else as far as dieting is concerned is window dressing.

      Except how to do it sustainably.

      Sure the easiest way to lose weight? Stop eating. Since your body needs 2000-2500 calories a day, you should magically lose a few bounds over the course of the week.

      Of course, you'll feel terrible and look just awful and temptation gets to you pretty damn quick.

      So while the magic is to eat less than you consume, the real trick is doing so in such a way that you don't feel hungry all the time, and to do it so once you've lost the weight, you don't put it back on again (most people who diet end up getting the weight back - it's called yo-yo dieting and no, it's not healthy).

      And of course, to counter human psychology - so you're not constantly craving "what you cannot have".

      That's the real trick to dieting - and it's not as simple as it might appear. All diets work the same way and have the same goals - but each one has attempted to find a way to ensure that you stick with the diet, that you don't feel hungry all the time (and end up snacking excessively), that you don't fall into temptation and pig out on your favorite food, etc. And of course, to do so in a healthy way.

      That's why there are so many diet books - each one tries to solve it a different way.

    4. Re:Not a new concept by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But not the poster who said the same thing earlier, 3 comments up?

    5. Re:Not a new concept by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Simple. Except when it isn't.

      Lack of exercise will compromise your ability to burn off fat even when you cut calories.
      If you cut too much or too quickly, your body will compensate by becoming more efficient at using the calories you ingest to meet it's needs -- starvation mode -- resulting in hitting a weight-loss "plateau".
      If you attempt to get around this by cutting even more calories, you'll force your body to lose fat but it will also burn large amounts of muscle tissue as it tries to hold on to as much fat as it can.
      Loss of muscle tissue results in needing fewer daily calories perpetuating a vicious cycle.

      So yeah, you can lose weight by eating fewer calories. You can also do it in the worst way possible and still be fat and feel terrible when you finally give up.

    6. Re:Not a new concept by epine · · Score: 1

      The concept is pretty simple: To lose weight, eat fewer calories than you burn. To not gain weight, eat only as much as you burn. You can increase how much you burn with exercise, or you can decrease how much you eat, or both. Anything else as far as dieting is concerned is window dressing.

      This gets moderated insightful? Have you people lost your minds? Visit earth much?

      Okay, sale at Macy's on thermodynamic bounding boxes. Dioxans, I hear, from the thin aliens on the squishy planet Dioxan Monohydride, eliminate long term weigth gain with a single dose. There's just this tiny issue with life expectancy and expectation of quality of living.

      OMG! A system with two criteria that doesn't boil down to a pocket protector inscribed with the zeroth law of thermodynamics. But, as usual, we have a class of solutions to problems with living smug with living less. Not that your average geek would notice.

      Let's see here. My cellphone battery only holds a charge for 15 minutes. What should I do? The math is simple. If electrons in exceed electrons out, the phone won't run out of juice. Basic electron caloried counting. Next question? I could do this all day. What, you don't want to plug your phone in every fifteen minutes? Sucks to be you. My fat metobolism works just fine. I'm young and stupid. You should have bought a Samsung. All problems in life are solved by correct brand allegience.

      The actual problem with diets is that many people have disregulated fat metabolism. This is hard to fix once it happens. All arrows point to excess consumption of simple carbohydrates, especially in liquid form, and particularly the sugar fructose. Sound familiar?

      Even the people who state categorically that HFCS is exactly the same as sucrose (they live in the same thermodynamic bounding box, after all) are ignoring the possibility of HFCS interacting hormonally with the intestinal wall.

      Unfortunately, Gary Taubes is an idiot. For a while it was looking like a bandwagon with my name on it. But he just wants to take the debate way to far in the opposite direction, where he pretends that net caloric balance isn't even worth discussing. There's no room for that attitude in science, Gary. Try again.

      Here's the real reason your cell phone battery won't hold a charge. It's because you charge it too often. Avoid rooms with wall outlets, and your problem will go away.

    7. Re:Not a new concept by hsthompson69 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Fat accumulation isn't driven by caloric intake levels, it's driven by insulin.

      If you consume calories which drive insulin up, you'll accumulate more fat. Consume calories which don't drive insulin up, and you won't accumulate more fat.

      The concept is pretty simple: to lose weight, don't consume calories that cause fat accumulation. We call these "carbohydrates".

    8. Re:Not a new concept by dkleinsc · · Score: 2

      In my experience, all the various diets run into the same problem: whatever you cut out of your diet, you crave, eventually eat, and then yo-yo right back to where you were. That makes complete sense from an evolutionary standpoint - someone who is obese can survive famines and still manage to reproduce despite their obesity-related medical problems, whereas someone who is starving can't manage to do that. Whatever you aren't eating is exactly what your body will start to crave in the hopes that you'll make the extra effort to find that particular nutrient.

      Some things that have so far helped me stay disciplined:
      - Shop for food immediately after eating a meal. By not being hungry, it's a lot easier to stay disciplined about it. Also, having a shopping list prevents impulse buying of junk.
      - Make your own food, don't eat out or have it delivered.
      - Take your time, and don't try to lose the weight too quickly. 1 pound a week is much more effective and sustainable loss rate than trying for 5 pounds in a week.
      - Still eat the variety of non-junk food you ate when you weren't dieting. That prevents the cravings for particular kinds of food.
      - Expect to screw up at least once. Go right back to doing what you were doing.
      - For snacks, raw vegetables are the way to go. For example, 1 cookie has more calories than an entire cucumber. Also, not very much raw onion will stop your appetite right up.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    9. Re:Not a new concept by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This is not true.

      What you eat and how you eat it will affect your weight independent of the calories consumed. For example any simple sugars (sugar, potatoes, white flour, etc.) will lead to more weight gain than, say, an equal amount of fresh vegetables (that is, not canned or frozen) and consuming food faster will always lead to a higher weight gain. This is tied into insulin.

      Your body will also react differently depending on what you eat and how you eat it. For example, if you suddenly stop eating your body will lose less weight than if you gradually taper off by an equal amount.

      Calories in and calories out is important, but your body isn't a black box steam engine---all kinds of things affect the manner in which your body reacts to what you put into it other than calories. Genetics of course comes into this. To say that calories is all that matter is pure, utter ignorance.

    10. Re:Not a new concept by OptimalCynic · · Score: 1

      You didn't read the link, did you. The Hacker's Diet addresses those issues.

    11. Re:Not a new concept by cjjjer · · Score: 1

      ^^^ this
      - Exercise multiple times a day but at shorter intervals.

      I exercise 3 times a day, in the morning it is 30 min of basic stretching and light cardio, at noon I go for a 20 min brisk walk when I can and at night I do 30 - 40 min of high cardio. I find that this is way more maintainable than in a gym for 60+ minutes at a time.

    12. Re:Not a new concept by Valdrax · · Score: 2

      Like most simple, reductionist concepts, The Hacker's Diet falls short on the details.

      It fails to account for the endocrine system and the fact that not all calories are equivalent from a health and weight gain perspective. It fails to account for cravings, managing willpower reserves, and sustainability. It fails to account for the many health benefits of exercise independent of losing weight -- you're better off being a bit fat and exercising than being thin and sedentary. It also fails to account for shifting metabolism with age.

      It assumes that you have the simple *willpower* to stick to a strict calorie control system. Calorie control alone is the most failure prone form of dieting, because it's miserable. If you have the willpower to make it on a calorie counting system, you have the willpower to make it on more nutritionally focused diets.

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    13. Re:Not a new concept by Mazda6s · · Score: 1

      Mmmm...dressing...

    14. Re:Not a new concept by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Agreed.It's amazing how the food industry fooled everyone into thinking that lipids were the bad guy making everyone fat, when all evidence seems to show that it's the abundance of carbs causing the problem.

      Every single person I know who has restricted carbs to 1-2 days a week only has seen incredible success in managing their weight - a gradual loss of weight that does not come back. It's a mostly ketogenic diet, like what they put some epileptic kids on, but with a weekly "cheat day" where one can consume as many carbs as desired, which helps reset the metabolism and prevents the body from going all the way into ketosis, which can be hard on the kidneys (as evidenced by the high rate of kidney stones for those on ketogenic diets).

      It's actually interesting in my wife's case, as once a year she has a "cheat week" where she eats carbs all week long. It's really remarkable to see how fast she gains and subsequently loses weight once she returns to her normal carb-restricted diet.

      --
      :(){ :|:& };:
    15. Re:Not a new concept by camperdave · · Score: 1

      There's more to safe weight loss than calorie balance.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    16. Re:Not a new concept by quantaman · · Score: 1

      Fat accumulation isn't driven by caloric intake levels, it's driven by insulin.

      If you consume calories which drive insulin up, you'll accumulate more fat. Consume calories which don't drive insulin up, and you won't accumulate more fat.

      The concept is pretty simple: to lose weight, don't consume calories that cause fat accumulation. We call these "carbohydrates".

      Which is completely consistent with the potato diet, where people eat nothing but potatoes that are pure carbs with a higher glycemic index than sugar, consistently causing people to lose a ton of weight.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    17. Re:Not a new concept by Bob+Hearn · · Score: 1

      Not going to get into all the arguments here. Yes, it is more complicated in detail than the simple model Walker lays out. But in practice, *if* you count calories as prescribed, *then* the model is good enough.

      I'd like to provide an update here. I read about the Hacker's Diet first on Slashdot, in fall 1999. I followed it, and during 2000 I lost 50 pounds. I've kept it off for 13 years now. A few years later I started running. I've now run 96 marathons and ultramarathons, heading towards my 10th consecutive Boston Marathon, I've broken 3 hours four times, and I've run three 100 milers, including Western States. Couldn't be happier with that part of my life.

      The running has been a bigger life change than losing weight. But I couldn't have done it, no way, without losing the weight first. And I have the Hacker's Diet to thank for that.

      And yes, running 60-70 miles / week, I *still* have to count calories.

    18. Re:Not a new concept by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This arguably makes a lot of sense in nature. Food cycles in nature aren't always consistent, one day of the week certain foods maybe abundant and another day of the week other foods maybe more abundant and other days there maybe no food. So the body tries to prepare itself by storing energy and certain nutrients on =days that certain foods and nutrients are abundant so that it can use them all up during days that they're not.

      The body isn't used to having the same types of foods every day. In fact, one can look at it from an exercising perspective. When lifting weights do you do arms every day? No, one day you do arms and the next you do legs (or whatever your workout regimen happens to be) and you do need a day of rest. It's the same thing with nutrition. Too much of one nutrient or type of food overwhelms the body and its ability to absorb it and deprives the body of other nutrients. You can't live off carrots alone, you need other things and too much of any one thing is bad (poison almost). So what you need to do is alternate so that the body can alternatively absorb and store different types of nutrients to use what it needs when it needs it. By allowing the body to focus on a narrower range of nutrients each day while ignoring the nutrients it has stored the body can better activate specialized processes to absorb those nutrients without being overwhelmed with nutrients it already has and the need to dispel them.

    19. Re:Not a new concept by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that that is wrong.

      The difference between diets has basically no effect on normal healthy individuals when compared to calorie intake/output. You *can* get fat with protein/fat and you *can* lose weight with a diet consisting on 80% carbs.

      Statisitically there is no difference between the effectiveness of different popular diets in the long run. But scientifically the only one with a consistently proven body mechanic behind it is calorie in/out.

      Though for some people it will *feel* better to control calories by excluding carbohydrates while for others it will *feel* easier to only eat once per day. And while the way a diet makes you feel is important it doesn't mean that the explaination given for the weight loss is true.

    20. Re:Not a new concept by greggman · · Score: 1

      You'd think slashdotters would be smarter than this. Calories are a measure of heat. Gasoline has lots of calories. Magnesium has lots of calories. Neither will make you fat. Calories as a loose proxy for weight gain is vastly over simplified. The simple examples of gasoline and magnesium should make it clear that not all things you consume can be effectively turned into fat by your body

    21. Re:Not a new concept by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      I've been in ketosis for going on six years now, and never had any sort of kidney issue. In fact, my wife's kidneys, which had some signs of malfunction ever since her 20s, got *better*.

      Nutritional ketosis might not be for everyone, but I've yet to see any credible information showing that it is harmful in any way whatsoever.

    22. Re:Not a new concept by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      Consistently?

      Having someone who is insulin sensitive semi-starve themselves while eating only potatoes can certainly cause weight loss. Applying an isocaloric potato diet, increasing the % of carbohydrates, to someone who is insulin resistant is going to cause obesity.

    23. Re:Not a new concept by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      The only "calorie in/calorie out" that counts is the calories that are partitioned into fat accumulation, versus those that are partitioned into energy use. This is driven not by the gross amount of calories, but by the insulin response from those calories (and the insulin sensitivity/resistance of the subject).

      The second law of thermodynamics applies, but not at the macro level of "mouth/body", but rather the micro level of the fat cell.

      Scientifically, the only proven mechanic is the regulation of insulin levels.

    24. Re:Not a new concept by quantaman · · Score: 1

      Consistently?

      Having someone who is insulin sensitive semi-starve themselves while eating only potatoes can certainly cause weight loss. Applying an isocaloric potato diet, increasing the % of carbohydrates, to someone who is insulin resistant is going to cause obesity.

      I don't know about the insulin resistant population. But for the normal population if Taubes was right the insulin would snatch up all the carbs and put them straight into fat, so even if you were insulin sensitive a potato diet would cause you to get fat and have low energy.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    25. Re:Not a new concept by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      Actually, no, insulin resistance/sensitivity counts for a lot. Sort of a "square/rectangle" thing - not everyone with elevated insulin levels is going to get obese, but anyone who is obese is so because of elevated insulin levels.

      Lustig posits that insulin sensitivity is driven by fructose consumption and its effect on the liver, which seems plausible, but I'm sure a great deal of it has to do with genetics as well. There are bean pole skinny guys out there with high cholesterol and diabetes who don't have any fat accumulation problem, but still get all the other "benefits" of high insulin.

    26. Re:Not a new concept by quantaman · · Score: 1

      Actually, no, insulin resistance/sensitivity counts for a lot. Sort of a "square/rectangle" thing - not everyone with elevated insulin levels is going to get obese, but anyone who is obese is so because of elevated insulin levels.

      Lustig posits that insulin sensitivity is driven by fructose consumption and its effect on the liver, which seems plausible, but I'm sure a great deal of it has to do with genetics as well. There are bean pole skinny guys out there with high cholesterol and diabetes who don't have any fat accumulation problem, but still get all the other "benefits" of high insulin.

      About 28.5% of obese people are metabolically healthy (ie have normal insulin sensitivity). 70% is a long way from everyone, how'd that 28.5% get fat?

      --
      I stole this Sig
    27. Re:Not a new concept by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      You're editorializing - they didn't say they had normal insulin sensitivity, they said "Subjects included were 1,547 men and women (age range, 18-59 years), who were free of components of the metabolic syndrome except waist criteria."

      See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metabolic_syndrome#Definitions_and_diagnosis

      While EGIR has a definition for insulin resistance, none of the other definitions require it for a definition of metabolic syndrome. WHO lists it, but doesn't *require* it.

      The study itself claims this caveat:

      "It is rare to be insulin-resistant while subject’s blood glu- cose levels were less than 5.6 mmol/L, triglyceride http://apjcn.nhri.org.tw/server/APJCN/21/2/227.pdf

      The other question is "does waist criteria represent obesity"? I knew plenty of people who would've failed on the BMI scale, but did not have a fat accumulation problem. So while it's fairly provocative, I think the study fails to demonstrate what you editorialized in your link text.

    28. Re:Not a new concept by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/112/17/e285/T1.expansion.html

      Note the elevated waist requirement doesn't even factor in height:

      Elevated waist circumference*
      102 cm (40 inches) in men
      88 cm (35 inches) in women

      Hard to consider that an accurate proxy for a fat accumulation problem of obesity.

    29. Re:Not a new concept by quantaman · · Score: 1

      I don't know what definition they used but quotes from the study clearly indicate the MHO (metabolically healthy obese) had high insulin sensitivity.

      "Brochu and Karelis determined that MHO individuals lack most of the metabolic abnormalities, dis-play high levels of insulin sensitivity"

      "due to the absence of harmonized criteria, previous studies report MHO subjects to be 20-30% of obese subjects de-pending on the definition. Insulin sensitivity could be the key factor discriminating healthy from at-risk obese subjects."

      The other question is "does waist criteria represent obesity"? I knew plenty of people who would've failed on the BMI scale, but did not have a fat accumulation problem. So while it's fairly provocative, I think the study fails to demonstrate what you editorialized in your link text.

      A height requirement would be nice, but at 102 cm you're carrying a lot of fat no matter what height you are. I think it's really hard to take any conclusion from that study other than the fact it's possible to be fat and have high insulin sensitivity.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    30. Re:Not a new concept by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      Read the study directly, it'll be more informative for you than the abstract:

      http://apjcn.nhri.org.tw/server/APJCN/21/2/227.pdf

      "No data of serum insulin or hs- C-reactive protein (CRP) for further exclusion of metab- olically abnormality in our study was a limitation of re- search; therefore we adopted a metabolic syndrome crite- rion to exclude subjects with insulin resistant characters. It is rare to be insulin-resistant while subject’s blood glu- cose levels were less than 5.6 mmol/L, triglyceride 1.7 mmol/L, HDL-C 1.0 mmol/L in men, 1.3 mmol/L in women and blood pressure 130/85 mmHg."

      but at 102 cm you're carrying a lot of fat no matter what height you are.

      Again, an assertion, not an observation. The study doesn't purport to show what you think it does. What you're looking for is a clinical writeup of a single individual with a fat accumulation problem that doesn't have insulin resistance, or elevated insulin levels. This study clearly has limitations, including the critical statement "To date, there is no uniform definition for MHO."

    31. Re:Not a new concept by quantaman · · Score: 1

      Read the study directly, it'll be more informative for you than the abstract:

      http://apjcn.nhri.org.tw/server/APJCN/21/2/227.pdf

      "No data of serum insulin or hs- C-reactive protein (CRP) for further exclusion of metab- olically abnormality in our study was a limitation of re- search; therefore we adopted a metabolic syndrome crite- rion to exclude subjects with insulin resistant characters. It is rare to be insulin-resistant while subject’s blood glu- cose levels were less than 5.6 mmol/L, triglyceride 1.7 mmol/L, HDL-C 1.0 mmol/L in men, 1.3 mmol/L in women and blood pressure 130/85 mmHg."

      I did read directly, that's where I got my quotes :P

      (well I skimmed)

      So you're arguing that the 30% may have still been insulin resistant because they didn't test insulin resistance directly, just blood glucose levels and blood pressure.

      But as they said resistance without the glucose is rare, so I really have a tough time believing that it's actually on the order of 30%. So there's definitely insulin sensitive people in that group.

      but at 102 cm you're carrying a lot of fat no matter what height you are.

      Again, an assertion, not an observation. The study doesn't purport to show what you think it does. What you're looking for is a clinical writeup of a single individual with a fat accumulation problem that doesn't have insulin resistance, or elevated insulin levels. This study clearly has limitations, including the critical statement "To date, there is no uniform definition for MHO."

      102 cm at the waist is fat. 200 cm high is tall. Those are assertions I can live with :)

      This is also from Taiwan, I have trouble believing that 30% of people in Taiwan with a waist circumference in excess of 102 cm are not obese.

      As for a writeup of a fat person without insulin resistance or elevated insulin levels, why would someone do that clinical writeup if it's a completely ordinary phenomena?

      --
      I stole this Sig
    32. Re:Not a new concept by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      So you're arguing that the 30% may have still been insulin resistant because they didn't test insulin resistance directly, just blood glucose levels and blood pressure.

      Not only that, but they only tested waist size.

      As for a writeup of a fat person without insulin resistance or elevated insulin levels, why would someone do that clinical writeup if it's a completely ordinary phenomena?

      Always check your premises in science :)

      That all being said, let's say we stipulate to 30% of the obese population being driven by say, some odd thyroid problem rather than chronically elevated insulin levels - do you accept that 70% of the obese population has their fat accumulation driven by insulin?

      Perhaps I'm driving too hard a bargain, and can convince you that for the overwhelming majority of obese people insulin is a problem, rather than for 100%.

    33. Re:Not a new concept by quantaman · · Score: 1

      So you're arguing that the 30% may have still been insulin resistant because they didn't test insulin resistance directly, just blood glucose levels and blood pressure.

      Not only that, but they only tested waist size.

      As for a writeup of a fat person without insulin resistance or elevated insulin levels, why would someone do that clinical writeup if it's a completely ordinary phenomena?

      Always check your premises in science :)

      That all being said, let's say we stipulate to 30% of the obese population being driven by say, some odd thyroid problem rather than chronically elevated insulin levels - do you accept that 70% of the obese population has their fat accumulation driven by insulin?

      Perhaps I'm driving too hard a bargain, and can convince you that for the overwhelming majority of obese people insulin is a problem, rather than for 100%.

      I accept that 70% of the (Taiwanese) obese population, and probably more of our obese people, are obese and insulin resistant.

      I think that individual measure would be consistent with insulin driving the obesity, but that other evidence (rat experiments, carb obesity decoupling, other known drivers of obesity, etc) suggests that other causes are at work and the insulin is just along for the ride.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    34. Re:Not a new concept by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      other causes are at work and the insulin is just along for the ride.

      So in essence, you posit a confounding variable, that drives insulin, unrelated to carbohydrate intake? I mean, if we drive deeper, leptin/insulin track (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10567012) to carbohydrate consumption...are you suggesting it's possible for someone to be "metabolically healthy" with good insulin levels, but out of control leptin levels? Or are you suggesting some other driver of insulin besides blood sugar levels, and some other driver of blood sugar levels besides dietary carbohydrate?

      Say we posit that "other causes are at work" with insulin *not* along for the ride in some % of cases (30% stipulated, for example)...does that still mean you're asserting that those *same* "other causes" also drive the other 70% of insulin resistant folks?

      It could be that all you're interested in doing here is pointing out the holes in the insulin hypothesis without replacing it with an alternative, which I'm *perfectly* fine with (that's how good science is done, after all)...but do you believe that the insulin hypothesis is simply untenable in any conditions, or needs to be modified for certain, non-majority scenarios?

    35. Re:Not a new concept by quantaman · · Score: 1

      I think palatablity plays a huge role, in addition to plain taste salt, fat, sugar, calorie density, and crunchiness all make foods more tempting and easier to overeat. Some foods are also more filling per calorie, protein (ie plain chicken), eggs, broccoli, plain potatoes. And some aren't ice cream, pop, cake, chips, butter.

      Genetics also play a big part, social cues, eating habits.

      I suspect most people get obese from the same factors in different proportions, the ones who do it with more sugar and high GI foods will have tended to have higher insulin, and those people will be more susceptible to insulin resistance.

      The system governing appetite isn't trivial and you're unlikely to find a single switch we can easily flip to make people thin without consequences.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    36. Re:Not a new concept by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      I think palatablity plays a huge role

      What does that mean, biochemically?

      The system governing appetite isn't trivial

      Agreed. And I'd make the assertion that for the vast majority of 400 pound fat people chowing down large pizzas, they're doing so because their muscles are starving, and their appetite is triggered on high, thanks to the partitioning of energy due to insulin into their fat cells.

      Further, if we have, say, a model of appetite where one can increase it by reducing caloric intake, and increasing caloric output (as say, when you're told to "bring your appetite", and you skip a meal, or go exercise more to work up your hunger), it seems that focusing on calories in/calories out is going to be self defeating.

      Now, imagining that it's all about taste, calorie density, texture, and "filling" begs the question - what are the biochemical processes at work there?

      I guess for me it's hard to assert that those particular bits are nearly as important as insulin resistance, and insulin response, especially since we have such a wide variety of response to the same diet.

      The insulin hypothesis deals rather neatly with the appetite response observations, since the partitioning of fuel into fat cells starves muscles, driving more eating, which we can then call "overeating" (because it drove fat accumulation - a skinny person, by definition, can never overeat).

    37. Re:Not a new concept by quantaman · · Score: 1

      I think palatablity plays a huge role

      What does that mean, biochemically?

      Nothing. It means we find the food tasty so we eat more of it.

      The system governing appetite isn't trivial

      Agreed. And I'd make the assertion that for the vast majority of 400 pound fat people chowing down large pizzas, they're doing so because their muscles are starving, and their appetite is triggered on high, thanks to the partitioning of energy due to insulin into their fat cells.

      Further, if we have, say, a model of appetite where one can increase it by reducing caloric intake, and increasing caloric output (as say, when you're told to "bring your appetite", and you skip a meal, or go exercise more to work up your hunger), it seems that focusing on calories in/calories out is going to be self defeating.

      Now, imagining that it's all about taste, calorie density, texture, and "filling" begs the question - what are the biochemical processes at work there?

      I guess for me it's hard to assert that those particular bits are nearly as important as insulin resistance, and insulin response, especially since we have such a wide variety of response to the same diet.

      The insulin hypothesis deals rather neatly with the appetite response observations, since the partitioning of fuel into fat cells starves muscles, driving more eating, which we can then call "overeating" (because it drove fat accumulation - a skinny person, by definition, can never overeat).

      Or those fat people eat some pizza, their brains go 'wow! this is so yummy, I want more!', triggers a hunger response, and they eat more.

      If it's all biochemical then how do you explain cravings? How do you explain being completely full, then finding another gear when you realize there's dessert? Do you really think there's no link between hunger and taste?

      Note that one factor in low-carb working is that many hyper-palatable foods are high carb (white bread, chips, cake, cookies). It's harder to overeat when you deprive yourself of the starchy base.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    38. Re:Not a new concept by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      Nothing. It means we find the food tasty so we eat more of it.

      So it is purely a mental thing? No biochemical mechanism for being more or less tasty?

      Or those fat people eat some pizza, their brains go 'wow! this is so yummy, I want more!', triggers a hunger response, and they eat more.

      But what's the biochemical "hunger response"? Just saying "it's yummy" doesn't help much - since there are people who eat all the yummy stuff they want in unlimited quantities and still don't gain weight.

      If it's all biochemical then how do you explain cravings?

      Shouldn't cravings have biochemical roots? A salt deficiency in your diet, and you'll crave it. An addictive narcotic, messing with your ssi uptake, and you'll crave it.

      It's harder to overeat when you deprive yourself of the starchy base.

      "Overeat" means nothing, since it's circularly defined. That being said, I believe the insulin hypothesis makes a strong case that when you deprive yourself of a starchy and sugary base, your energy intake is partitioned into use for the muscles rather than storage in the fat cells, so it's harder to accumulate fat if you deprive yourself of carbohydrates.

    39. Re:Not a new concept by quantaman · · Score: 1

      Nothing. It means we find the food tasty so we eat more of it.

      So it is purely a mental thing? No biochemical mechanism for being more or less tasty?

      There's biochemical feedbacks, our bodies learn which foods have more calories and we tend to find those tastier. And there's lots of other stuff going on including a bunch I don't know about. There may even be a small role insulin plays (but nothing like the role Taubes assigns it).

      Or those fat people eat some pizza, their brains go 'wow! this is so yummy, I want more!', triggers a hunger response, and they eat more.

      But what's the biochemical "hunger response"? Just saying "it's yummy" doesn't help much - since there are people who eat all the yummy stuff they want in unlimited quantities and still don't gain weight.

      People have different bodies, for some people the lipostat is that much more effective. They either raise their metabolic rate and burn off the calories even being inactive, or they naturally feel full at an equilibrium state.

      If it's all biochemical then how do you explain cravings?

      Shouldn't cravings have biochemical roots? A salt deficiency in your diet, and you'll crave it. An addictive narcotic, messing with your ssi uptake, and you'll crave it.

      I don't know a ton about cravings but they can be very specific (an individual food type). If we were simply craving salt or fat or carbs we'd simply be hungry and crave a wide range, but our fixation on specific foods suggests a strong mental component.

      It's harder to overeat when you deprive yourself of the starchy base.

      "Overeat" means nothing, since it's circularly defined. That being said, I believe the insulin hypothesis makes a strong case that when you deprive yourself of a starchy and sugary base, your energy intake is partitioned into use for the muscles rather than storage in the fat cells, so it's harder to accumulate fat if you deprive yourself of carbohydrates.

      Overeat means ingest more calories than is required to maintain your present body mass. It's not a constant number since calories burned is variable, but it is a real number.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    40. Re:Not a new concept by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      There's biochemical feedbacks, our bodies learn which foods have more calories and we tend to find those tastier.

      Get down to the individual cells - isn't it that our bodies learn which foods *partition* more calories into fat versus muscles, and learn which foods target the addictive sugar rush/crash cycle, and find them tastier?

      There may even be a small role insulin plays (but nothing like the role Taubes assigns it).

      You've already agreed that insulin regulates fat accumulation. How is that a small role? You may disagree on what drives insulin (say, a "tastiness" signal from the brain), but you don't deny that it is the biochemical mechanism for fat storage, right?

      People have different bodies, for some people the lipostat is that much more effective.

      Sounds like insulin resistance versus insulin sensitivity.

      I don't know a ton about cravings but they can be very specific (an individual food type).

      Question - have you ever been fat? Have you ever had the experience of eating until it feels like you're filled up to the top of your esophagus, and *still* felt hungry?

      The difference between a "craving" that may make you feel like noshing on something, and the burning hunger insulin resistant people feel when eating a carbohydrate heavy diet, is *huge*.

      Overeat means ingest more calories than is required to maintain your present body mass

      So, it means nothing. You can't tell someone "you're overeating" until you see their body mass change. "Overeating" for one person can be "undereating" for another - even if they're the same weight and exercise the same amount!

      Rather than blaming fat accumulation on "overeating", isn't it reasonable to think that it could be the opposite way, where fat accumulation is to blame for "overeating", because of the hunger it causes when it steals calories from the muscles?

    41. Re:Not a new concept by quantaman · · Score: 1

      There's biochemical feedbacks, our bodies learn which foods have more calories and we tend to find those tastier.

      Get down to the individual cells - isn't it that our bodies learn which foods *partition* more calories into fat versus muscles, and learn which foods target the addictive sugar rush/crash cycle, and find them tastier?

      There may even be a small role insulin plays (but nothing like the role Taubes assigns it).

      You've already agreed that insulin regulates fat accumulation. How is that a small role? You may disagree on what drives insulin (say, a "tastiness" signal from the brain), but you don't deny that it is the biochemical mechanism for fat storage, right?

      Correct. What I've denied is that it plays a major role in driving obesity.

      People have different bodies, for some people the lipostat is that much more effective.

      Sounds like insulin resistance versus insulin sensitivity.

      I don't know a ton about cravings but they can be very specific (an individual food type).

      Question - have you ever been fat? Have you ever had the experience of eating until it feels like you're filled up to the top of your esophagus, and *still* felt hungry?

      The difference between a "craving" that may make you feel like noshing on something, and the burning hunger insulin resistant people feel when eating a carbohydrate heavy diet, is *huge*.

      I've been slightly overweight and I know the hunger you've talked about. One thing I've learned is it's highly correlated to the tastiness of food. If I have a nice big juicy steak for dinner I'll be ravenously hungry through the next evening.

      But that's just me.

      Overeat means ingest more calories than is required to maintain your present body mass

      So, it means nothing. You can't tell someone "you're overeating" until you see their body mass change. "Overeating" for one person can be "undereating" for another - even if they're the same weight and exercise the same amount!

      Rather than blaming fat accumulation on "overeating", isn't it reasonable to think that it could be the opposite way, where fat accumulation is to blame for "overeating", because of the hunger it causes when it steals calories from the muscles?

      So because 'overeating' is a somewhat arbitrary measure depending on multiple factors it doesn't count?

      --
      I stole this Sig
    42. Re:Not a new concept by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      Correct. What I've denied is that it plays a major role in driving obesity.

      Maybe terminology is hanging you up here - I'm asserting "obesity" == "excess fat accumulation". Since insulin drives fat accumulation, *something* must cause insulin to behave in excess. You seem to be implying that it's not blood sugar, or insulin resistance that causes insulin to behave in excess, but "tastiness" or "craving".

      I suppose a simple test would be to see if someone can force themselves to "crave" something, be fed foods that don't raise blood sugar levels, and see if that causes their insulin to drive fat accumulation in the absence of blood sugar spikes.

      If I have a nice big juicy steak for dinner I'll be ravenously hungry through the next evening.

      Funny, it's rather the opposite for me...although perhaps your juicy steak isn't fatty enough, and you're maxing yourself out on protein (which, does have some minor insulin effect).

      I'd be curious to see what bulletproof coffee would do to your appetite: http://www.bulletproofexec.com/how-to-make-your-coffee-bulletproof-and-your-morning-too/

      So because 'overeating' is a somewhat arbitrary measure depending on multiple factors it doesn't count?

      No, I'm not being clear enough - because "overeating" is defined by the outcome, not the action, it's simply a restatement of the outcome. If you're fat, you're "overeating", no matter what your actual eating behavior is. So when you say someone is "overeating", your just saying "you're fat". "Overeating" isn't *why* you got fat, it's simply an assertion that you *are* fat.

      So, by that rationale, someone who is speeding on the highway is "over accelerating" - even their foot is on the brake, and the car is out of gas. "Over accelerating" is simply a restatement of the observation that someone is speeding, without any insight into the *cause* of the over acceleration. Perhaps the acceleration is there because the car is being towed, or because the road is going downhill, or someone just hit them from behind - but *that* is what is important, not simply "you're over accelerating".

    43. Re:Not a new concept by quantaman · · Score: 1

      Correct. What I've denied is that it plays a major role in driving obesity.

      Maybe terminology is hanging you up here - I'm asserting "obesity" == "excess fat accumulation". Since insulin drives fat accumulation, *something* must cause insulin to behave in excess. You seem to be implying that it's not blood sugar, or insulin resistance that causes insulin to behave in excess, but "tastiness" or "craving".

      I suppose a simple test would be to see if someone can force themselves to "crave" something, be fed foods that don't raise blood sugar levels, and see if that causes their insulin to drive fat accumulation in the absence of blood sugar spikes.

      If I have a nice big juicy steak for dinner I'll be ravenously hungry through the next evening.

      Funny, it's rather the opposite for me...although perhaps your juicy steak isn't fatty enough, and you're maxing yourself out on protein (which, does have some minor insulin effect).

      I'd be curious to see what bulletproof coffee would do to your appetite: http://www.bulletproofexec.com/how-to-make-your-coffee-bulletproof-and-your-morning-too/

      So because 'overeating' is a somewhat arbitrary measure depending on multiple factors it doesn't count?

      No, I'm not being clear enough - because "overeating" is defined by the outcome, not the action, it's simply a restatement of the outcome. If you're fat, you're "overeating", no matter what your actual eating behavior is. So when you say someone is "overeating", your just saying "you're fat". "Overeating" isn't *why* you got fat, it's simply an assertion that you *are* fat.

      So, by that rationale, someone who is speeding on the highway is "over accelerating" - even their foot is on the brake, and the car is out of gas. "Over accelerating" is simply a restatement of the observation that someone is speeding, without any insight into the *cause* of the over acceleration. Perhaps the acceleration is there because the car is being towed, or because the road is going downhill, or someone just hit them from behind - but *that* is what is important, not simply "you're over accelerating".

      I'm not confused about terminology or bothered by your issues with "overeating". Yes insulin drives fat accumulation, and the thing that causes insulin to behave in excess is all the food we eat.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    44. Re:Not a new concept by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      I'm not confused about terminology or bothered by your issues with "overeating". Yes insulin drives fat accumulation, and the thing that causes insulin to behave in excess is all the food we eat.

      Okay, so let's stop using "overeating" since it's simply a synonym for "fat".

      So when you say, "the thing that causes insulin to behave in excess" is "overeating" ("all the food we eat"), you're really saying this:

      "the thing that causes insulin to behave in excess is being fat"

      I'm arguing that its the excess insulin that causes the excess fat accumulation, and you're arguing that somehow the fat is accumulated in excess *first*, and *then* insulin starts misbehaving.

      What is the initial accumulation mechanism, if it's insulin that drives fat accumulation?

    45. Re:Not a new concept by quantaman · · Score: 1

      I can see why you disagree with the term 'overeating' if you don't believe calories from protein or fat ever end up in our fat....

      But if that's the case, and you eat 4000 kcal of fat and protein and burn only 2500 kcal, then what do you think happens to the extra 1500 kcal?

      --
      I stole this Sig
    46. Re:Not a new concept by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      I can see why you disagree with the term 'overeating' if you don't believe calories from protein or fat ever end up in our fat....

      I disagree with the term "overeating" because it is simply defined by the outcome, not the actual act of eating.

      But if that's the case, and you eat 4000 kcal of fat and protein and burn only 2500 kcal, then what do you think happens to the extra 1500 kcal?

      The answer is it depends on how those kcal are processed. If 4000 kcal of fat and protein are ingested, 3000 kcal of that is stored as fat, and then you burn 2500 kcal (and are unable to grab the extra 1500 kcal from fat stores because they aren't releasing fat), you lose 1500 kcal of muscle.

      If 4000 kcal of fat and protein are ingested, and 0 kcal are stored as fat, and you only burn 2500 kcal, then you've got all kinds of other excretory processes that can take place for the last 1500 kcal, including passing some of those kcal unburned through the intestine, or dumping ketone bodies in urine. Or, if you really pay attention, you may be driven to burn the extra 1500 kcal - just as your body has a "hunger" switch, it certainly also has a "I want to get out and do something physical" switch.

      Assuming that every calorie that passes through the lips must be burned or stored as fat is the first misconception here. The second one is that the brain doesn't regulate the burning or dumping of calories if there are any in excess.

    47. Re:Not a new concept by quantaman · · Score: 1

      There might be some bias towards calories from protein being used for muscle, and calories from fat or carbs ending up in lipids, but my understanding is that's not a huge factor. Looking at how gross macronutrients are used I think calories in/calories out is the thing to go by. There probably are foods that are better at providing energy or building muscle, but I suspect that's more complicated than macronutrient categories. Either way I don't know a lot about that area of the science but I'm very skeptical that 4000 kcal of fat and protein will leave you thinner than 4000 kcal of carbs. The evidence around low carb diets indicate they work because people spontaneously consume fewer calories (high protein more so).

      --
      I stole this Sig
    48. Re:Not a new concept by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      The evidence around low carb diets indicate they work because people spontaneously consume fewer calories (high protein more so).

      And isn't it possible that this spontaneous reaction is due to the partitioning of energy? As the body starts getting more energy partitioned to muscle, and less to fat storage, wouldn't whatever "hunger" mechanism kick in and cause a loss of appetite, or "exercise" mechanism kick in and cause a greater expenditure of energy?

      Furthermore, wouldn't *any* change in the partitioning in energy (from what ever source), truly be the *cause* of the different behavior?

      Going back to the speeding automobile analogy, yes, in the most trivial sense, a person is speeding because the engine put too much energy into the wheels, and/or the brakes did not take enough energy out of the wheels. This is true in the human body at the level of the fat cell, not the mouth. The question is, *why* wasn't enough energy taken out by the brakes? *Why* was too much energy put into the wheels? Was it because the driver had a pregnant lady in the car and was heading to the hospital? Was it because the road sloped down hill? Was it because the driver was racing someone who cut them off earlier? Was it because the driver was being chased by an active shooter?

      The *reason* for the speeding is the *reason* more energy was put in than taken out of the wheels; the *reason* for obesity is the *reason* that more energy was put into than taken out of the fat cells. Simply stating that "more energy was put in than taken out of the wheels" isn't a *reason*, it's simply a statement of the results.

      So why do fat cells accumulate more fat? Well, insulin resistance and high insulin levels. What are the open questions? What causes insulin resistance, and what causes high insulin levels? Lustig has a possible answer for the first one, and basic biochemistry has already established the second one driven by blood sugar.

      If you want to make the claim that "tastiness" drives insulin resistance, which then opens up the door to a susceptibility to high insulin levels (or leptin, which also tracks carbohydrate intake), you've got to show that mechanism.

    49. Re:Not a new concept by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      One last clarification - yes, it's quite possible that in some cases "tastiness" can create insulin resistance, as well as fructose (as per Lustig). There could be a plethora of pathways to insulin resistance, although some seem more rational than others. There may also be a number of ways to avoid insulin resistance (the magic bullet pharmaceutical for obesity).

      I think what you've been trying to say (and I could be mistaken), is that "tastiness" is *always* the path to obesity, and that other mechanisms for insulin resistance are bunk. It's also quite possible that what you've heard from me is that fructose is *always* the path to obesity, which I assure you is not my intention.

    50. Re:Not a new concept by quantaman · · Score: 1

      The evidence around low carb diets indicate they work because people spontaneously consume fewer calories (high protein more so).

      And isn't it possible that this spontaneous reaction is due to the partitioning of energy? As the body starts getting more energy partitioned to muscle, and less to fat storage, wouldn't whatever "hunger" mechanism kick in and cause a loss of appetite, or "exercise" mechanism kick in and cause a greater expenditure of energy?

      Furthermore, wouldn't *any* change in the partitioning in energy (from what ever source), truly be the *cause* of the different behavior?

      Except people on low carb diets typically increase their protein consumption (high protein works better than low carb for weight loss).

      Low carb also means you need to exclude a bunch of foods including stables like bread, pasta, rice, potatoes, etc. Hunger isn't just a physical reaction. If you exclude a food you tend to overeat then you usually don't replace all those calories with an alternative.

      It also means they pay more attention to what they're eating.

      So why do fat cells accumulate more fat? Well, insulin resistance and high insulin levels. What are the open questions? What causes insulin resistance, and what causes high insulin levels? Lustig has a possible answer for the first one, and basic biochemistry has already established the second one driven by blood sugar.

      A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. You know this one basic fact about metabolism so you assume it must work in a really simple way you understand and be responsible for everything.

      For instance, given your understanding of this basic biochemistry how do you explain the fact that fish causes higher insulin levels than porridge?

      If you want to make the claim that "tastiness" drives insulin resistance, which then opens up the door to a susceptibility to high insulin levels (or leptin, which also tracks carbohydrate intake), you've got to show that mechanism.

      I don't want to make that claim. You've decided the only possible way to get fat is via insulin resistance (well at least for the 70% who have both conditions), so if palatability contributes to obesity you're assuming it must work in this bizarre fashion.

      I think what you've been trying to say (and I could be mistaken), is that "tastiness" is *always* the path to obesity, and that other mechanisms for insulin resistance are bunk. It's also quite possible that what you've heard from me is that fructose is *always* the path to obesity, which I assure you is not my intention.

      You are mistaken. I think "tastiness" is often a major contributing factor to obesity. Social cues, sleeping, meal sizes & times, activity levels, satiability and probably a few other things are factors in the modern prevalence of obesity.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    51. Re:Not a new concept by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      Except people on low carb diets typically increase their protein consumption (high protein works better than low carb for weight loss).

      I don't think that's what the data shows - nutritional ketosis is typically generated through high fat diets.

      If you exclude a food you tend to overeat then you usually don't replace all those calories with an alternative.

      Let's stay away from the word "overeat", and restate as "if you exclude a food that makes you fat then you usually don't replace all those calories with an alternative". That fits in perfectly with the idea of a food that increases fat accumulation causing abnormal partitioning of energy, which the body recognizes and reacts to.

      For instance, given your understanding of this basic biochemistry how do you explain the fact that fish causes higher insulin levels than porridge

      You'd have to dig further into the 41 subjects that were a part of that survey. Further, it'd be nice if more than a single subject actually consumed all of the foods listed (http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/66/5/1264.full.pdf). Even worse that only 15 subjects did more than two food categories.

      Always look closely at the data before believing it.

      You've decided the only possible way to get fat is via insulin resistance (well at least for the 70% who have both conditions), so if palatability contributes to obesity you're assuming it must work in this bizarre fashion.

      That's correct. We haven't shown any mechanism for fat accumulation outside of insulin resistance and elevated insulin levels, although some MHO data suggests it might be possible for say, 30% of the population.

      How about this, define palatability. How can you tell one food is more or less palatable than another? Does this vary between individuals? Does it vary over time within individuals? What's your specific definition?

      You are mistaken. I think "tastiness" is often a major contributing factor to obesity.

      Define "tastiness". Be specific, and please, no "overeating" tautologies.

    52. Re:Not a new concept by quantaman · · Score: 1

      You'd have to dig further into the 41 subjects that were a part of that survey. Further, it'd be nice if more than a single subject actually consumed all of the foods listed (http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/66/5/1264.full.pdf). Even worse that only 15 subjects did more than two food categories.

      Always look closely at the data before believing it.

      That's what they have statistics for. Having the same subject consume both lets you run a paired T-test which lets you push the variance lower (I don't know if they did that with the 15) but having the 41 subjects consume foods from different categories is fine. If they did it your way you'd be complaining because they either tested fewer foods or did it with fewer volunteers. The only issue is like all studies of their kind it's done on a bunch of western university students.

      And it's not the only study that decouples insulin and GI.

      You've decided the only possible way to get fat is via insulin resistance (well at least for the 70% who have both conditions), so if palatability contributes to obesity you're assuming it must work in this bizarre fashion.

      That's correct. We haven't shown any mechanism for fat accumulation outside of insulin resistance and elevated insulin levels, although some MHO data suggests it might be possible for say, 30% of the population.

      We haven't shown any mechanism for fat accumulation outside of insulin. But that doesn't mean you can't get fat without insulin resistance or chronically elevated insulin. You haven't even accounted for glucagon!

      How about this, define palatability. How can you tell one food is more or less palatable than another? Does this vary between individuals? Does it vary over time within individuals? What's your specific definition?

      Some people have done some serious research into hyperpalatable foods. There are some characteristics of palatability, crunchiness, low bitterness, sugar, fat, salt. But the fact you don't want to accept a fuzzy definition doesn't mean its not a real thing. Are you seriously going to claim that we can't look at tastiness because I can't prove why icecream tastes better than a block of vegetable shortening?

      That doesn't mean people haven't tried but you're not going to get a simple story.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    53. Re:Not a new concept by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      That's what they have statistics for. Having the same subject consume both lets you run a paired T-test which lets you push the variance lower (I don't know if they did that with the 15) but having the 41 subjects consume foods from different categories is fine.

      A study of 41 subjects, of which only one actually sampled everything, and you expect *statistics* to turn that into real data?

      I suppose it would've worked even if they had just 2 subjects, right, since you can simply run a paired T-test on a single pair, right? :)

      The only issue is like all studies of their kind it's done on a bunch of western university students.

      That's one of the problems, but such a tiny sample size is a *huge* issue as well.

      We haven't shown any mechanism for fat accumulation outside of insulin. But that doesn't mean you can't get fat without insulin resistance or chronically elevated insulin.

      So, in the car analogy, we know the speed is driven by the accelerator and brake, but that doesn't mean you can't pick up speed if you're rolling downhill, or being pulled by a tow truck.

      What is your downhill and tow truck for getting fat? "Tastiness"?

      Are you seriously going to claim that we can't look at tastiness because I can't prove why icecream tastes better than a block of vegetable shortening?

      What units are you going to measure tastiness in? Even if it's fuzzy, it has to be measured.

    54. Re:Not a new concept by quantaman · · Score: 1

      That's what they have statistics for. Having the same subject consume both lets you run a paired T-test which lets you push the variance lower (I don't know if they did that with the 15) but having the 41 subjects consume foods from different categories is fine.

      A study of 41 subjects, of which only one actually sampled everything, and you expect *statistics* to turn that into real data?

      I suppose it would've worked even if they had just 2 subjects, right, since you can simply run a paired T-test on a single pair, right? :)

      One facet of biochemistry, insulin used to store fat, and you've figured out obesity.

      But take a statistical test that is a mathematical fact and now you have a problem?!?

      If they effed up the stats that's a problem, but if they didn't, and they did the experiment they said they did, then you now have to deal with the fact that porridge triggered a smaller insulin response than fish and you don't understand everything that goes on with insulin responses like insulin release in response to protein.

      The only issue is like all studies of their kind it's done on a bunch of western university students.

      That's one of the problems, but such a tiny sample size is a *huge* issue as well.

      The sample is too small if the effect size is tiny, but the results were statistically valid so the sample was apparently fine.

      Are you seriously going to claim that we can't look at tastiness because I can't prove why icecream tastes better than a block of vegetable shortening?

      What units are you going to measure tastiness in? Even if it's fuzzy, it has to be measured.

      Page 7

      --
      I stole this Sig
    55. Re:Not a new concept by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      One facet of biochemistry, insulin used to store fat, and you've figured out obesity.

      If you can at least admit that we've narrowed it down to insulin resistance and insulin levels, we could move onto the next step of "what causes insulin resistance".

      you now have to deal with the fact that porridge triggered a smaller insulin response than fish

      Yes, in a group of 41 subjects, the response of porridge for one of them may have been less than the response for fish in another. Moving from that to a broad claim that fish is always a greater insulin generator than porridge is unjustified.

      the results were statistically valid so the sample was apparently fine.

      I don't think you understand the term "statistically valid".

      Let's look at the data, shall we?

      Porridge insulin: 40 +/- 4 (ranging from 36 - 44)
      Fish insulin: 59 +/- 18 (ranging from 41 - 77)

      It is perfectly reasonable, and within their findings, that porridge is at 44, and fish is at 41.

      As for measuring "satiety" with a subjective survey, rather than a "satiety-o-mometer", I think you're still in search of a biomechanism. Now, i'd really be interested to see what they saw with their glucose and insulin data that they promised to publish in another paper. Do you have a cite for that follow up?

    56. Re:Not a new concept by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      Oh wait, interesting, the insulin data is the 41 subject study you referenced before!

      Okay, same caveats apply - small sample size and huge swings (error bars larger than the effect you're trying to show).

    57. Re:Not a new concept by quantaman · · Score: 1

      If you can at least admit that we've narrowed it down to insulin resistance and insulin levels, we could move onto the next step of "what causes insulin resistance".

      Except we haven't.

      Yes, in a group of 41 subjects, the response of porridge for one of them may have been less than the response for fish in another. Moving from that to a broad claim that fish is always a greater insulin generator than porridge is unjustified.

      the results were statistically valid so the sample was apparently fine.

      I don't think you understand the term "statistically valid".

      Let's look at the data, shall we?

      Porridge insulin: 40 +/- 4 (ranging from 36 - 44)
      Fish insulin: 59 +/- 18 (ranging from 41 - 77)

      It is perfectly reasonable, and within their findings, that porridge is at 44, and fish is at 41.

      My bad, I was thinking statistically valid as a whole, not necessarily those two specific foods. By eye proteins show comparable insulin responses to carbs (and running the numbers would doubtlessly confirm that), which is expected because we know protein stimulates insulin release.

      As for measuring "satiety" with a subjective survey, rather than a "satiety-o-mometer", I think you're still in search of a biomechanism. Now, i'd really be interested to see what they saw with their glucose and insulin data that they promised to publish in another paper. Do you have a cite for that follow up?

      Nope.

      --
      I stole this Sig
  16. Re:Don't eat so goddamned much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If more goes in your mouth hole than comes out your butt hole, you get fat.

    Oddly, no.

    Carbohydrates used as an energy source are oxidized into carbon dioxide and water (vapor); these are exhausted by breathing them out your "mouth hole." Not all the calories input come out your "butt hole." So, you could have put it: "if more (caloric content) goes in via your mouth hole than you exhale via your mouth hole, the difference is incorporated into your body in the form of fat."

    The amount oxidized is proportional to how many calories you expend in the form of metabolism and physical effort

  17. Dime a Dozen by SleazyRidr · · Score: 5, Informative

    Did I miss the special on Amazon where you get 12 books for 10 cents?

    Words have meanings: literally has a meaning.

    1. Re:Dime a Dozen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Literally does indeed have a meaning. Allow me to help you out.

      http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/literally

      4. in effect; in substance; very nearly; virtually.
      Usage note
      Since the early 20th century, literally has been widely used as an intensifier meaning “in effect, virtually,” a sense that contradicts the earlier meaning “actually, without exaggeration”: The senator was literally buried alive in the Iowa primaries. The parties were literally trading horses in an effort to reach a compromise. The use is often criticized; nevertheless, it appears in all but the most carefully edited writing.

      The more you know.

    2. Re:Dime a Dozen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed, words have meanings. A dictionary to help you know these meanings is a good resource to have. Check out Merriam-Webster's definition of literally:

      1: in a literal sense or manner : actually <took the remark literally> <was literally insane>
      2: in effect : virtually <will literally turn the world upside down to combat cruelty or injustice — Norman Cousins>

    3. Re:Dime a Dozen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most ebooks are free as in beer.

    4. Re:Dime a Dozen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some words have multiple meanings: literally has multiple meanings. One of the meanings of "literally" is "in effect; virtually", and it is used in hyperbole to provide emphasis.

      Merriam-Webster: literally

      (Also, obligatory xkcd.)

    5. Re:Dime a Dozen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did I miss the special on Amazon where you get 12 books for 10 cents?

      Words have meanings: literally has a meaning.

      That is literally the most insightful thing I've read in the last 30 seconds.

    6. Re:Dime a Dozen by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      Yeah but probably many people think that "literally" means "word-for-word". It's logical to think so. Wiktionary's page for literally suggests that "figuratively" could be used instead.

    7. Re:Dime a Dozen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can get many used books on amazon for a penny (plus shipping). 12 would be a stretch, but yes, technically, you can buy ten books for a dime.

    8. Re:Dime a Dozen by Steve_Ussler · · Score: 0

      This is not the NY Times review of books.

    9. Re:Dime a Dozen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Usage note
      Since the early 20th century, literally has been widely used as an intensifier meaning “in effect, virtually,” a sense that contradicts the earlier meaning “actually, without exaggeration”

      OK ...

      The use is often criticized; nevertheless, it appears in all but the most carefully edited writing.

      ... so what they're saying is that it appears in literally all writing.

    10. Re:Dime a Dozen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Words only have the meanings which we consensually assign to them.

      Over time, certain groups of words may gain additional commonly-understood meanings that are different than the original meanings of the component words. These are called "idioms". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiom

    11. Re:Dime a Dozen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, apparently you did miss the obligatory xkcd.

    12. Re:Dime a Dozen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same objection applies. In what bookstore are diet books "in effect, in substance, very nearly, or virtually" a dime a dozen?

      The "usage note" there doesn't match the definition it's supposed to be explaining. dictionary.com's editing standards have slipped.

  18. Peanut m&m's and Diet Tab by JoeyRox · · Score: 4, Funny

    Don't mess with tradition.

  19. Only the long term maters. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wish I could find it, but I read about a long-term large-population study about diet and weight loss. They concluded that they only meaningful types of lifestyle changes, diet, exercise, weight loss happen on a very long term scale. Like 6 to 12months.

    They found what you did on a day to day basis was largely irrelevant as long as the long-term calorie intake was less than long-term calorie usage. Dieting for a month is meaningless. You'll always rebound if you don't keep it up for a year.

    Weight loss is long, hard, full of work and sacrifice. For a long, long time.

    People are always bad at evaluating long term risk. This is why people are fat.

    1. Re:Only the long term maters. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Weight loss is long, hard, full of work and sacrifice. For a long, long time.

      This is true if you're eating carbohydrates with every meal.

      But it doesn't have to be that way.

      I've been living on beef, bacon, butter and bone broth for the last couple of years. The five B's. You couldn't pay me to change back to the bread based sugar diet I was "living" on before. I always hated eating my greens, and now I know why.

      I eat until I'm not hungry, and I enjoy every meal. Bacon, man! What else can one say? When you give your body proper fuel, it creates and self regulates its own sugars and insulin levels without you having to do a thing. As it should! The idea that we should need to consciously regulate our food intake in order to maintain health doesn't make any sense. That stuff is supposed to be automatic, and it was until we invented industrial carbohydrate production and all became, very literally, addicted to sugar.

      Inflammation is the culprit behind quite a number of named illnesses. When you stop attacking your system with grains and greens, you feel great. To think that people consider it *normal* to feel bloated and tired after a pizza or McDonnald's meal is amazing. Glutton and sugar are the culprit. And the vegan diets aren't any better. Vegans go down for the count just as hard after crashing from their all sugar dishes made from rice and beans. Vegans count among the most self-deceiving people out there, because they attach a (logically broken) spiritual component to their malnutrition. (What, carrots aren't living things? They don't die when chewed into little bits? Do vegans save and plant every seed left over from their apples? No? Then, sorry, but that makes them baby devouring hypocrites.)

      But if you eat right, you feel alive and you stop aching and sugar crashing and basically being diseased and disoriented your whole life. Your own body meats and fats balance out. I don't look like a skinny zombie boy anymore. (I speak from experience, having done the veg thing until I was in a state of perma illness). I now even have nice muscle definition without having had to do any more exercise than my normal day requires. Though, if I wanted to start weight lifting, I feel more than up to it. In fact, I have more energy than I've had in, well, forever.

      Low carb diets can even permanently reverse supposedly incurable (according to modern medicine) conditions like Crohn's Disease.

      Yeah, I sound like I'm preaching. But can you blame me? I've discovered the fountain of youth, and it tastes like bacon. Of course I want to talk about it.

      People can call it a fad all they want. They can believe the lies about heart disease being related to saturated fats if they want to. (Possibly the all time winner for greatest con job ever pulled on the human race. It's on the same order as being convinced that drinking water is bad for you.) People can do whatever they want.

      I'm just saying, there's another way, and it's dead easy.

    2. Re:Only the long term maters. by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1
      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    3. Re:Only the long term maters. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes scurvy is a made up condition

    4. Re:Only the long term maters. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the book rails against bogus stuff like that.

    5. Re:Only the long term maters. by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      That study contains a bit of truth that you can use to inform your decisions. Namely all the benefits people claim for antioxidants in food are bogus. You piss them out after half an hour and any raise in serum antioxidants is uric acid generated by your body to counter the poisons in the food you ate.

      The antioxidants in your blood are regulated by your body and generated by your body. The antioxidants in food are for the benefit of the plant, not you.

      So berries are just berries, they are not 'superfood'. This is also known as common sense, but now we know why.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
  20. Or.... by djupedal · · Score: 1

    An alternative, of course, is to instead write a book about it, then profit and pay a personal trainer to drop by the beach house once a week.

  21. What? by canadiannomad · · Score: 3, Informative

    No digital version? No Kindle, epub, mobi, PDF versions? I find it odd to come across a book for programmers that isn't available in digital form.

    + $27, that feels a bit much for a diet book.

    Here we go The Healthy Programmer: Get Fit, Feel Better, and Keep Coding DRM-free Format
    Still awfully expensive for my tastes, I'll wait till it goes down in price before I check it out.

    --
    Hmm, the humour and sarcasm seem to have been be lost on you.
    1. Re:What? by DogDude · · Score: 2

      No digital version?

      Let me guess... a real book is too heavy to lift...?

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    2. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No digital version? No Kindle, epub, mobi, PDF versions? I find it odd to come across a book for programmers that isn't available in digital form.

      You probably mean electronic version. The printed book is digital too -- the information is in quantified form. :)

    3. Re:What? by canadiannomad · · Score: 2

      =Let me guess... a real book is too heavy to lift...?

      No, I'm nomadic, I don't have enough space in my backpack to be storing libraries.

      --
      Hmm, the humour and sarcasm seem to have been be lost on you.
    4. Re:What? by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up.

    5. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Writes a book targeted at programmers
      > Available in hard-copy only (no ebook)
      > Mobile app is iphone-only
      > Home page fails to specify doctype and has a heap of other errors
      I'm not sure the author understands the intended audience.

  22. reddit.com/r/keto/ by Mister_Stoopid · · Score: 3, Insightful

    All you have to do to lose weight is eat less calories than you burn. That's it. Simple, right?

    It's dead simple as long as you enjoy feeling hungry and irritable all day, have a magical body that burns the same amount of energy regardless of food input, and don't mind losing a ton of muscle mass during your diet.

    The real answer is to cut out most of the carbohydrates that you eat (or at least lose the grains, there's some debate about potatoes and such) and replace them with fats instead. After a brief adaptation period, you can just eat when you're hungry and, because fat is more satiating, you'll naturally consume only what you need. Because you're not shoving tons of sugar down your throat, you won't experience the insulin surge-crash cycle, you'll have more energy and be less hungry than you would on a traditional "diet". Because you're eating more protein you'll lose less muscle mass than you would on a typical weight loss diet.

    It might seem "extreme" or "fad" at first, but there's a growing body of evidence that suggests cutting carb intake is actually a very healthy and sustainable long-term choice. I do it and I recommend it to everyone who is looking to make a long-term diet adjustment.

    Keto FAQ:

    Q:But won't eating more fat give me a heart attack?
    A:No, the idea that saturated fats lead to heart disease was never more than speculation and has never had any scientific evidence behind it.

    Q:It's too hard to eat that way in modern America/I don't have time to cook that much.
    A:Get a crock pot.

    1. Re:reddit.com/r/keto/ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also /r/loseit.

    2. Re:reddit.com/r/keto/ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      @Moderator: The above post isn't "Off Topic".

      It's about as On Topic as you can get.

      It's also Insightful and Informative, for that matter.

    3. Re:reddit.com/r/keto/ by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      C'mon, mod parent up. It's *completely* on topic.

    4. Re:reddit.com/r/keto/ by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      I used to rant about malicious modding on /. but then noticed that the same thing is happening in much worse amounts at Reddit. :)

    5. Re:reddit.com/r/keto/ by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 1

      Excellent, good to see this here.

      The only thing I would add is that a ketogenic diet is really hard on the kidneys (look at the studies of kids on ketogenic diets for epileptic seizures, their rate of kidney stones is significantly higher than those on non-ketogenic diets). And it makes your breath stink after a while, too.

      In my opinion (and I'm a programmer, FWIW), you need one day a week where you eat a lot of carbs (and the other days, your carbs should be as close to 0 as possible, especially simple carbs). Call it a weekly thanksgiving, a cheat day, or whatever. The end goal is that you prevent the body from going fully ketogenic. This serves a few purposes. First, you don't have to give up your favorite foods, you just have to wait for your cheat day. Second, it helps protect the kidneys. Third, it also prevents the body from going into famine-mode, so that it is less likely to store carbs when they are consumed.

      --
      :(){ :|:& };:
    6. Re:reddit.com/r/keto/ by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      Reddit's lack of upper and lower bounds makes it incredibly vulnerable to positive feedback loops.

    7. Re:reddit.com/r/keto/ by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      >The only thing I would add is that a ketogenic diet is really hard on the kidneys (look at the studies of kids on ketogenic diets for epileptic seizures, their rate of kidney stones is significantly higher than those on non-ketogenic diets). And it makes your breath stink after a while, too.

      You do know that those diets were primarily based on PUFAs and MUFAs and minimized saturated fats.
      Don't expect doctors to know their fats. I recommend http://www.amazon.com/Know-Your-Fats-Understanding-Cholesterol/dp/0967812607

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    8. Re:reddit.com/r/keto/ by infidel_heathen · · Score: 1

      I have seen some of my friends try this Atkins/Keto diet thing. None of them lost any weight. Some of them even gained more weight.

      In the end it seemed like it's a lot of torture for nothing. I would recommend everyone to stay away from this fad.

    9. Re:reddit.com/r/keto/ by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      It's not torture: it's deliciousness.

      Frankly, while I can imagine that you might know one person for whom low-carb doesn't work (hey, everyone's different), I can't imagine how you could gain weight from it, and certainly not multiple people. I strongly suspect they weren't being very dedicated - carbs are hidden in a lot of things and you have to be ceaselessly vigilant until you learn how to tell simply by taste when something has sugar or starch in it.

    10. Re:reddit.com/r/keto/ by FirstOne · · Score: 1

      What you need to remove are the sugar carbs... (sugars like sucrose, fructose, etc added to processed food products)..

      Keaping the starch carbs is just a start.. Exercise, watching your pH balance are some other items you need to add to the list.

      .

  23. Tell the PHB to stop the 80 hour work weeks then by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 2

    Tell the PHB to stop the 80 hour work weeks then as well the working lunches

  24. While overweight do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Eat healthy
    Exercise
    Done;

  25. Re:Lollerskates!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I've been both.

  26. Re:Don't eat so goddamned much by nedlohs · · Score: 2

    Personally I breath out some of the carbon from the foods I eat. You have a very strange respiratory system if that's coming out you butt hole. You may want to see a medical professional in fact.

  27. Ruby and Agile in a single diet book by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Keep up the good work, I probably just lost a good pound or two from all the vomiting I just did!

    1. Re:Ruby and Agile in a single diet book by Steve_Ussler · · Score: 0

      Hilarious! Thanks!

  28. Nobody Needs a "Diet Book" by hillbluffer · · Score: 1

    One sentence; eat less, exercise more. Simple.
    I'm taking up competition horseshoe throwing; had a ball last tues night :)

    1. Re:Nobody Needs a "Diet Book" by hsthompson69 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Imagine for a moment you were invited to a gourmet dinner, and your host said "bring your appetite". What might you do?

      Maybe skip a meal? (eat less)

      Maybe work up an appetite with a brisk walk? (exercise more)

      Now, what makes you think advice that makes people *hungry* is going to help them lose weight?

      Fat accumulation is driven by insulin, which is driven by blood sugar, which is driven by carbohydrate intake.

      Stop eating carbohydrates. It's simple.

    2. Re:Nobody Needs a "Diet Book" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Imagine for a moment you were invited to a gourmet dinner, and your host said "bring your appetite". What might you do?

      Maybe skip a meal? (eat less)

      Maybe work up an appetite with a brisk walk? (exercise more)

      Now, what makes you think advice that makes people *hungry* is going to help them lose weight?

      Fat accumulation is driven by insulin, which is driven by blood sugar, which is driven by carbohydrate intake.

      Stop eating carbohydrates. It's simple.

      You're entitled to your opinion, but I think any "diet" is a farce or a fad, created to sell books/videos.
      You have to permanently change the way you live, not just avoid eating "X" for a while.
      I've lost 50 pounds over the last year; how much have you lost?

    3. Re:Nobody Needs a "Diet Book" by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      80 (275->195, 29% of body weight) in seven months, maintained for 10 months. The only thing I count is carbs. Didn't work out, at all, until three months ago, and that only because I want to add some muscle - I don't do cardio.

    4. Re:Nobody Needs a "Diet Book" by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      Yes, I've permanently changed they way I live - I *always* avoid eating carbohydrates, and will do so for the rest of my life.

      I lost 50 pounds in 6 months after understanding the biochemistry behind fat accumulation and the reasons behind it, and have kept that off for 6 years.

      As for selling books/videos, I've got no dog in that fight - and frankly, recommending carbohydrate restriction is so simple and effective, it doesn't *require* any sort of expensive book or video to understand and implement.

  29. Re:Welcome to the publishing industry, newbie crit by AAWood · · Score: 3, Informative

    As long as you're fixing thing, take "literally" out of there. It's literally the exact wrong way to use it.

  30. Another "moderation" fraud by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

    Fat accumulation is driven by the hormone insulin. Undisputed biochemistry.

    Insulin levels are driven by blood sugar levels. Undisputed biochemistry.

    Blood sugar levels are driven by carbohydrate intake. Undisputed biochemistry.

    Stop eating carbohydrates. It's simple.

    1. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by Steve_Ussler · · Score: 0

      Your post was 35 words. You said ‘Undisputed biochemistry’ 3x. And then jumped to the notion of stopping carbs. It is not that simple and avoiding carbs alone won’t work. That that is undisputed biology!!

    2. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by demonlapin · · Score: 2

      I can't speak for everyone, but I dropped 80 pounds in seven months by eliminating carbs from my diet. I didn't work out. I didn't count calories. I didn't portion control. All I did was keep carbs under 20 grams a day.

      So yes, it's sometimes that easy.

    3. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by judoguy · · Score: 1

      Yes, yes and yes. There is a massive amount of serious research the explains why this is true even if counter intuitive.

      --
      Peace is easy to achieve, just surrender. Liberty is much harder get/keep.
    4. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by quantaman · · Score: 1

      Fat accumulation is driven by the hormone insulin. Undisputed biochemistry.

      Insulin levels are driven by blood sugar levels. Undisputed biochemistry.

      Blood sugar levels are driven by carbohydrate intake. Undisputed biochemistry.

      I'm sorry to inform you but Gary Taubes is a crank.

      Stop eating carbohydrates. It's simple.

      Low carb diets work, but not for the reason you think they do.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    5. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Insulin levels are driven by calorie intake when body lacks carbohydrates. Undisputed biochemistry.

      Stop believing in magic and see how many studies show that you can lose, gain and maintain weight by controlling calories. and that virtually no single long term studie shows any benefit of reduced carbs over reduced calories.

    6. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      Look up the Kreb's cycle - insulin levels simply are not driven at all by fat calories, and only marginally by protein calories. Carbohydrates drive insulin levels, and insulin levels drive fat accumulation.

      You can refuse to believe the basic, biochemical facts, and attempt to apply a tinker toy physics model of "e-in/e-out", but it simply doesn't apply.

    7. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      For me, after two years of low-calorie/low-fat diet and 5 miles a day of running, and a 10 pound weight *gain*, keeping carbs under 20g a day lost me 50 pounds in 6 months, and kept it off for the past 6 years.

      The sad thing is that people still keep pushing the calories in/calories out dogma, which takes well intentioned people down the completely wrong path.

    8. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      Although Taubes did the seminal work "Good Calories, Bad Calories", which references the undisputed biochemistry I've cited, he isn't the guy who actually did the work - he just reported on it. Calling him a "crank" is to misunderstand how we actually got to understand the Kreb's cycle and the role of insulin in fat accumulation.

      Now, Stephan Guyenet has an axe to grind against Taubes, and that's fine, but nothing he's written or cited contraindicates the role of insulin in fat accumulation. There's some question as to what triggers initial insulin resistance (since there are a group of people out there who have no fat accumulation problems despite high carbohydrate intake, although other problems invisible to the naked eye do occur), but there's absolutely no question that the mechanism for fat accumulation in the obese is insulin.

    9. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by Steve_Ussler · · Score: 0

      There are many different peopledifferent diets. For most people, taking away carbs is something that is just not sustainable. Especially in the US, where carbs are everywhere.

    10. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      Actually, you'd be surprised. When I hit fast food joints, they're more than happy to hold the bun, the fries, and the sugary drink. At the store, I buy pork rinds instead of chips. At restaurants, I ask them to replace whatever starch with something like broccoli dripping in cheese or butter. I've never had a situation where I haven't been able to avoid carbohydrates.

      Now, that being said, it is true that carbohydrates are in fact, addictive, and weaning oneself off of the sugar rush/crash cycle is as difficult as stopping the use of other drugs like tobacco, alcohol, methamphetamine, or even cocaine. It *can* be sustainable, but it's not something that happens without effort.

    11. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by quantaman · · Score: 1

      Although Taubes did the seminal work "Good Calories, Bad Calories", which references the undisputed biochemistry I've cited, he isn't the guy who actually did the work - he just reported on it. Calling him a "crank" is to misunderstand how we actually got to understand the Kreb's cycle and the role of insulin in fat accumulation.

      Now, Stephan Guyenet has an axe to grind against Taubes, and that's fine, but nothing he's written or cited contraindicates the role of insulin in fat accumulation. There's some question as to what triggers initial insulin resistance (since there are a group of people out there who have no fat accumulation problems despite high carbohydrate intake, although other problems invisible to the naked eye do occur), but there's absolutely no question that the mechanism for fat accumulation in the obese is insulin.

      There's a big difference between insulin being required for fat storage and insulin regulating fat storage.

      My big beef with Taubes is he basically assumes researchers made a mistake in the 50s, and then... well I'm not sure what.

      Have they been doing public advocacy the past 60 years and never bothered to do anymore research?

      Are they all such spectacularly bad researchers that no one ever noticed insulin was regulating obesity?

      Did they have incredible tunnelvision and haven't looked at how insulin reacts with fat at all?

      To believe Taubes you need to believe the entire field of nutrition science has been spectacularly incompetent for the past half century, somehow never considering that the hormone that enables fat accumulation also regulates it. Yet some science reporter somehow stumbled on the truth and is giving you a completely unbiased account of it.

      Just look at how he responds when asked about the Japanese and their rice consumption. He starts talking about Japanese eating brown rice until 50 years ago and being healthy then. Ok, so what about the Japanese eating white rice now and still being healthy!! He also says that maybe the real problem is sugar. So the goalposts have moved, high carb isn't bad, it has to be high refined carbs, and maybe it isn't even high refined carbs, it has to be actual sugar! So I'm glad that Taubes apparently endorses a primarily brown rice diet as the key to being thin.

      Of course, he didn't need to move the goalposts when talking about the Massa, since most people don't really know what the Massa eat it's safe to simply misrepresent their diet.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    12. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      To believe Taubes you need to believe the entire field of nutrition science has been spectacularly incompetent for the past half century

      That's not surprising at all. Have you read his book, "Good Calories, Bad Calories"? Thanks to zealots like Ancel Keys, the direction of government sanctioned research went in a singular direction with blinders, masking and disparaging any divergent opinions.

      Look, no matter what your particular axe to grind with Taubes, the fact of the matter is that for every obese person, you've got a combination of insulin resistance and high insulin levels, period. It simply doesn't happen by any other biochemical mechanism.

    13. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by Steve_Ussler · · Score: 0

      looks like I may to cut down on dem carbs then... :(

    14. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by quantaman · · Score: 1

      To believe Taubes you need to believe the entire field of nutrition science has been spectacularly incompetent for the past half century

      That's not surprising at all. Have you read his book, "Good Calories, Bad Calories"?

      No though I've heard/read a number of extended interviews.

      Thanks to zealots like Ancel Keys, the direction of government sanctioned research went in a singular direction with blinders, masking and disparaging any divergent opinions.

      Look, no matter what your particular axe to grind with Taubes, the fact of the matter is that for every obese person, you've got a combination of insulin resistance and high insulin levels, period. It simply doesn't happen by any other biochemical mechanism.

      That's not true, there's a lot of obese people with no insulin issues. And your characterization of nutrition research sounds like climate change denialism. Even if they were looking for something completely different the researchers were researching something.

      I read of a recent conference where they were debating whether there was a tiny regulatory role insulin was playing. How are they having a debate and presenting evidence about a possible small regulatory role while completely missing the massive regulatory role that Taubes claims?

      Taubes is talking about about one of the three primary sources of calories and one of the most important hormones involving fat storage. Saying researchers put on blinders and never looked there would be like saying NASA put on blinders and never looked at the sun as the thing holding the solar system together. Even if they were studying planets from a completely different perspective every astronomer out there would look at the data and notice something weird was going on with the big yellow thing.

      Consider a world where Taubes wasn't being completely fair in his presentation of the evidence, that he was wrong about the history of nutrition science, that he was ignoring critical counter-evidence with Asia and some of his own examples, that he was either unaware of or simply ignoring vast bodies of research that explored his ideas a convincingly debunked them. If we were living on this other world where Taubes was a thorough and well-educated crank would his book look any different?

      --
      I stole this Sig
    15. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      No though I've heard/read a number of extended interviews.

      I highly suggest giving it a read, especially the footnotes. You may not walk away agreeing with him, but you'll be better informed.

      That's not true, there's a lot of obese people with no insulin issues.

      Just one example, please. Any example. A single obese person that has neither insulin resistance, nor elevated insulin levels.

      How are they having a debate and presenting evidence about a possible small regulatory role while completely missing the massive regulatory role that Taubes claims?

      They're in denial. They have a trope, and even though the data doesn't match it, they refuse to give it up. Very typical of cargo-cult science.

      Saying researchers put on blinders and never looked there would be like saying NASA put on blinders and never looked at the sun as the thing holding the solar system together.

      Appeal to unnamed authorities fallacy. That being said, NASA has put on blinders when it comes to the sun as the thing driving the earth's climate when it comes to the whole catastrophic anthropogenic global warming trope :)

      Look, you want to show a single clinical case of an obese person with no insulin resistance, or insulin issues, please, feel free - hopefully whatever happened in that one in a million case is identified and understood. But when it comes to the basic biochemistry of fat accumulation, it is simply incorrect to believe that insulin plays anything but a predominant role.

    16. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by quantaman · · Score: 1

      How are they having a debate and presenting evidence about a possible small regulatory role while completely missing the massive regulatory role that Taubes claims?

      They're in denial. They have a trope, and even though the data doesn't match it, they refuse to give it up. Very typical of cargo-cult science.

      Creationist journals are cargo-cult science, nutrition is real science doing real experiments.

      Saying researchers put on blinders and never looked there would be like saying NASA put on blinders and never looked at the sun as the thing holding the solar system together.

      Appeal to unnamed authorities fallacy.

      Appealing to a scientific authority about a scientific question they study is hardly an "unnamed authorities fallacy".

      That being said, NASA has put on blinders when it comes to the sun as the thing driving the earth's climate when it comes to the whole catastrophic anthropogenic global warming trope :)

      See my 10 foot pole?

      It's not even coming close :P

      Look, you want to show a single clinical case of an obese person with no insulin resistance, or insulin issues, please, feel free - hopefully whatever happened in that one in a million case is identified and understood. But when it comes to the basic biochemistry of fat accumulation, it is simply incorrect to believe that insulin plays anything but a predominant role.

      "Experimentally preventing the increase in circulating insulin that occurs on fattening diets does not alter the course of fat gain in rodents or dogs

      Experimentally elevating circulating insulin by creating liver insulin resistance does not lead to fat gain in rodents

      Experimentally increasing circulating insulin by infusing it directly into the blood does not cause fat gain in rodents, but instead makes them leaner

      Roughly a quarter of obese humans have normal circulating insulin and normal insulin sensitivity ("metabolically healthy" obese)"

      BOOM!! /me does a rude dance

      --
      I stole this Sig
    17. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      Go over to reddit.com/r/keto and get started today. You have nothing to lose but your fat ass ;)

    18. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      Creationist journals are cargo-cult science, nutrition is real science doing real experiments.

      A nutritionist who ignores the biochemical role of insulin in fat accumulation, and insists it's all "calories in/calories out" is a creationist then.

      Appealing to a scientific authority about a scientific question they study is hardly an "unnamed authorities fallacy".

      Sure it is. You refer to some large group (say NASA), and make a baseless assertion without specific attribution. Name the individual, cite the work, or you're simply hand waving.

      BOOM!! /me does a rude dance

      Wow, if only everything that happens to rats happened to humans :)

      Also interesting that you cite a paper "Identification and characterization of metabolically benign obesity in humans", while also citing the other paper that concludes, "Results of the present study indicate that obesity in the absence of the metabolic abnormalities is not such a rare condition in Taiwan. Furthermore, obesity and weight gain are associated with an increased risk for incidences of hypertension, T2DM and the metabolic syndrome in the metabolically healthy, middle-aged population. As such, weight management should continue to be a target for reducing cardiometabolic diseases in all obese indi- viduals."

      Trying to have your cake and eat it too? :)

      Stephan Guyenet seems to have decided to rewrite the Kreb's cycle...seems like wishful thinking in search of evidence :)

    19. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by quantaman · · Score: 1

      Creationist journals are cargo-cult science, nutrition is real science doing real experiments.

      A nutritionist who ignores the biochemical role of insulin in fat accumulation, and insists it's all "calories in/calories out" is a creationist then.

      I'd agree, but it's sure as hell not Guyenet.

      Appealing to a scientific authority about a scientific question they study is hardly an "unnamed authorities fallacy".

      Sure it is. You refer to some large group (say NASA), and make a baseless assertion without specific attribution. Name the individual, cite the work, or you're simply hand waving.

      The NASA example was obviously just for rhetorical purposes. But I've included numerous links to scientific papers, and the Guyenet links I included all used multiple citations.

      BOOM!! /me does a rude dance

      Wow, if only everything that happens to rats happened to humans :)

      Also interesting that you cite a paper "Identification and characterization of metabolically benign obesity in humans", while also citing the other paper that concludes, "Results of the present study indicate that obesity in the absence of the metabolic abnormalities is not such a rare condition in Taiwan. Furthermore, obesity and weight gain are associated with an increased risk for incidences of hypertension, T2DM and the metabolic syndrome in the metabolically healthy, middle-aged population. As such, weight management should continue to be a target for reducing cardiometabolic diseases in all obese indi- viduals."

      Good luck getting approval to inject insulin into healthy people to see if it makes them fat.

      Smoking causes lung cancer but not all smokers get lung cancer. The fact some people can be obese and metabolically healthy doesn't mean they're not still taking their chances.

      The problem is every test of Taubes theories come up negative.

      Cultures that eat a ton of white rice? They stay thin.

      Inject insulin into rats? Thin

      Fat people without insulin issues? Significant portion.

      The only thing that agrees with Taubes theories is the low-carb diet, but that's explainable with accepted mechanisms, and there are lots of diets that contradict Taubes that work just as well or better.

      Stephan Guyenet seems to have decided to rewrite the Kreb's cycle...seems like wishful thinking in search of evidence :)

      I'm not sure I understand this criticism, where is he rewriting the Kreb's cycle?

      Trying to have your cake and eat it too? :)

      Nah, don't wanna get fat.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    20. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      The NASA example was obviously just for rhetorical purposes. But I've included numerous links to scientific papers, and the Guyenet links I included all used multiple citations.

      Yes, we've addressed the issues with rat models, and conflicting papers :)

      And my apologies - I wasn't clear that I was critiquing your rhetorical appeal to unnamed authorities. I do appreciate the *actual* references and papers you've cited!

      Good luck getting approval to inject insulin into healthy people to see if it makes them fat.

      That's been done before, they even have a word for it:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipohypertrophy

      http://garytaubes.com/2012/02/on-the-greatly-exaggerated-demise-of-the-insulin-hypothesis/

      Heck, they even use it as a therapy for anorexia:
      http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evolutionary-psychiatry/201206/evolution-and-anorexia-nervosa

      Cultures that eat a ton of white rice? They stay thin.

      Um, try Hawaii and obesity levels amongst native Hawaiians, who have a *ton* of white rice in their diet.

      Inject insulin into rats? Thin

      Again, animal model versus human reality. If the rat model was an accurate depiction, anorexics who were treated with insulin would lose weight :)

      Fat people without insulin issues? Significant portion.

      As per my other reply, let's say we stipulate to 30% of fat people without insulin issues...are you agreeing that the other 70%, the vast majority, *do* have insulin issues?

      Maybe we already have 70% agreement :)

    21. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by Steve_Ussler · · Score: 0

      I think you mean my fat head :)

    22. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by quantaman · · Score: 1

      Good luck getting approval to inject insulin into healthy people to see if it makes them fat.

      That's been done before, they even have a word for it:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipohypertrophy

      http://garytaubes.com/2012/02/on-the-greatly-exaggerated-demise-of-the-insulin-hypothesis/

      Heck, they even use it as a therapy for anorexia:
      http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evolutionary-psychiatry/201206/evolution-and-anorexia-nervosa

      Lipohypertrophy simply confirms insulin as the mechanism for fat storage which everyone agrees on.

      The anorexia link is more compelling but there's an important caveat "AN [anorexia nervosa] may be caused by defects in the evolutionarily conserved response to food and nutrient shortage associated with reduced calorie intake". If there's a defect in the pathway regarding hunger insulin injections might fix that defect, just like fixing a flat tire makes your car go faster. But that doesn't mean that tires regulate your car's speed.

      What you'd need to show is insulin injections can cause obesity (not just lipohypertrophy) in healthy patients. And even then it only becomes a potential mechanism since you haven't proven that's what's occurring out in the wild.

      Cultures that eat a ton of white rice? They stay thin.

      Um, try Hawaii and obesity levels amongst native Hawaiians, who have a *ton* of white rice in their diet.

      You have a citation for that? It looks like rice is their staple starch but we don't know their total carb intake.

      Some places is asia hit 80% of their calories from rice. But the real measure is to see what their % of calories from carbohydrates is (which I couldn't find)

      Inject insulin into rats? Thin

      Again, animal model versus human reality. If the rat model was an accurate depiction, anorexics who were treated with insulin would lose weight :)

      Insulin plays the same role in their system, I suspect they'd experience lipohypertrophy as well but couldn't find mention either way.

      Either way the rat caveat only weakens it as value against the insulin hypothesis, I still haven't seen any evidence for the insulin hypothesis that isn't already consistent with the current state of nutrition research.

      Fat people without insulin issues? Significant portion.

      As per my other reply, let's say we stipulate to 30% of fat people without insulin issues...are you agreeing that the other 70%, the vast majority, *do* have insulin issues?

      Maybe we already have 70% agreement :)

      I agree the other 70% have insulin issues, but I challenge that their obesity is caused by those insulin issues instead of insulin issues caused by obesity.

      My central beef with Taubes is nutritionists already know a huge amount of the story of what causes obesity. They know a lot of why people get fat and they know how those people can lose weight. The problem is applying that knowledge and getting people to do it in the modern world where we have a bunch of hyper-palatable foods, sedentary lifestyles, tons of fat and salt, numerous social cues, and a bunch of other stuff. I'd like to be thinner, but I also ate some cookies when I wasn't really hungry last night. The carbs in the cookies weren't the problem, the problem was that they were cookies.

      Taubes is part of a long line of fad diets, blame obesity on a single cause (which may or may not be part of the big pictu

      --
      I stole this Sig
    23. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      Lipohypertrophy simply confirms insulin as the mechanism for fat storage which everyone agrees on.

      Okay, with you there.

      What you'd need to show is insulin injections can cause obesity (not just lipohypertrophy) in healthy patients.

      That's only with the caveat of a healthy patient with insulin resistance, but it begs the question - if we all agree insulin is a mechanism for fat storage, why *wouldn't* insulin injections cause obesity?

      But the real measure is to see what their % of calories from carbohydrates is (which I couldn't find)

      Not sure what you're driving at here - you think obese native Hawaiians must not be eating much rice? Or that it's not a high enough percentage of their diet?

      I agree the other 70% have insulin issues, but I challenge that their obesity is caused by those insulin issues instead of insulin issues caused by obesity.

      So you think fat accumulation happens *first*, and *then* insulin rises? Given the agreement on insulin as the mechanism for fat storage, exactly how does that jibe together?

      My central beef with Taubes is nutritionists already know a huge amount of the story of what causes obesity.

      That's categorically untrue. Nutritionists have ignored the basic biochemistry for years, and been driven by misguided government guidelines put out by the USDA (see the 1978 McGovern commission). Like the example of a full dining hall, it is *trivially* true that it is full because more people entered than left, but it that statement gives you *no* information as to *why* people enter and *why* people leave. The typical nutritionist story about obesity is "more calories were stored in fat cells than were removed" - which is simply an observation, not a statement of cause.

      I'd like to be thinner, but I also ate some cookies when I wasn't really hungry last night. The carbs in the cookies weren't the problem, the problem was that they were cookies.

      The cookies are only a problem if they cause fat accumulation. We know that's driven by insulin. If the cookie was made out of say, 100% butter, 0% carbohydrate, the cookie wouldn't have the same effect on your fat accumulation.

      Taubes is part of a long line of fad diets

      I believe you truly misunderstand him. Taubes is a science history reporter, not a diet guru. He's done a great job of exposing the fallacies of the fat-hypothesis, and a great job of showing the strong support of the insulin hypothesis, but the diet conclusions from that aren't really the point, other than to show us that our current dietary guidelines have been based on mistaken premises.

    24. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by quantaman · · Score: 1

      That's only with the caveat of a healthy patient with insulin resistance, but it begs the question - if we all agree insulin is a mechanism for fat storage, why *wouldn't* insulin injections cause obesity?

      If the regulatory role of insulin is to regulate blood sugar, not fat, then injecting insulin and causing some of that glucose to be turned into fat would draw a response from the actual regulator. This might include reducing appetite to maintain body fat at its current level (but reducing energy), increased hunger to replace blood sugar (which maybe would increase fat), or taking the fat that was just stored by the insulin and using it to replenish the lost blood sugar.

      It might cause obesity but the fact you can create obesity by simulating a specific disorder doesn't mean that disorder causes obesity.

      But the real measure is to see what their % of calories from carbohydrates is (which I couldn't find)

      Not sure what you're driving at here - you think obese native Hawaiians must not be eating much rice? Or that it's not a high enough percentage of their diet?

      If Taubes is right there should be a strong correlation between % of calories from carbohydrates, particularly simple ones like rice, and obesity. The correlation isn't there meaning the story is more complex. You say the Hawaiians are fat because they eat a lot of rice. Well do they really eat a lot of rice, more than we eat potatoes and bread? Do they have sauce that is fattening or making the rice particularly palatable and susceptible to overeating? Are they also eating a bunch of mayo and other foods that are really driving the obesity?

      I agree the other 70% have insulin issues, but I challenge that their obesity is caused by those insulin issues instead of insulin issues caused by obesity.

      So you think fat accumulation happens *first*, and *then* insulin rises? Given the agreement on insulin as the mechanism for fat storage, exactly how does that jibe together?

      They overeat as a result of non-insulin factors. The excess food causes excess blood sugar, this causes an insulin spike and eventual resistance.

      My central beef with Taubes is nutritionists already know a huge amount of the story of what causes obesity.

      That's categorically untrue. Nutritionists have ignored the basic biochemistry for years, and been driven by misguided government guidelines put out by the USDA (see the 1978 McGovern commission). Like the example of a full dining hall, it is *trivially* true that it is full because more people entered than left, but it that statement gives you *no* information as to *why* people enter and *why* people leave. The typical nutritionist story about obesity is "more calories were stored in fat cells than were removed" - which is simply an observation, not a statement of cause.

      From what it looks like the 1978 (77?) guidelines were based on recommendations from nutrition science. And even if they weren't, why would researchers care? Scientists follow the evidence, not government guidelines,

      "The typical nutritionist story about obesity is "more calories were stored in fat cells than were removed" - which is simply an observation, not a statement of cause."

      This is not the typical nutritionist story. It's a small part, but they spend a lot of time talking about why people eat more calories, how many they burn being active, how many they burn while inactive, metabolic factors, etc....

      I'd like to be thinner, but I also ate some cookies when I wasn't really hungry last night. The carbs in the cookies weren't the problem, the problem was that they were cookies.

      The cookies are only a problem if they cause fat accumulation. We know that's driven by insulin. If

      --
      I stole this Sig
    25. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      It might cause obesity but the fact you can create obesity by simulating a specific disorder doesn't mean that disorder causes obesity.

      I can see perhaps asserting there might be some alternate causes of obesity (in some small percent of people), but I'm not sure if you've identified a confounding factor yet.

      If Taubes is right there should be a strong correlation between % of calories from carbohydrates, particularly simple ones like rice, and obesity

      You're missing a variable - insulin resistance. If you go by Lustig, if someone eats nothing but starch, but never touches fruit, they never develop insulin resistance.

      They overeat as a result of non-insulin factors. The excess food causes excess blood sugar, this causes an insulin spike and eventual resistance.

      How can excess fat intake (in the absence of significant carbohydrate intake) raise blood sugar levels? Isn't the problem that they "overeat" carbohydrates?

      Scientists follow the evidence, not government guidelines,

      Your optimism is refreshing :) Try get a government grant on research that doesn't toe the line of the government position on something.

      they spend a lot of time talking about why people eat more calories, how many they burn being active, how many they burn while inactive, metabolic factors, etc....

      So, they blame character flaws (gluttony and sloth), and then make observations of "calories in/calories out", without actually asking "what is the metabolic *cause*". Lustig has done some great stuff on that.

      If you want to go all in on the insulin theory and start drenching everything in butter all I can do is wish you good luck and hand you the number of a contractor who can widen your front door.

      I have, and I've lost weight. In nutritional ketosis, eating 3000+ calories a day, with a sedentary lifestyle, I simply don't gain any weight. You may of course, consider this simply a single anecdote, not data, but you'd have a very difficult time making the case that the insulin hypothesis isn't true in my individual case.

      Take the Japan example, he was asked about it directly, and he unambiguously dodged the question.

      What's there to dodge? The question of "look, rice" is like asking "have you stopped beating your wife?" Holding up a country as an example of "look, insulin is wrong" is like the whole race and intelligence crap - you can't start doing your comparison unless you *control* for environment, and in the case of "lots of rice countries", that means controlling for insulin resistance, which might very well vary between populations.

      It's funny, it seems as if you're unwilling to entertain the idea that as per the Taiwan study you cited, the vast majority of cases of obesity *support* Taubes' hypothesis. Would you be more forgiving of Taubes if he said simply "in the vast majority of cases", rather than giving you the notion that he believed 100% of the cases followed?

    26. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by quantaman · · Score: 1

      You're missing a variable - insulin resistance. If you go by Lustig, if someone eats nothing but starch, but never touches fruit, they never develop insulin resistance.

      Considering the insulin index of white rice compared to fruit I find this claim pretty dubious.

      How can excess fat intake (in the absence of significant carbohydrate intake) raise blood sugar levels? Isn't the problem that they "overeat" carbohydrates?

      The ones with insulin resistance are probably overeating carbs (and everything else). But that doesn't mean insulin is driving the hunger.

      So, they blame character flaws (gluttony and sloth), and then make observations of "calories in/calories out", without actually asking "what is the metabolic *cause*". Lustig has done some great stuff on that.

      No, they blame the diet.

      I have, and I've lost weight. In nutritional ketosis, eating 3000+ calories a day, with a sedentary lifestyle, I simply don't gain any weight. You may of course, consider this simply a single anecdote, not data, but you'd have a very difficult time making the case that the insulin hypothesis isn't true in my individual case.

      I never disputed that low-carb doesn't work, so does plain rice or potatoes, but that doesn't mean that insulin is the driver of obesity.

      What's there to dodge? The question of "look, rice" is like asking "have you stopped beating your wife?" Holding up a country as an example of "look, insulin is wrong" is like the whole race and intelligence crap - you can't start doing your comparison unless you *control* for environment, and in the case of "lots of rice countries", that means controlling for insulin resistance, which might very well vary between populations.

      It's funny, it seems as if you're unwilling to entertain the idea that as per the Taiwan study you cited, the vast majority of cases of obesity *support* Taubes' hypothesis. Would you be more forgiving of Taubes if he said simply "in the vast majority of cases", rather than giving you the notion that he believed 100% of the cases followed?

      I don't follow....

      If you really wanted to compare this to race vs intelligence then note you're the one positing that populations react differently to the same diets.

      And only that one simple datapoint is consistent with Taubes, but it's also consistent with mainstream nutrition, as is all the other evidence that disagrees with Taubes.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    27. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      Considering the insulin index of white rice compared to fruit [wikipedia.org] I find this claim pretty dubious.

      Lustig makes the point that fructose consumption starts insulin resistance, and *then* the insulin index really matters. Check out his youtube lecture "sugar: the bitter truth" - he goes into serious depth there.

      But that doesn't mean insulin is driving the hunger.

      If insulin is driving energy into fat cells, and making it unavailable to muscles, and that unavailability is what triggers some sort of hunger response (as we see when say, someone is starving), isn't it simply obvious that in that case insulin is driving the hunger?

      I mean, if instead of putting energy into your mouth, and putting it directly into fat storage, you simply didn't put that energy into the body, wouldn't a body get *hungrier*? Isn't that a reasonable assumption?

      If you really wanted to compare this to race vs intelligence then note you're the one positing that populations react differently to the same diets.

      I'm positing that populations with different internal biochemical *environments* react differently to the same diets, whereas the race and intelligence folk posit that populations differ, *regardless* of environment.

      it's also consistent with mainstream nutrition

      Would you critique mainstream nutrition with the same tactic, that there are some % of cases that don't follow their hypothesis?

    28. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by quantaman · · Score: 1

      Considering the insulin index of white rice compared to fruit [wikipedia.org] I find this claim pretty dubious.

      Lustig makes the point that fructose consumption starts insulin resistance, and *then* the insulin index really matters. Check out his youtube lecture "sugar: the bitter truth" - he goes into serious depth there.

      But that doesn't mean insulin is driving the hunger.

      If insulin is driving energy into fat cells, and making it unavailable to muscles, and that unavailability is what triggers some sort of hunger response (as we see when say, someone is starving), isn't it simply obvious that in that case insulin is driving the hunger?

      I mean, if instead of putting energy into your mouth, and putting it directly into fat storage, you simply didn't put that energy into the body, wouldn't a body get *hungrier*? Isn't that a reasonable assumption?

      Even when gaining weight there's only a small difference in the average calories we ingest and the average we burn. Our brain is actively maintaining the level of fatness. If your brain feels it has too much fat and your muscles need energy is will try to take calories from the fat instead of food.

      How does Taubes think the body regulates fatness? Does he think maintaining blood glucose at X level is the only mechanism?

      If you really wanted to compare this to race vs intelligence then note you're the one positing that populations react differently to the same diets.

      I'm positing that populations with different internal biochemical *environments* react differently to the same diets, whereas the race and intelligence folk posit that populations differ, *regardless* of environment.

      How are their internal biochemical environments different? If a Japanese or Vietnamese person can be thin with a bunch of calories from white rice why can't I?

      it's also consistent with mainstream nutrition

      Would you critique mainstream nutrition with the same tactic, that there are some % of cases that don't follow their hypothesis?

      Well there's 30% of obesity in Taiwan that doesn't follow Taubes hypothesis on why they're fat, and entire regions of the world (including examples he used) that defy his theory. If mainstream nutrition had this problem I think they'd be in trouble too.

      I'd really suggest reading the series on Why Do We Eat? A Neurobiological Perspective. I think you'll be surprised by how complex the picture is and how thorough the literature is.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    29. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      Our brain is actively maintaining the level of fatness. If your brain feels it has too much fat and your muscles need energy is will try to take calories from the fat instead of food.

      How does the brain actively maintain the level of fatness? Are you saying that even in the presence of insulin resistance, that your brain can override your fat and muscle tissue and make them partition fuel despite the influence of insulin?

      How does Taubes think the body regulates fatness?

      The same way you agreed earlier - insulin. Now, there may be various regulators of insulin (although I'll argue the primary one is carbohydrate intake), but the biochemical mechanism is pretty clear.

      If a Japanese or Vietnamese person can be thin with a bunch of calories from white rice why can't I?

      If a two pack a day smoker can live until 94 years old without lung cancer, why can't everyone?

      In the case of people living in Japan or Vietnam, more things than just their caloric intake of white rice vary - other portions of diet, other environmental factors, all can create a situation that isn't applicable to other locations.

      I think you'll be surprised by how complex the picture is and how thorough the literature is.

      It certainly is complex, but it's hardly thorough :) That being said, it's "what makes us eat more than what we require for leanness?" seems simple - the improper partitioning of incoming energy into fat cells, which starves muscle cells. This improper partitioning is driven by insulin and insulin resistance.

    30. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by quantaman · · Score: 1

      Our brain is actively maintaining the level of fatness. If your brain feels it has too much fat and your muscles need energy is will try to take calories from the fat instead of food.

      How does the brain actively maintain the level of fatness? Are you saying that even in the presence of insulin resistance, that your brain can override your fat and muscle tissue and make them partition fuel despite the influence of insulin?

      Insulin resistance will screw with the regulation but that doesn't mean it started the obesity or is the main driver.

      I don't know exactly how the brain understands its weight level, but the set point certainly does exist and I can't see how insulin responding to blood sugar alone could be responsible for this.

      If a Japanese or Vietnamese person can be thin with a bunch of calories from white rice why can't I?

      If a two pack a day smoker can live until 94 years old without lung cancer, why can't everyone?

      In the case of people living in Japan or Vietnam, more things than just their caloric intake of white rice vary - other portions of diet, other environmental factors, all can create a situation that isn't applicable to other locations.

      Show me a country where 2-pack a day smokers have a drastically lower lung cancer rate and we'll talk.

      Here's the big problem with the Taubes idea.

      We weren't always fat. Virtually no ancestral cultures have high levels of obesity, but tons have high levels of carb intake. Some even eat a ton of fruit and honey.
      You can also swap out a bunch of fat for sugar and not gain weight with modern people.

      And if carbs are responsible for obesity then why did we eat more calories from carbs 100 years ago than we do today? And why isn't there a correlation between that macronutrient graph and obesity rates over the same period

      If your interpretation of the biochemistry tells you that insulin is driving obesity then your interpretation is wrong because the evidence is pretty overwhelming that carbs are not the culprit.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    31. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      Insulin resistance will screw with the regulation but that doesn't mean it started the obesity or is the main driver.

      I guess my problem is that we've identified the biochemical driver, and Lustig has an idea of what triggers the insulin resistance, but you're positing some other trigger event or "main driver" that doesn't have a biochemical basis.

      I don't know exactly how the brain understands its weight level, but the set point certainly does exist and I can't see how insulin responding to blood sugar alone could be responsible for this.

      You forgot the variable "insulin resistance" again - if the brain can tell when muscles are starving (a fair assumption), and insulin resistance causes insulin response to blood sugar to cause a partitioning of energy away from muscles into fat cells (i.e., starving the muscles), then the brain simply needs to know when the muscles are starving for insulin response and insulin resistance to be the root cause.

      Show me a country where 2-pack a day smokers have a drastically lower lung cancer rate and we'll talk.

      I think we're now arguing individuals versus populations by accident. Your ask was "why can't *I*" do something that another group of people can do. I replaced "group of people" with "a group of 1 that you could be jealous of", and I think what you're trying to say is that you want *more* than a group of one...but that doesn't address the point I was trying to make, that a location where a diet has a different effect cannot be considered something you can extrapolate to everyone.

      Virtually no ancestral cultures have high levels of obesity, but tons have high levels of carb intake.

      Actually, I think the data on ancestral cultures points in the opposite direction - they had high levels of animal fat intake, and no significant carbs to speak of.

      And if carbs are responsible for obesity then why did we eat more calories from carbs 100 years ago than we do today

      That's simply not true. The USDA data isn't accurate or useful.

      If your interpretation of the biochemistry tells you that insulin is driving obesity then your interpretation is wrong because the evidence is pretty overwhelming that carbs are not the culprit.

      Again, you've started with incorrect premises, so you've come to an incorrect conclusion.

    32. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by quantaman · · Score: 1

      Insulin resistance will screw with the regulation but that doesn't mean it started the obesity or is the main driver.

      I guess my problem is that we've identified the biochemical driver, and Lustig has an idea of what triggers the insulin resistance, but you're positing some other trigger event or "main driver" that doesn't have a biochemical basis.

      I don't know exactly how the brain understands its weight level, but the set point certainly does exist and I can't see how insulin responding to blood sugar alone could be responsible for this.

      You forgot the variable "insulin resistance" again - if the brain can tell when muscles are starving (a fair assumption), and insulin resistance causes insulin response to blood sugar to cause a partitioning of energy away from muscles into fat cells (i.e., starving the muscles), then the brain simply needs to know when the muscles are starving for insulin response and insulin resistance to be the root cause.

      Show me a country where 2-pack a day smokers have a drastically lower lung cancer rate and we'll talk.

      I think we're now arguing individuals versus populations by accident. Your ask was "why can't *I*" do something that another group of people can do. I replaced "group of people" with "a group of 1 that you could be jealous of", and I think what you're trying to say is that you want *more* than a group of one...but that doesn't address the point I was trying to make, that a location where a diet has a different effect cannot be considered something you can extrapolate to everyone.

      If multiple different populations stay thin on a high carb diet there's obviously a big piece missing from Taubes' hypothesis.

      Virtually no ancestral cultures have high levels of obesity, but tons have high levels of carb intake.

      Actually, I think the data on ancestral cultures points in the opposite direction - they had high levels of animal fat intake, and no significant carbs to speak of.

      What data? You're just making a bald assertion in the face of multiple examples I gave you.

      And don't just throw back the Inuit, your position requires that virtually every ancestral culture for whom we have a good idea of the diet and the obesity levels should show the relation.

      And if carbs are responsible for obesity then why did we eat more calories from carbs 100 years ago than we do today

      That's simply not true. The USDA data isn't accurate or useful.

      If your interpretation of the biochemistry tells you that insulin is driving obesity then your interpretation is wrong because the evidence is pretty overwhelming that carbs are not the culprit.

      Again, you've started with incorrect premises, so you've come to an incorrect conclusion.

      So if the data doesn't agree with you you'll just ignore it? How do you know Taubes gave you good data? Particularly since I've already given you examples where he gave bad data? What data do you have other than the low carb diet which can be explained by other factors and biochemical facts about a hormone that is only one part of a highly complex system?

      --
      I stole this Sig
    33. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      If multiple different populations stay thin on a high carb diet there's obviously a big piece missing from Taubes' hypothesis.

      No, I think you're skipping a piece from his hypothesis - insulin resistance. What we need is better data regarding actual insulin resistance and obesity (rather than say, the proxy of waist size).

      What data? You're just making a bald assertion in the face of multiple examples I gave you.

      What examples? You simply said "virtually no ancestral cultures", without specifying what an "ancestral culture is", or even dealing with say, the Masai or the Inuit.

      And don't just throw back the Inuit

      I paired them with the Masai for good measure :)

      So if the data doesn't agree with you you'll just ignore it?

      No, you look for actual data, rather than rough proxies. The problem with the proxy data given is that it really doesn't show what you think it does.

    34. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by quantaman · · Score: 1

      What examples? You simply said "virtually no ancestral cultures", without specifying what an "ancestral culture is", or even dealing with say, the Masai or the Inuit.

      The Masai and Inuit are famous for showing you can be healthy on a low carb high fat/protein diet, a fact I never argued with.

      The fact you can be healthy on a low carb diet doesn't mean you need a low carb diet. And how can you possibly justify using the Masai and Inuit as evidence while tossing out all of Asia?

      No, you look for actual data, rather than rough proxies. The problem with the proxy data given is that it really doesn't show what you think it does.

      What does this data look like?

      Advanced culture who's high carb and low obesity? Japan.

      Primitive cultures who are high carb and low obesity? A bunch of other places in Asia and Africa.

      Injecting insulin not causing obesity? Done with mice.

      Replacing x% of calories from fat with pure sugar not causing obesity? Done with people.

      People losing weight on high carb diets? Tons of vegetarians do this.

      Lack of correlation between carb intake and obesity in the US? You think the graphs must by lying because they don't agree with you.

      If none of this data convinces you then what data possibly could? You've essentially decided the hormonal role of insulin is obvious and sufficient proof that it drives obesity and researchers are somehow too stupid to realize it.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    35. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      The Masai and Inuit are famous for showing you can be healthy on a low carb high fat/protein diet, a fact I never argued with.

      Excellent, then perhaps I misunderstood your position.

      I'd take it a step farther and state that they also give us prominent evidence that ancestral cultures in wildly differing environments tended towards a low carb, high fat/protein diet.

      http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/low-carb-diets/are-we-meat-eaters-or-vegetarians-part-iii/

      The fact you can be healthy on a low carb diet doesn't mean you need a low carb diet.

      But it could mean that fat people need a low carb diet.

      Advanced culture who's high carb and low obesity? Japan.

      http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=sugar%20consumption%20per%20capita%20in%20USA%20and%20Japan

      Primitive cultures who are high carb and low obesity? A bunch of other places in Asia and Africa.

      Cite?

      Injecting insulin not causing obesity? Done with mice.

      Human evidence contraindicates.

      Replacing x% of calories from fat with pure sugar not causing obesity? Done with people.

      Missing the insulin resistance factor.

      People losing weight on high carb diets? Tons of vegetarians do this.

      Again, insulin resistance factor.

      If none of this data convinces you then what data possibly could?

      Those aren't data, those are assertions.

    36. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by quantaman · · Score: 1

      The Masai and Inuit are famous for showing you can be healthy on a low carb high fat/protein diet, a fact I never argued with.

      Excellent, then perhaps I misunderstood your position.

      I'd take it a step farther and state that they also give us prominent evidence that ancestral cultures in wildly differing environments tended towards a low carb, high fat/protein diet.

      http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/low-carb-diets/are-we-meat-eaters-or-vegetarians-part-iii/

      Is a guy selling protein supplements really a reliable source for analysis on whether we're naturally meat eaters?

      Even then at best he shows that the European paleolithic population ate a lot of meat. But there's a big before and after period and we don't know how relevant the paleolithic diet is to modern nutrition. Certainly most populations will eat fatty meat when available because it's a great energy source, that doesn't mean doing the same when you have unlimited quantities will keep you thin!

      Advanced culture who's high carb and low obesity? Japan.

      http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=sugar%20consumption%20per%20capita%20in%20USA%20and%20Japan

      I never said Japan ate a lot of sugar, I said they ate a lot of carbs.

      Primitive cultures who are high carb and low obesity? A bunch of other places in Asia and Africa.

      Cite?

      I don't know a lot about the site, but here's a bunch of carb heavy communities in China compared with a fat heavy community and there's not much difference. How do you explain that with the paleo evidence? If we're all adapted to high fat then why are all those other Chinese communities healthy? If the Chinese are adapted then how is the high fat community thin?

      Injecting insulin not causing obesity? Done with mice.

      Human evidence contraindicates.

      It does? I assume you're not referring to the evidence that insulin is the mechanism for fat storage in humans, because it plays the exact same role in mice.

      Replacing x% of calories from fat with pure sugar not causing obesity? Done with people.

      Missing the insulin resistance factor.

      People losing weight on high carb diets? Tons of vegetarians do this.

      Again, insulin resistance factor.

      So as long as you don't become insulin resistant then carbs won't make you fat? How do non-insulin resistant people lose weight on low carb diets then? Do you have to become insulin resistant before you become obese? (Assuming we ignore the non-insulin resistant obese)

      If none of this data convinces you then what data possibly could?

      Those aren't data, those are assertions.

      Every "assertion" (except the vegetarian thing) I backed up in previous posts, often multiple times, with links to studies, journal articles, or blog posts with extensive citations to journal articles. How is that not data?

      --
      I stole this Sig
    37. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      But there's a big before and after period and we don't know how relevant the paleolithic diet is to modern nutrition.

      Truth be told, I think it's difficult to make claims about any period that long ago, which was my problem with your contention that ancestral cultures were somehow high carb.

      I never said Japan ate a lot of sugar, I said they ate a lot of carbs.

      But if it's fructose (found in sugar), as per Lustig, that sets up insulin resistance, then the pattern fits. Once their sugar consumption goes up, their high starch diet will result in more obesity.

      If we're all adapted to high fat then why are all those other Chinese communities healthy?

      I think perhaps I'm not being clear - I'm not saying we're all adapted to high fat, I'm simply saying that anyone who is obese is. People who swell up after eating peanuts are allergic to peanuts, but that doesn't mean everyone is.

      I assume you're not referring to the evidence that insulin is the mechanism for fat storage in humans, because it plays the exact same role in mice.

      Apparently not if you can inject it into mice and not have fat accumulation. Or is there some biomechanism that you're going to assert interrupts the fat storage capacity of insulin in the experiments you referenced?

      So as long as you don't become insulin resistant then carbs won't make you fat?

      That certainly sounds reasonable, given the biomechanical properties of insulin and fat accumulation.

      How do non-insulin resistant people lose weight on low carb diets then?

      A non-insulin resistant person isn't someone who needs to lose weight - their fat cells properly store and release fat as intended. Although granted, insulin resistance isn't a switch, it's a spectrum.

      Do you have to become insulin resistant before you become obese?

      It certainly seems that case in the vast majority of cases, if further investigation in to the MHO doesn't show some problems with the studies you referenced.

      Every "assertion" (except the vegetarian thing) I backed up in previous posts, often multiple times, with links to studies, journal articles, or blog posts with extensive citations to journal articles. How is that not data?

      It's not a cite if it's not next to your assertion :) Just having a bibliography, and a bunch of assertions based on the bibliography isn't really showing data :)

    38. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by quantaman · · Score: 1

      But there's a big before and after period and we don't know how relevant the paleolithic diet is to modern nutrition.

      Truth be told, I think it's difficult to make claims about any period that long ago, which was my problem with your contention that ancestral cultures were somehow high carb.

      My bad. I meant cultures currently living an ancestral lifestyle (or at least undeveloped). Basically obesity is a disease of civilization. You can eat pretty much whatever balance of macronutrients you want, but if you're not in a developed economy you're probably not obese.

      I never said Japan ate a lot of sugar, I said they ate a lot of carbs.

      But if it's fructose (found in sugar), as per Lustig, that sets up insulin resistance, then the pattern fits. Once their sugar consumption goes up, their high starch diet will result in more obesity.

      What about sugar without fructose? Starch causes a pretty big insulin response, sometimes higher than pure sugar. You think there's something with fructose in particular that causes insulin resistance with the same insulin levels?

      If we're all adapted to high fat then why are all those other Chinese communities healthy?

      I think perhaps I'm not being clear - I'm not saying we're all adapted to high fat, I'm simply saying that anyone who is obese is. People who swell up after eating peanuts are allergic to peanuts, but that doesn't mean everyone is.

      So none of those Chinese people are adapted to fat? Is that genetic or environmental?

      I assume you're not referring to the evidence that insulin is the mechanism for fat storage in humans, because it plays the exact same role in mice.

      Apparently not if you can inject it into mice and not have fat accumulation. Or is there some biomechanism that you're going to assert interrupts the fat storage capacity of insulin in the experiments you referenced?

      Are you claiming that mice don't experience lipophypertrophy, or are you claiming that since mice don't confirm your theory that mice must be different then humans (this would be a very dubious claim).

      How do non-insulin resistant people lose weight on low carb diets then?

      A non-insulin resistant person isn't someone who needs to lose weight - their fat cells properly store and release fat as intended. Although granted, insulin resistance isn't a switch, it's a spectrum.

      It doesn't matter if they don't have to lose weight, the fact is they DO lose weight. If low-carb works for people without insulin resistance then clearly insulin resistance isn't the only reason low-carb works.

      Do you have to become insulin resistant before you become obese?

      It certainly seems that case in the vast majority of cases, if further investigation in to the MHO doesn't show some problems with the studies you referenced.

      Every "assertion" (except the vegetarian thing) I backed up in previous posts, often multiple times, with links to studies, journal articles, or blog posts with extensive citations to journal articles. How is that not data?

      It's not a cite if it's not next to your assertion :) Just having a bibliography, and a bunch of assertions based on the bibliography isn't really showing data :)

      Well what would you accept as data?

      --
      I stole this Sig
    39. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      You can eat pretty much whatever balance of macronutrients you want, but if you're not in a developed economy you're probably not obese.

      Maybe your idea of a "developed economy" differs than mine. Obesity is a form of malnutrition, and there are plenty of third world countries where obesity is rampant. Now granted, that's not an "ancestral diet", but I think it's difficult to find, much less define "ancestral diets". Do you have a specific example that would help illustrate what you mean?

      r. You think there's something with fructose in particular that causes insulin resistance with the same insulin levels?

      Lustig posits (and I think it's fairly reasonable as at least one method) that fructose causes insulin resistance, and that before that point, insulin levels are perfectly well handled (allowing for the high starch/no insulin resistance == not much obesity populations). I think it's also possible that chronically elevated insulin levels in the absence of significant fructose could also be doing something to drive insulin resistance, but that's not as clearly outlined in biomechanical process as Lustig has with his fructose theory. It may be, as with insulin resistance, fructose effect occurs on a spectrum.

      So none of those Chinese people are adapted to fat? Is that genetic or environmental?

      I'm claiming that any population you identify with a high carb diet and low obesity rates does not have significant allergies to carbohydrates. What triggers an allergy to carbohydrates may be a combination of genetic or environmental factors.

      Are you claiming that mice don't experience lipophypertrophy

      I thought that was your claim - insulin given to mice, according to your cite, did not cause fat accumulation.

      If low-carb works for people without insulin resistance then clearly insulin resistance isn't the only reason low-carb works.

      Insulin resistance is a spectrum. If you have an insulin sensitive person who isn't overweight, and they go low carb and lose five pounds, that's functionally analogous to an insulin resistant person who is 300 pounds, and they go low carb, and lose 140 pounds.

      Show me an insulin sensitive person who isn't overweight, and loses 140 pounds on low carb, and then we'll be able to find out if there are any other reasons why low carb works :)

      Well what would you accept as data?

      Well, I think the gold standard is the whole metabolic ward stuff. Peter Attia shares some of his experiences there: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqwvcrA7oe8&feature=player_embedded

      I don't think that self reported eating data is very good, nor is government reported food data very good, nor is indirect measurement by assumption (waist size) very good - and a big part of that is because doing things right and getting good data is expensive.

      Honestly, at this point, there's enough data out there of poor quality to argue any point you want, which is why the next steps here have to be direct measurement and a rigorous application of skepticism and falsifiability.

    40. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by quantaman · · Score: 1

      You can eat pretty much whatever balance of macronutrients you want, but if you're not in a developed economy you're probably not obese.

      Maybe your idea of a "developed economy" differs than mine. Obesity is a form of malnutrition, and there are plenty of third world countries where obesity is rampant. Now granted, that's not an "ancestral diet", but I think it's difficult to find, much less define "ancestral diets". Do you have a specific example that would help illustrate what you mean?

      In 3rd world countries the fat people are generally just the city dwellers. I guess 'developed economy' was a bad way to put it, populations who's lifestyle hasn't changed significantly in the past 500-1000 years. Subsistence hunters or populations using traditional farming techniques.

      r. You think there's something with fructose in particular that causes insulin resistance with the same insulin levels?

      Lustig posits (and I think it's fairly reasonable as at least one method) that fructose causes insulin resistance, and that before that point, insulin levels are perfectly well handled (allowing for the high starch/no insulin resistance == not much obesity populations). I think it's also possible that chronically elevated insulin levels in the absence of significant fructose could also be doing something to drive insulin resistance, but that's not as clearly outlined in biomechanical process as Lustig has with his fructose theory. It may be, as with insulin resistance, fructose effect occurs on a spectrum.

      So it looks like fructose can be a factor in insulin resistance and it plays a role in abdominal fat. But I'm still not convinced that insulin resistance itself is a cause, and not a symptom of obesity.

      So none of those Chinese people are adapted to fat? Is that genetic or environmental?

      I'm claiming that any population you identify with a high carb diet and low obesity rates does not have significant allergies to carbohydrates. What triggers an allergy to carbohydrates may be a combination of genetic or environmental factors.

      I'd approach the claim of genetic factors with extreme skepticism. Unless the entire western world under went a mutation in the last 100 years and everyone who moves to a western society undergoes the same mutation.

      There's a genetic component to obesity obviously, but the smoking gun lies in modern diet and lifestyles.

      Are you claiming that mice don't experience lipophypertrophy

      I thought that was your claim - insulin given to mice, according to your cite, did not cause fat accumulation.

      Lipohypertrophy is a specific form of localized weight gain. The cite said that injecting insulin did not cause total fat gain. Claiming insulin works significantly differently in mice is a VERY bold claim, evolutionary biologists would likely be astonished if a shared basic metabolic hormone had different effects between our species (and that nutritionists were so impossibly daft as to never notice it).

      Show me an insulin sensitive person who isn't overweight, and loses 140 pounds on low carb, and then we'll be able to find out if there are any other reasons why low carb works :)

      Sure (just a joke in poor taste, I have no idea what her actual diet was).

      Well, I think the gold standard is the whole metabolic ward stuff. Peter Attia shares some of his experiences there: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqwvcrA7oe8&feature=player_embedded

      --
      I stole this Sig
    41. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      Subsistence hunters or populations using traditional farming techniques.

      I'd love to see metabolic ward studies and direct analysis of any subsistence hunter population or "traditional farming" population. My guess is that both would have a significantly lower insulin impact on the insulin resistant.

      But I'm still not convinced that insulin resistance itself is a cause, and not a symptom of obesity.

      But you can be insulin resistant, stop eating carbohydrates, stop being obese, but still have insulin resistance and an acute allergy to carbohydrate. I suppose you could argue that it is a symptom of obesity that never goes away, even if the obesity itself is transient, but then you've got to find a mechanism for becoming obese and accumulating fat without insulin resistance.

      Again, I'd love to see that in a metabolic ward.

      Unless the entire western world under went a mutation in the last 100 years and everyone who moves to a western society undergoes the same mutation.

      Actually, my understanding is that it's more like Lamarck was correct in some evolutionary cases - prenatal environment (which is passed on by the mother, even though it isn't strictly genetic it shows inheritance), can dramatically change the insulin resistance of offspring. It shows up in generations of natives who have generations get more and more obese as the high blood sugar environment is "passed on" to children in the womb.

      So is it necessarily due to a genetic mutation that's isolated to a specific population group? Probably not - all humans are pretty much all humans and race is an imaginary construct.

      Claiming insulin works significantly differently in mice is a VERY bold claim, evolutionary biologists would likely be astonished if a shared basic metabolic hormone had different effects between our species (and that nutritionists were so impossibly daft as to never notice it).

      That's the claim of the study that insulin injections can cause mice to lose weight.

      By 'metabolic ward' you mean from hospitals?

      You could probably construct a metabolic ward anywhere - I mean an isolated environment, where every calorie in and calorie out of the whole environment is controlled, measured, and analyzed. See the report from Peter Attia on his experience going through metabolic ward testing.

      Yeah, too bad we didn't have some large field of people, dedicated to applying skepticism and falsifiability in investigating these issues.

      Yes, it's really too bad. The practice of science has gone from the pursuit of knowledge to a hierarchical grant grubbing factory where toeing the line of current dogma is a prerequisite to success. The fact that someone like Ancel Keys was able to demonize fat to the point that we've raised two whole generations under his misguided nutritional advice and suffered through the worst epidemics of diabetes, heart disease, cancer and other chronic diseases is a testament to the damage one motivated individual can do given the reins of a paternalistic government.

    42. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by quantaman · · Score: 1

      Unless the entire western world under went a mutation in the last 100 years and everyone who moves to a western society undergoes the same mutation.

      Actually, my understanding is that it's more like Lamarck was correct in some evolutionary cases - prenatal environment (which is passed on by the mother, even though it isn't strictly genetic it shows inheritance), can dramatically change the insulin resistance of offspring. It shows up in generations of natives who have generations get more and more obese as the high blood sugar environment is "passed on" to children in the womb.

      So is it necessarily due to a genetic mutation that's isolated to a specific population group? Probably not - all humans are pretty much all humans and race is an imaginary construct.

      Even if you assume an epigenetic factor is at work in western populations you still need to explain why it was activated in western populations and not ancestral populations eating lots of sugar, fructose, and carbs.

      Claiming insulin works significantly differently in mice is a VERY bold claim, evolutionary biologists would likely be astonished if a shared basic metabolic hormone had different effects between our species (and that nutritionists were so impossibly daft as to never notice it).

      That's the claim of the study that insulin injections can cause mice to lose weight.

      You're quite literally saying "a study that directly contradicts my theory is wrong because it directly contradicts my theory".

      You seem to have this idea that since insulin is the mechanism for fat storage it's a mathematical truth that it drives obesity. Either every mainstream nutrition researcher is a fraud or a complete moron or the picture is a lot more complicated than you realize it is.

      By 'metabolic ward' you mean from hospitals?

      You could probably construct a metabolic ward anywhere - I mean an isolated environment, where every calorie in and calorie out of the whole environment is controlled, measured, and analyzed. See the report from Peter Attia on his experience going through metabolic ward testing.

      That's a useful component for research, and it's done, but it's not nearly as generalizable you think it is. A metabolic ward is by definition a highly a-typical environment and putting someone in a metabolic ward introduces a pile of confounders that don't show up in the normal population.

      Yeah, too bad we didn't have some large field of people, dedicated to applying skepticism and falsifiability in investigating these issues.

      Yes, it's really too bad. The practice of science has gone from the pursuit of knowledge to a hierarchical grant grubbing factory where toeing the line of current dogma is a prerequisite to success. The fact that someone like Ancel Keys was able to demonize fat to the point that we've raised two whole generations under his misguided nutritional advice and suffered through the worst epidemics of diabetes, heart disease, cancer and other chronic diseases is a testament to the damage one motivated individual can do given the reins of a paternalistic government.

      Your evidence that two generations of nutritional scientists are complete bunk and someone publishing thousands of papers without actually doing any useful work is largely based on a book by a journalist. I don't think even Lustig, the one controversial nutrition researcher you've cited a few times, agrees with Taubes.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    43. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      Even if you assume an epigenetic factor is at work in western populations you still need to explain why it was activated in western populations and not ancestral populations eating lots of sugar, fructose, and carbs.

      I thought you agreed that there is no ancestral population eating lots of sugar (i.e., like comparing sugar comparison between Japan and the US).

      Name a single ancestral population eating lots of sugar, fructose and carbs.

      You're quite literally saying "a study that directly contradicts my theory is wrong because it directly contradicts my theory".

      No, I'm saying "the study you cited contradicts the other study you cited". Which one is wrong, do you think? Do you think that insulin doesn't cause fat accumulation as shown by study A, or do you believe that insulin does cause fat accumulation by study B?

      A metabolic ward is by definition a highly a-typical environment and putting someone in a metabolic ward introduces a pile of confounders that don't show up in the normal population.

      So you're asserting that somehow the psychological effect of being in a metabolic ward causes biochemistry to behave differently?

      Look, in order to get down to the biomechanisms here, you need to be able to observe things in frightening detail - are you positing some sort of heisenberg uncertainty principle for diet, in that it changes when observed?

      Your evidence that two generations of nutritional scientists are complete bunk and someone publishing thousands of papers without actually doing any useful work is largely based on a book by a journalist.

      A journalist who has painstakingly cited every finding he's shown. He's just the messenger, the real data is there, and that needs to be contended with.

    44. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by quantaman · · Score: 1

      Even if you assume an epigenetic factor is at work in western populations you still need to explain why it was activated in western populations and not ancestral populations eating lots of sugar, fructose, and carbs.

      I thought you agreed that there is no ancestral population eating lots of sugar (i.e., like comparing sugar comparison between Japan and the US).

      Name a single ancestral population eating lots of sugar, fructose and carbs.

      Ok

      No, I'm saying "the study you cited contradicts the other study you cited". Which one is wrong, do you think? Do you think that insulin doesn't cause fat accumulation as shown by study A, or do you believe that insulin does cause fat accumulation by study B?

      I'm not sure what this study B you're talking about is. Outside of lipohypertrophy (something different) or insulin used to treat a specific disorder (very specific circumstances and I don't think I posted it anyways) I can't remember posting anything like that.

      A metabolic ward is by definition a highly a-typical environment and putting someone in a metabolic ward introduces a pile of confounders that don't show up in the normal population.

      So you're asserting that somehow the psychological effect of being in a metabolic ward causes biochemistry to behave differently?

      Look, in order to get down to the biomechanisms here, you need to be able to observe things in frightening detail - are you positing some sort of heisenberg uncertainty principle for diet, in that it changes when observed?

      You can examine what happens when you eat specific foods in detail and that very valuable. But obesity is caused by our entire lifestyle and can't replicate their lifestyles in a metabolic ward.

      Your evidence that two generations of nutritional scientists are complete bunk and someone publishing thousands of papers without actually doing any useful work is largely based on a book by a journalist.

      A journalist who has painstakingly cited every finding he's shown. He's just the messenger, the real data is there, and that needs to be contended with.

      WTF do you think I've been doing?!? I've shown real data he's misrepresented. I've shown counter examples he's ignored. I've shown how everyone else knows about this 'real data' but also knows the other data that leads to different conclusions!

      All Taubes has done is cherrypicked and misrepresented some data and ended up with some fame and a pile of money.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    45. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      Let's take the Hazda:

      http://www.epjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/EP07601616.pdf

      None of those starches or sugars is refined at all, which likely reduces the amount of effect that it can have on insulin levels, much less insulin resistance. Hell Baobab is even advertised as low glycemic: (http://baobab-fruit.com)

      Even honey is a relatively low glycemic index: http://www.livestrong.com/article/270875-honey-vs-sugar-glycemic-index/

      Using the Hazda to refute the insulin hypothesis, given the low glycemic values of their diet, seems inappropriate.

      You can examine what happens when you eat specific foods in detail and that very valuable. But obesity is caused by our entire lifestyle and can't replicate their lifestyles in a metabolic ward.

      "caused by our entire lifestyle?" So for example, if one person watches the news for 30 minutes, and another watches a sitcom, you're going to assert that this lifestyle difference could cause a difference in obesity? By what possible mechanism?

      The science of fat accumulation cannot simply be stated as "thou shalt do no measurements, and rely on self reported diet and exercise numbers". Until you get someone in a metabolic ward (where you can test all kinds of hypotheses on what may or may not add to fat accumulation), you're not collecting very good data.

      I've shown real data he's misrepresented. I've shown counter examples he's ignored.

      No, you actually really haven't. You've shown data you believe contradicts him, but doesn't. You've shown examples that you believe contradict him, but don't.

      Moreover, you seem to think (although perhaps this isn't what you intend) that the insulin hypothesis simply has no value whatsoever, and must be replaced by a nebulous, undefined "palatability" hypothesis. You then clearly treat this favored hypothesis as immune to the same sort of critique you give to the insulin hypothesis, doing much of what you accuse taubes of - misrepresenting data and ignoring counter examples.

      So sure, there certainly is a lot more to be learned about what drives insulin resistance, and perhaps, for some small fraction of obese, what alternative method (MHO) might be causing a hormonal imbalance in fat accumulation. But frankly, Guynet and his wishful thinking about palatability and tastiness just doesn't stand up to the same level of scrutiny that he'd like us to place on the insulin hypothesis.

    46. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by quantaman · · Score: 1

      Let's take the Hazda:

      http://www.epjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/EP07601616.pdf

      None of those starches or sugars is refined at all, which likely reduces the amount of effect that it can have on insulin levels, much less insulin resistance. Hell Baobab is even advertised as low glycemic: (http://baobab-fruit.com)

      Even honey is a relatively low glycemic index: http://www.livestrong.com/article/270875-honey-vs-sugar-glycemic-index/

      Using the Hazda to refute the insulin hypothesis, given the low glycemic values of their diet, seems inappropriate.

      There's still a lot of berries and starch. And the very low fat content.

      You can examine what happens when you eat specific foods in detail and that very valuable. But obesity is caused by our entire lifestyle and can't replicate their lifestyles in a metabolic ward.

      "caused by our entire lifestyle?" So for example, if one person watches the news for 30 minutes, and another watches a sitcom, you're going to assert that this lifestyle difference could cause a difference in obesity? By what possible mechanism?

      The science of fat accumulation cannot simply be stated as "thou shalt do no measurements, and rely on self reported diet and exercise numbers". Until you get someone in a metabolic ward (where you can test all kinds of hypotheses on what may or may not add to fat accumulation), you're not collecting very good data.

      That's a pretty lame reductio ad absurdum. How many times do people go out drinking with friends in a metabolic ward? Go to a potluck, head out for lunch, play a soccer game, go for a walk, have a chat with friends, or work late and hit the snack machine or food stash in their desk? Social cues and depression both affect eating. Routine is a huge factor in eating habits and is something that's probably impossible to maintain in a metabolic ward.

      You can test specific hypotheses in a metabolic ward, but it's not a magic bullet.

      You've shown data you believe contradicts him, but doesn't.

      Lets forget the tribesmen he implied used a fattening ceremony based off carbs, but really did it with fat. And how he just changes the subject when it comes to Japan and tons of other places that are high carb and even starch without being obese. And how injecting insulin into mice doesn't cause obesity, and replacing fat calories with sugar calories 1-1 doesn't cause obesity, and insulin resistance seems to be a mechanism to keep excess glucose out of cells so it doesn't poison cells (don't think I linked this one). And how obesity in the US shows no relationship to carbohydrate consumption.

      And lets just concentrate the fact that GI isn't really correlated to insulin after all. So all that carbohydrate evidence he thinks he has doesn't even exist.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    47. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      There's still a lot of berries and starch. And the very low fat content.

      Remember the mechanism we're talking about - insulin response to carbohydrate intake plus insulin resistance. If you have lots of berries and starch in a form that isn't as insulin stimulating (and you haven't popped into insulin resistance), you're still in support of the insulin hypothesis.

      I'd also argue that berries are tasty :)

      Social cues and depression both affect eating. Routine is a huge factor in eating habits and is something that's probably impossible to maintain in a metabolic ward.

      So is your assertion that social cues and depression and routine somehow stimulate insulin?

      Why not actually simulate social cues in a metabolic ward, or actually maintain a routine in the ward?

      Lets forget the tribesmen he implied used a fattening ceremony based off carbs, but really did it with fat.

      Cite?

      And how he just changes the subject when it comes to Japan and tons of other places that are high carb and even starch without being obese.

      Insulin resistance? Sugar consumption which triggers insulin resistance ala Lustig? You're simply ignoring the response to the asserted paradox.

      And how injecting insulin into mice doesn't cause obesity

      Does insulin drive fat accumulation in mice or not? You seem to be claiming both.

      And lets just concentrate the fact that GI isn't really correlated to insulin after all

      So you're now asserting that insulin isn't secreted in response to blood sugar. What, pray tell, is the mechanism you propose?

    48. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by quantaman · · Score: 1

      There's still a lot of berries and starch. And the very low fat content.

      Remember the mechanism we're talking about - insulin response to carbohydrate intake plus insulin resistance. If you have lots of berries and starch in a form that isn't as insulin stimulating (and you haven't popped into insulin resistance), you're still in support of the insulin hypothesis.

      I'd also argue that berries are tasty :)

      Berries are tasty but not addictive the way potato chips are, I'm not really sure how to measure that but I don't think that insulin is the answer.

      Social cues and depression both affect eating. Routine is a huge factor in eating habits and is something that's probably impossible to maintain in a metabolic ward.

      So is your assertion that social cues and depression and routine somehow stimulate insulin?

      ...
      I seriously have no idea how you think that could be my assertion.

      Why not actually simulate social cues in a metabolic ward, or actually maintain a routine in the ward?

      Unless your metabolic ward is the friggin Truman Show I don't think that's gonna work.

      Lets forget the tribesmen he implied used a fattening ceremony based off carbs, but really did it with fat.

      Cite?

      One of the first things I posted, I'm tired of constantly re-linking.

      And how he just changes the subject when it comes to Japan and tons of other places that are high carb and even starch without being obese.

      Insulin resistance? Sugar consumption which triggers insulin resistance ala Lustig? You're simply ignoring the response to the asserted paradox

      Even if I agreed with that Lustig assertion (which I don't). Taubes theory is that carbs are bad, refined carbs particularly so, and that the more insulin it releases the more fattening it is.

      Even with sugar it's hard to get a bigger insulin spike than white rice or baked potatos, and I don't see you advocating a low in refined sugar but high in starchy foods so it sounds like you're dodging to me.

      And how injecting insulin into mice doesn't cause obesity

      Does insulin drive fat accumulation in mice or not? You seem to be claiming both.

      You keep claiming I've contradicted myself on the mouse experiment, but I haven't the foggiest idea what you're referring to. Though considering your bizarre statement that I asserted "that social cues and depression and routine somehow stimulate insulin" in my previous post I guess I shouldn't worry too much.

      And lets just concentrate the fact that GI isn't really correlated to insulin after all

      So you're now asserting that insulin isn't secreted in response to blood sugar. What, pray tell, is the mechanism you propose?

      I'm saying that the relationship between blood sugar, insulin release, macronutrients, and other regulatory mechanisms (including glucagon) is a lot more complex than you realize.

      And at the end of the day I don't really need to give an alternate mechanism, I just need to show Taubes is wrong.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    49. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      Berries are tasty but not addictive the way potato chips are, I'm not really sure how to measure that but I don't think that insulin is the answer.

      What about potoato chip flavored berries, and berry flavored potato chips?

      Why *wouldn't* insulin be the answer?

      What about someone who *does* think berries are tasty, and potato chips aren't? After all, people can have different addictions. Can someone addicted to berries in the Hazda tribe get fat because of their subjective tastiness?

      Taubes theory is that carbs are bad, refined carbs particularly so, and that the more insulin it releases the more fattening it is.

      And none of the data you've shown has contradicted that. You might have an example of certain carbs with a low glycemic index being *less* damaging, and therefore possibly negligible in effect, but you've caricatured Taubes into "all carbs must show a high insulin response and cause weight gain", instead of accepting that there is a spectrum of badness.

      I don't see you advocating a low in refined sugar but high in starchy foods so it sounds like you're dodging to me.

      Not at all. I'm asserting the following - obesity is a sign of a carbohydrate allergy. Regardless of its genesis (say, fructose ala Lustig, or some other hormonal defect), the treatment is carbohydrate restriction. You cannot fix someone's insulin resistance (once they are insulin resistant), by feeding them starchy foods.

      And at the end of the day I don't really need to give an alternate mechanism, I just need to show Taubes is wrong.

      Granted, let's assume for the moment that you have no alternate mechanism, and that Guynet's assertions are just hand waving. Let's be clear about the important questions still open about the insulin hypothesis:

      1) what causes insulin resistance (see Lustig for one option)
      2) what other mechanism could account for MHO (if say, further investigation shows that indeed, these large waisted people are able to accumulate fat in the absence of insulin). Perhaps this might end up being some sort of thyroid issue, who knows.

      That all being said, I don't think that Taubes has a particular axe to grind on either one of these. Here's his 10 conclusions in GCBC:

      "1. Dietary fat, whether saturated or not, is not a cause of obesity, heart disease, or any other chronic disease of civilization.

      2. The problem is the carbohydrates in the diet, their effect on insulin secretion, and thus the hormonal regulation of homeostasis—the entire harmonic ensemble of the human body. The more easily digestible and refined the carbohydrates, the greater the effect on our health, weight, and well-being.

      3. Sugars—sucrose and high-fructose corn syrup specifically—are particularly harmful, probably because the combination of fructose and glucose simultaneously elevates insulin levels while overloading the liver with carbohydrates.

      4. Through their direct effect on insulin and blood sugar, refined carbohydrates, starches, and sugars are the dietary cause of coronary heart disease and diabetes. They are the most likely dietary causes of cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, and the other chronic diseases of civilization.

      5. Obesity is a disorder of excess fat accumulation, not overeating, and not sedentary behavior.

      6. Consuming excess calories does not cause us to grow fatter, any more than it causes a child to grow taller. Expending more energy than we consume does not lead to long-term weight loss; it leads to hunger.

      7. Fattening and obesity are caused by an imbalance—a disequilibrium—in the hormonal regulation of adipose tissue and fat metabolism. Fat synthesis and storage exceed the mobilization of fat from the adipose tissue and its subsequent oxidation. We become leaner when the hormonal regulation of the fat tissue reverses this balance.

      8. Insulin

    50. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by quantaman · · Score: 1

      What about someone who *does* think berries are tasty, and potato chips aren't? After all, people can have different addictions. Can someone addicted to berries in the Hazda tribe get fat because of their subjective tastiness?

      Someone who doesn't like chips probably won't get fat off them. But for berries factors like fibre, flavour, and moisture content might mean berries can reach that same level of addictivness.

      And none of the data you've shown has contradicted that. You might have an example of certain carbs with a low glycemic index being *less* damaging, and therefore possibly negligible in effect, but you've caricatured Taubes into "all carbs must show a high insulin response and cause weight gain", instead of accepting that there is a spectrum of badness.

      No, I've talked extensively about carbs with a high GI and insulin response like rice.

      Not at all. I'm asserting the following - obesity is a sign of a carbohydrate allergy. Regardless of its genesis (say, fructose ala Lustig, or some other hormonal defect), the treatment is carbohydrate restriction. You cannot fix someone's insulin resistance (once they are insulin resistant), by feeding them starchy foods.

      So by eating fructose we've developed some sort of insulin allergy that isn't present in non-industrial (ie ancestral) cultures. And that's why non-industrial cultures can eat any macronutrient balance they want and not get fat?

      Did you come to this conclusion before or after the evidence the insulin hypothesis didn't work in non-industrial cultures?

      Granted, let's assume for the moment that you have no alternate mechanism, and that Guynet's assertions are just hand waving. Let's be clear about the important questions still open about the insulin hypothesis:
      1) what causes insulin resistance (see Lustig for one option)
      2) what other mechanism could account for MHO (if say, further investigation shows that indeed, these large waisted people are able to accumulate fat in the absence of insulin). Perhaps this might end up being some sort of thyroid issue, who knows.

      MHO==MOH==Morbidly Obese Humans?

      Insulin resistance is more complicated than you think.

      1. Dietary fat, whether saturated or not, is not a cause of obesity, heart disease, or any other chronic disease of civilization.

      Mostly just in the sense that fat is very energy dense and make foods more palatable leading us to overeat. It may be linked to heart disease in industrial societies but not non-industrial.

      2. The problem is the carbohydrates in the diet, their effect on insulin secretion, and thus the hormonal regulation of homeostasis—the entire harmonic ensemble of the human body. The more easily digestible and refined the carbohydrates, the greater the effect on our health, weight, and well-being.

      Except easily digestible carbs like rice are fine in Japan, and countless non-industrial nations the only real common factor in obesity is industrial societies (though some like Japan avoid this).

      That and protein also causes a similar effect on insulin (ie fish).

      3. Sugars—sucrose and high-fructose corn syrup specifically—are particularly harmful, probably because the combination of fructose and glucose simultaneously elevates insulin levels while overloading the liver with carbohydrates.

      I agree, but for different reasons

      4. Through their direct effect on insulin and blood sugar, refined carbohydrates, starches, and sugars are the dietary cause of coronary heart disease and diabetes. They are the most likely dietary causes of cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, and the other chronic diseases of civilization.

      Maybe they're factors but my BS meter is go

      --
      I stole this Sig
    51. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by quantaman · · Score: 1

      I noticed you didn't quite say that insulin causes hunger and extra eating, which is good because it doesn't.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    52. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      I noticed you didn't quite say that insulin causes hunger and extra eating

      All depends upon insulin resistance - as from the first title, "Elevated postprandial insulin levels do not induce satiety in normal-weight humans." As noted before, obesity is a sign of carbohydrate allergy, and if your body properly partitions energy, you're fine.

      If under the influence of insulin, your body partitions more energy to fat than to muscle, you will feel hungry, and you will be driven to eat more.

      Unfortunately the abstracts for the second two cites didn't have any note as to the subjects, but my guess is that they were normal weight.

    53. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      But for berries factors like fibre, flavour, and moisture content might mean berries can reach that same level of addictivness.

      So you're asserting that there is in fact, some universal addictive properties that berries simply don't have? You deny the possibility of someone being addicted to berries because they find them so tasty?

      Maybe if there is in fact certain things that cannot possibly be addictive (in this case, taking the Hazda diet, apparently by the tastiness hypothesis, nothing they eat can possibly be addictive since they don't get overweight), we can identify the biological mechanism of addiction.

      Surely, my experience has shown sugar to be a particularly addictive substance, and it may be that simple...but I'd be interested in other proposed biomechanisms.

      So by eating fructose we've developed some sort of insulin allergy that isn't present in non-industrial (ie ancestral) cultures. And that's why non-industrial cultures can eat any macronutrient balance they want and not get fat?

      Well, you can separate the two - Lustig claims that a certain amount of fructose is what develops the carbohydrate allergy (aka, insulin resistance). Whether or not "non-industrial cultures can eat any macronutrient balance they want" begs the question as to the insulin response from those foods. Perhaps it's better to say "non-industrial cultures can eat low glycemic in any macronutrient balance they want".

      MHO==MOH==Morbidly Obese Humans?

      No, from your original cite, "Metabolically Healthy Obese".

      Mostly just in the sense that fat is very energy dense and make foods more palatable leading us to overeat.

      So you're saying as a condiment, fat is evil. Taubes is saying in isolation, fat is not evil, but in combination with a high glycemic load, it becomes evil. Looks like simply a restatement of the assertion without really justifying why we should consider calorie density as the real factor.

      Except easily digestible carbs like rice are fine in Japan,

      You only took a partial quote. The full quote is "The more easily digestible and refined the carbohydrates", and as shown by the lack of sugar consumption in Japan, they don't have more refined carbohydrates.

      So again, no disagreement with Taubes except perhaps in the semantics of "easily digestible and refined" versus "easily digestible or refined".

      That and protein also causes a similar effect on insulin (ie fish).

      Refuted elsewhere - the error bars on both porridge and fish for the 40 out of 41 subjects who didn't actually test all the foods were so large as to easily encompass fish being lower than porridge.

      Cancer is higher because of all the carcinogens in our environment

      So you don't think that the fact that cancer cells perform particularly well in a high blood sugar environment has anything to do with it?

      Correct, the later two are contributing factors.

      Okay, so here you have a real disagreement - Taubes insist that "overeating" and "sedentary behavior" are actually *symptoms* of obesity, not causes. And the fact that "overeating" is a tautology makes that hard to refute.

      I think for "sedentary behavior", the study that you linked with the notes that the total expended energy (TEE) of the tribesmen was equal to the TEE of sedentary westerners refutes the idea that sedentary behavior really drives that.

      What do you think happens to that fat in the fat cells?

      In an insulin resistant person, under the influence of insulin, the fat stays in the fat cells. In a normal person, fat cells cycle fat in and out, and don't preferentially store energy as fat.

      you accept that fat and protein also make us fat.

    54. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by quantaman · · Score: 1

      I noticed you didn't quite say that insulin causes hunger and extra eating

      All depends upon insulin resistance - as from the first title, "Elevated postprandial insulin levels do not induce satiety in normal-weight humans." As noted before, obesity is a sign of carbohydrate allergy, and if your body properly partitions energy, you're fine.

      If under the influence of insulin, your body partitions more energy to fat than to muscle, you will feel hungry, and you will be driven to eat more.

      Unfortunately the abstracts for the second two cites didn't have any note as to the subjects, but my guess is that they were normal weight.

      So your uncited claim is that insulin only causes hunger when the cells no longer respond to it? Fascinating. I wonder how that works.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    55. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      So your uncited claim is that insulin only causes hunger when the cells no longer respond to it?

      To be specific, I use "insulin resistance" as a shorthand that is perhaps inappropriate - I'm assuming an understanding that I shouldn't.

      From GCBC: "A critical aspect of this insulin resistance, Yalow and Berson noted, is that some tissues might become resistant to insulin while others continued to respond normally, and this would determine how the damage done by the insulin resistance would manifest itself in different individuals. "

      "Moreover, fat cells remain sensitive to insulin long after muscle cells become resistant to it. Once muscle cells become resistant to the insulin in the bloodstream, as Yalow and Berson explained, the fat cells have to remain sensitive to provide a place to store blood sugar, which would otherwise either accumulate to toxic levels or overflow into the urine and be lost to the body. As insulin levels rise, the storage of fat in the fat cells continues, long after the muscles become resistant to taking up any more glucose. Nonetheless, the pancreas may compensate for this insulin resistance, if it can, by secreting still more insulin. This will further elevate the level of insulin in the circulation and serve to increase further the storage of fat in the fat cells and the synthesis of carbohydrates from fat. It will suppress the release of fat from the fat tissue. Under these conditions—lipid trapping, as the geneticist James Neel described it—obesity begins to look preordained. Weights will plateau, as Dennis McGarry suggested in Science in 1992, only when the fat tissue becomes insulin-resistant as well, or when the fat deposits enlarge to the point where the forces working to release the fat and burn it for fuel—such as the increased concentration of fatty acids inside the fat cells—once again balance out the effect of the insulin itself."

      So my apologies for using "insulin resistance" as shorthand for "differential insulin resistance between muscles cells and fat cells".

    56. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by quantaman · · Score: 1

      So you're asserting that there is in fact, some universal addictive properties that berries simply don't have? You deny the possibility of someone being addicted to berries because they find them so tasty?

      Maybe if there is in fact certain things that cannot possibly be addictive (in this case, taking the Hazda diet, apparently by the tastiness hypothesis, nothing they eat can possibly be addictive since they don't get overweight), we can identify the biological mechanism of addiction.

      Surely, my experience has shown sugar to be a particularly addictive substance, and it may be that simple...but I'd be interested in other proposed biomechanisms.

      For some people maybe they are addictive enough to cause obesity, but for non-industrial cultures this doesn't seem to be a problem and even for industrial I don't think unprocessed berries are a signficant cause of obesity.

      Well, you can separate the two - Lustig claims that a certain amount of fructose is what develops the carbohydrate allergy (aka, insulin resistance). Whether or not "non-industrial cultures can eat any macronutrient balance they want" begs the question as to the insulin response from those foods. Perhaps it's better to say "non-industrial cultures can eat low glycemic in any macronutrient balance they want".

      Except we answered that question and they can eat rice and root crops that are high GI.

      The only plausible mechanism you have left is fructose causing a 'carbohydrate allergy' in industrial populations, but even this is contradicted by non-industrial populations eating a lot of fruit and berries.

      You only took a partial quote. The full quote is "The more easily digestible and refined the carbohydrates", and as shown by the lack of sugar consumption in Japan, they don't have more refined carbohydrates.

      So again, no disagreement with Taubes except perhaps in the semantics of "easily digestible and refined" versus "easily digestible or refined".

      Outside of increasing the GI what else does refining do other than making food more palatable? By adding refinement on top of GI you're conflating it with patabability for no reason, if you want to test his insulin hypothesis then look at less palatable foods that cause a high insulin response like plain rice.

      Refuted elsewhere - the error bars on both porridge and fish for the 40 out of 41 subjects who didn't actually test all the foods were so large as to easily encompass fish being lower than porridge.

      Ahh yes, that single pairing of carb vs protein shows porridge might have a slightly higher insulin response, devastatingly refuted.

      But, they don't. They're innocent victims of insulin resistance and elevated insulin levels. You're trying to implicate protein and fat when they're just along for the ride. (Well, fat is certainly along for the ride - protein does have some insulin response, but that pales in comparison with that of carbohydrates - caveat that I know you still disagree on the 41 person fish study).

      Exactly what do you think happens to the fat we eat?

      Insulin resistance means that insulin, that stores excess blood sugar, leaves no blood sugar for muscles to use and inhibits the fat cells from release alternate energy (ketone bodies) for the muscles to use.

      If your muscles are starving, why wouldn't you feel hungry?

      Shouldn't type - 1 diabetes patients, before treatment get fat not thin then?

      --
      I stole this Sig
    57. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by quantaman · · Score: 1

      I'll give you that (and it does explain the type-1 diabetes thinness) but I still disagree that the resistance is driving hunger.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    58. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      The differential resistance (even in non diabetics) is certainly enough to improperly partition incoming energy through the mouth to fat cells, rather than giving the muscles their due. The movie "Fat Head" has a neat graphic on this, if you get a chance to watch it.

      I'm certain that you agree that when muscles don't get enough energy, humans generally experience hunger.

      So while you might make the claim that hunger can have other other genesis, it's not clear why you would exclude differential insulin resistance causing an improper partitioning of energy, thereby starving muscles of energy, as a factor that would drive hunger.

    59. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by quantaman · · Score: 1

      I'll say I don't know that insulin resistance in the obese couldn't be a contributing factor to further obesity (I simply don't know that area of the research), and if that were true insulin stimulating foods could be particularly bad for those people. But it's a result of the obesity, not the cause.

      Instead of hunger through muscle starvation insulin resistance could suppress hunger by keeping more sugar in the blood stream (type-1 diabetics could test this), long way from saying I agree with you, but there's hypothetical room in that direction.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    60. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by quantaman · · Score: 1

      You've got a hypothesis but no evidence (for something that should be testable).

      Maybe the improper partitioning leads to higher blood glucose (I suspect this but haven't confirmed) which suppresses hunger.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    61. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      For some people maybe they are addictive enough to cause obesity, but for non-industrial cultures this doesn't seem to be a problem

      And that would be the kind of thing I would look for - take a food we've seen as generally harmless, find someone who is off the charts on a satiety index with it, and see if it can possibly get them obese. Until that's demonstrated, the whole satiety thing seems more like a 2nd or 3rd order effect than a core reason for obesity.

      Except we answered that question and they can eat rice and root crops that are high GI.

      And by avoiding sugars, they avoid the path to differential insulin resistance, and don't develop the carbohydrate allergy.

      The only plausible mechanism you have left is fructose causing a 'carbohydrate allergy' in industrial populations, but even this is contradicted by non-industrial populations eating a lot of fruit and berries.

      I leave it to Lustig to talk further on that, especially regarding the difference between fructose taken in juice form versus whole fruit (he seems to imply there is a difference in digestive process that mitigates the deleterious effects in that case).

      Outside of increasing the GI what else does refining do other than making food more palatable?

      I just thought of something - we could test this stuff on someone with no taste buds. By the satiety hypothesis, such a person would be unable to overeat, because nothing is tasty. The insulin hypothesis supposes that given insulin resistance, even if the tongue doesn't recognize that something is tasty, the muscles will know if they are being starved or not, and drive hunger.

      Exactly what do you think happens to the fat we eat?

      It's either broken down into fatty acids, and then processed by the body in various ways, or it slips through the digestive tract unprocessed.

      Shouldn't type - 1 diabetes patients, before treatment get fat not thin then?

      Why would that follow? Before treatment, type 1 diabetes patients can't produce insulin, therefore cannot signal for fat accumulation, therefore cannot get fat. Your cite makes this observation:

      "Insulin in type 1 diabetes is a similar case. You need some basal amount of insulin signaling around for fat cells to store fat properly."

    62. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      Maybe the improper partitioning leads to higher blood glucose (I suspect this but haven't confirmed) which suppresses hunger.

      Okay, so let's have three imaginary buckets:

      1) fat cells
      2) muscle cells
      3) blood glucose

      You might be able to add a 4th for ketone bodies but let's simplify for now.

      Type 1 diabetics have an empty #1, and struggle to keep #3 from killing them. #2 can probably deal with it mostly.

      Differential insulin resistant people (carbohydrate allergy), have a partitioning error where #1 gets full, and #2 and #3 mostly don't.

      My guess is that if you have #1 full, and #3 full, but #2 running on empty, you'll have hunger.

    63. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by quantaman · · Score: 1

      And that would be the kind of thing I would look for - take a food we've seen as generally harmless, find someone who is off the charts on a satiety index with it, and see if it can possibly get them obese. Until that's demonstrated, the whole satiety thing seems more like a 2nd or 3rd order effect than a core reason for obesity.

      Palatability, not satiety (satiety is how filling it is).

      The better test would be to have people rate the relative palatability of different foods. Build them a diet around those foods, and see how well the palatability tracks with weight change.

      But even then there's the difficulty carrying out the study, changing palatability preferences (and what that means), maybe the fat prone people find everything tastier, etc. It sounds like a study with a lot of moving parts that's hard to do properly.

      I leave it to Lustig to talk further on that, especially regarding the difference between fructose taken in juice form versus whole fruit (he seems to imply there is a difference in digestive process that mitigates the deleterious effects in that case).

      Or that's the only way he can get rid of most of the non-industrial populations. After all how many non-industrial cultures drink a bunch of juice sweetened with refined sugar? Oops, found one (the Kuna)

      I just thought of something - we could test this stuff on someone with no taste buds. By the satiety hypothesis, such a person would be unable to overeat, because nothing is tasty. The insulin hypothesis supposes that given insulin resistance, even if the tongue doesn't recognize that something is tasty, the muscles will know if they are being starved or not, and drive hunger.

      Palatability not satiety.

      I couldn't find anything on that but there seems to be an inverse correlation between taste bud sensitivity and weight. I'm not really sure what to make of it. Sweet and sour lower but bitterness, saltiness, and unami were depressed the most, I don't even know if that would balance out into increasing total palatability (less bitter) or decreasing (less salt). Could be a result of overstimulus, a defensive measure to reduce palatability, or causal somehow.

      This nature article seems to imply we become less sensitive to flavours after eating a lot, though I'm not certain how that would related to palatability or satiety.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    64. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by quantaman · · Score: 1

      Maybe you'll just be more tired. Maybe you'll excrete extra glucose through your urine (this is a symptom of diabetes).

      It's easy to make a 'just-so' story, you need experiments and evidence to figure out what's actually happening.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    65. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      You're absolutely right - it could be that starving muscles could trigger hunger, or they could trigger sloth...or both, for that matter.

      Which means that starving muscles can cause someone to overeat, or be sedentary...which means that by proxy, improper partitioning of energy can cause overeating and sedentary behavior, making the overeating and sedentary behavior *effects* not causes.

    66. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      Instead of hunger through muscle starvation insulin resistance could suppress hunger by keeping more sugar in the blood stream

      That's not the kind of partitioning you get with differential insulin resistance - the sugar in the blood stream gets pounded to fat, and both the blood stream and the muscles are low in energy.

      Now, if you had insulin resistance that was strictly non-differential, you could get what you're proposing, if both fat cells and muscle cells refuse to listen to insulin, and blood sugar stays high...although the toxicity of high blood sugar starts becoming an issue.

      I also suppose if you had differential insulin resistance in the *other* direction (where fat cells were more resistant that muscles), you could also have something similar, where fat accumulation is decreased, and blood sugar levels and muscles get most of the energy... ...do you think maybe that's the disconnect we're having? Your contra-examples could simply be differential insulin resistance in the opposite direction of that which causes obesity?

    67. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      maybe the fat prone people find everything tastier

      Which would imply to me that it's not about the food, it's about the hormonal imbalance of fat people. Again, gluttony and sloth being *effects* of obesity, rather than causes.

      As for the Kuna, I think you've got to watch the population for a few more generations before the diseases of civilization kick in. Differential insulin resistance gets worse generation after generation when ancestral cultures are introduced to refined sugar.

    68. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by quantaman · · Score: 1

      That's not the kind of partitioning you get with differential insulin resistance - the sugar in the blood stream gets pounded to fat, and both the blood stream and the muscles are low in energy.

      Type 2 diabetes: The basics seems to disagree with you (troubling since it's the basis of your theory).

      --
      I stole this Sig
    69. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by quantaman · · Score: 1

      Which would imply to me that it's not about the food, it's about the hormonal imbalance of fat people. Again, gluttony and sloth being *effects* of obesity, rather than causes.

      More likely a positive feedback.

      As for the Kuna, I think you've got to watch the population for a few more generations before the diseases of civilization kick in. Differential insulin resistance gets worse generation after generation when ancestral cultures are introduced to refined sugar.

      So now epigenetics are a necessary component in your model? Does Taubes use epigenetics? Do you have any evidence for that claim?

      --
      I stole this Sig
    70. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by quantaman · · Score: 1

      It could be a lot of things. You need actual evidence to back up your claims. Biological systems are notoriously complex and filled with feedbacks and confounders, theories and thought experiments tend to die unseemly deaths.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    71. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      I agree that biological systems are filled with feedbacks and confounders, which is why I think that building the knowledge base from the ground up and the actual biological mechanisms is so important.

      We've clearly established the role of insulin in fat accumulation, and you can add leptin into the bunch if you'd like (which is quite nearly a proxy for insulin). We've also clearly established the role of carbohydrate intake on blood sugar levels, with all the complexity that entails (high glycemic/low glycemic). We've even demonstrated the differential insulin resistance of fat cells and muscles cells as being a hormonal dysfunction that creates obesity under the influence of insulin.

      So what's left?

      Perhaps the most interesting stuff - what *causes* differential insulin resistance? What causes differential insulin resistance in the opposite direction than usual (fat more sensitive than muscle)? What may *prevent* differential insulin resistance? Now, perhaps you can design an experiment that narrows it down to fructose intake, or psychological taste factors, or "factor X" whatever it may be...but I don't think any of those experiments or studies has been properly done yet.

      There's always hope for the future though! :)

    72. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      You can have type 2 diabetes with or without differential insulin resistance - I've known some type 2 diabetics to remain thin and fit, while others are grotesquely obese. I'll assert that for the differential insulin resistance type 2 diabetics, fat is accumulated, and muscles are starved, in a way that overwhelms any hunger suppressing effect high blood sugar levels may have - but that certainly would be an interesting experiment to determine the biological basis of hunger.

      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130730101715.htm

    73. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      More likely a positive feedback.

      But only if the gluttony is of the sort that is directed towards foods that continue the improper partitioning of energy. Gluttony may be a necessary factor (caused by improper partitioning of energy), but it is only a second order effect, not in and of itself sufficient.

      So now epigenetics are a necessary component in your model?

      Sure, why not?

      And yes, Tabues has mentioned this before, in both his examples of increasing obesity over generations during the spread of the "diseases of civilization", as well as explicitly: http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2012/10/gary-taubes-sugar-reddit-ama-halloween-candy

      "First, there's no reason to think that the relationship between sugar(s) consumption and health endpoints is one to one or linear. So maybe a little bit of added sugar pushes us over a threshold, or maybe there's some exponential thing going on due to, say, epigenetic effects."

    74. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by quantaman · · Score: 1

      Remember a while back when I brought up the example of the tribe eating a lot of honey, and you mentioned it didn't count because honey has a low glycemic index?

      You know why that was? Honey has a lot of fructose, and fructose has a low glycemic index. So that high starch high sugar culture was actually lean off eating a lot of fructose so there goes another mechanism.

      When faced with a complex system like biology starting from the ground up is going backwards. If you start from the lowest component you'll oversimplify because you're missing so much of the pictures, and thus you're doomed to extrapolate in the wrong directions. That's the fundamental problem with your position, insulin is basically the one mechanism you know, so everything basically happens as a result of insulin. And when the data doesn't fit you start adding resistance, fructose, epigenetics, and all these other qualifiers to try and make it fit.

      Given a complex system with multiple confounders you need to approach it observationally. Learn how the system works, and only then you can try to figure out how the low level mechanisms actually work in that system. Even nutritionists don't know the full picture of mechanisms, but they know from experiments how it behaves, and you have to start from there.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    75. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by quantaman · · Score: 1

      You can have type 2 diabetes with or without differential insulin resistance - I've known some type 2 diabetics to remain thin and fit, while others are grotesquely obese.

      Do you have a cite for the differential insulin resistance, or was that circular reasoned anecdote supposed to be it?

      And I'm not sure that citation is saying what you want it to:
      Patients with diabetes who take certain types of medications to lower their blood sugar sometimes experience severe low blood-sugar levels, whether or not their diabetes is poorly or well controlled

      [...]

      "Many clinicians may assume that hypoglycemia is not much of a problem in poorly controlled type 2 diabetes given their high average blood-sugar levels,"

      [...]

      The researchers surveyed patients with type 2 diabetes being treated with medications to lower their blood sugar and asked about their experiences with severe hypoglycemia.

      It sounds to me like they're saying that type 2 diabetes patients have high average blood sugar, but either because of their meds, or because their bodies ability to regulate sugar is screwed up, they sometimes get very low blood sugar.

      I'm not sure how that really disagrees with me.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    76. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by quantaman · · Score: 1

      Sure, why not?

      And yes, Tabues has mentioned this before, in both his examples of increasing obesity over generations during the spread of the "diseases of civilization", as well as explicitly: http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2012/10/gary-taubes-sugar-reddit-ama-halloween-candy

      "First, there's no reason to think that the relationship between sugar(s) consumption and health endpoints is one to one or linear. So maybe a little bit of added sugar pushes us over a threshold, or maybe there's some exponential thing going on due to, say, epigenetic effects."

      He offered offhand speculation, once, but I don't think you can claim it's a critical part of his model, and he brought it up in the context of explaining the exponential increase in obesity, but not the whole picture. And he certainly didn't offer any evidence.

      That's mostly what I was interested in, a) is there any evidence? No. And b) is it always part of the model, or only when you need to explain away contradictory evidence.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    77. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      a) is there any evidence?

      Sure there is - insulin resistant mothers eating high carbohydrate diets create an interuterine environment that makes their offspring more insulin resistant (differential insulin resistance, of course). So the epigenetic effects are actually well documented.

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23000698

    78. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      So that high starch high sugar culture was actually lean off eating a lot of fructose so there goes another mechanism.

      I think the question is "what is different from honey than other sources of fructose, like fruit juices without the pulp" - and again, your "high starch high sugar" culture was really a "low glycemic, high fructose culture", so again, the model fits.

      When faced with a complex system like biology starting from the ground up is going backwards.

      So we start with God, and work backwards from there? Watch this series, especially lecture 2 regarding cells: https://itunes.apple.com/us/itunes-u/cognitive-ubiquity-evolution/id464839816

      That's the fundamental problem with your position, insulin is basically the one mechanism you know, so everything basically happens as a result of insulin.

      You're creating a caricature of my position. Insulin is the mechanism for fat accumulation. Differential insulin resistance is the mechanism for insulin causing obesity, gluttony and sloth. I'm open to the question "where does differential insulin resistance come from?"

      Given a complex system with multiple confounders you need to approach it observationally.

      I simply can't disagree more. An observational study shows you nothing - you've got to approach it with clear, falsifiable, foundational mechanisms to determine causality.

      And I think maybe that's your essential beef - you're angry with Taubes because he's approached the problem from one direction, and you're *positive* that it must be approached from the other.

    79. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      Do you have a cite for the differential insulin resistance?

      From GCBC:

      "By 1965, Yalow and Berson had suggested why these adult-onset diabetics could appear to be lacking insulin—manifesting the symptoms of diabetes, high blood sugar, and sugar in their urine—while simultaneously having excessive insulin in their circulation: their tissues did not respond properly to the insulin they secreted. They were insulin-resistant, defined by Yalow and Berson as “a state (of a cell, tissue, system or body) in which greater-than-normal amounts of insulin are required to elicit a quantitatively normal response.” Because of their resistance to insulin, adult-onset diabetics had to secrete more of the hormone to maintain their blood sugar within healthy levels, and this would become increasingly difficult to achieve the longer they remained insulin-resistant.*51

      A critical aspect of this insulin resistance, Yalow and Berson noted, is that some tissues might become resistant to insulin while others continued to respond normally, and this would determine how the damage done by the insulin resistance would manifest itself in different individuals. So “it is desirable,” they wrote, “wherever possible, to distinguish generalized resistance of all tissues from resistance of only individual tissues.”"

      Also:

      "In the late 1960s, Robert Stout of Queen’s University in Belfast published a series of studies reporting that insulin enhances the transport of cholesterol and fats into the cells of the arterial wall and stimulates the synthesis of cholesterol and fat in the arterial lining. Since a primary role of insulin is to facilitate the storage of fats in the fat tissue, Stout reasoned, it was not surprising that it would have the same effect on the lining of blood vessels. In 1969, Stout and the British diabetologist John Vallance-Owen pre-empted Reaven’s Syndrome X hypothesis by suggesting that the “ingestion of large quantities of refined carbohydrate” leads first to hyperinsulinemia and insulin resistance, and then to atherosclerosis and heart disease. In certain individuals, they suggested, the insulin secretion after eating these carbohydrates would be “disproportionately large.” “The carbohydrate is disposed of in three sites—adipose [fat] tissue, liver and arterial wall,” Stout wrote. “Obesity is produced. In the liver, triglyceride and cholesterol are synthesized and find their way into the circulation. Lipid synthesis is also stimulated in the arterial wall and is augmented by deposition of [triglycerides and cholesterol]which in a few decades would reach significant proportions.” In 1975, Stout and the University of Washington pathologist Russell Ross reported that insulin also stimulates the proliferation of the smooth muscle cells that line the interior of arteries, a necessary step in the thickening of artery walls characteristic of both atherosclerosis and hypertension."

      And finally:

      "“It may be stated categorically,” the University of Wisconsin endocrinologist Edgar Gordon wrote in JAMA in 1963, “that the storage of fat, and therefore the production and maintenance of obesity, cannot take place unless glucose is being metabolized. Since glucose cannot be used by most tissues without the presence of insulin, it also may be stated categorically that obesity is impossible in the absence of adequate tissue concentrations of insulin. Thus an abundant supply of carbohydrate food exerts a powerful influence in directing the stream of glucose metabolism into lipogenesis, whereas a relatively low carbohydrate intake tends to minimize the storage of fat.”"

    80. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by quantaman · · Score: 1

      So that high starch high sugar culture was actually lean off eating a lot of fructose so there goes another mechanism.

      I think the question is "what is different from honey than other sources of fructose, like fruit juices without the pulp" - and again, your "high starch high sugar" culture was really a "low glycemic, high fructose culture", so again, the model fits.

      Except they were also eating a lot of berries, starchy tubors, and fruit.

      I find it hard to believe they were actually low glycemic. And the other culture eating white sugar sweetened beverages along with fruits. The model doesn't fit.

      When faced with a complex system like biology starting from the ground up is going backwards.

      So we start with God, and work backwards from there? Watch this series, especially lecture 2 regarding cells: https://itunes.apple.com/us/itunes-u/cognitive-ubiquity-evolution/id464839816

      Sorry, not bothering. And I have no idea what you're talking about with the god thing.

      You start by observing the system, seeing how it responds to various stimuli, and then you start working out how the low level mechanisms work in that system.

      You don't start with a low level mechanism (like insulin), decide the role it must play, they build up your understanding around it then start making excuses when things don't apply.

      You're creating a caricature of my position. Insulin is the mechanism for fat accumulation. Differential insulin resistance is the mechanism for insulin causing obesity, gluttony and sloth. I'm open to the question "where does differential insulin resistance come from?"

      It's not a caricature, you're convinced insulin resistance is the driver of obesity and if something like sugar or starch isn't correlated with obesity you add a new qualifier so you can still blame insulin resistance.

      I simply can't disagree more. An observational study shows you nothing - you've got to approach it with clear, falsifiable, foundational mechanisms to determine causality.

      And I think maybe that's your essential beef - you're angry with Taubes because he's approached the problem from one direction, and you're *positive* that it must be approached from the other.

      You can disagree but you'll be wrong.

      You naturally want to understand the foundational mechanisms as well as you can, but if you want to understand the system you have to actually study the system, otherwise you'll never understand how that mechanism works in that system.

      And it has nothing to do with my beef with Taubes, I only realized he was making this mistake recently. My actual beef is he's ignored decades of very high quality research and knowledge in favour of a pet theory they already studied, and soundly discarded. And he's done it using some very dodgy methods, both intellectually, and in presenting his data.

      There's a reason the nutrition community thinks he's a crank, it's because he fits the definition.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    81. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by quantaman · · Score: 1

      a) is there any evidence?

      Sure there is - insulin resistant mothers eating high carbohydrate diets create an interuterine environment that makes their offspring more insulin resistant (differential insulin resistance, of course). So the epigenetic effects are actually well documented.

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23000698

      That's not epigenetic, it's the womb environment. And they seem to be saying that the effect is linked to maternal obesity and the insulin resistance is along for the ride.

      Though I think there are actual epigenetic factors that do contribute to obesity, but even if epigenetics is part of the answer that's a very long way from explaining why the Kuna have no obesity since the obesity has to start somewhere and 25 tsp a week is a good place to start.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    82. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by quantaman · · Score: 1

      So I'm not sure I'm fully groking those excerpts. But the 2nd and 3rd don't seem to have anything to do with whether or not "You can have type 2 diabetes with or without differential insulin resistance". The first seems to suggest it, but also doesn't seem to make any mention of its correlation to obesity, which you implied.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    83. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      "You can have type 2 diabetes with or without differential insulin resistance"

      Here's the relevant passage from the first quote:

      "some tissues might become resistant to insulin while others continued to respond normally, and this would determine how the damage done by the insulin resistance would manifest itself in different individuals"

      Here's the relevant passage from the second quote:

      "In certain individuals, they suggested, the insulin secretion after eating these carbohydrates would be “disproportionately large.” “The carbohydrate is disposed of in three sites—adipose [fat] tissue, liver and arterial wall,” Stout wrote. “Obesity is produced."

      I'm not sure though, what your problem with the assertion that type 2 diabetes can have different manifestations - here's another paper that discusses this: http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0018284

    84. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      Except they were also eating a lot of berries, starchy tubors, and fruit.

      I find it hard to believe they were actually low glycemic.

      But they are. Hell, baobab is *advertised* as low glycemic, and none of them are refined to increase glycemic index.

      And the other culture eating white sugar sweetened beverages along with fruits. The model doesn't fit.

      The impact of white sugar consumption accumulates over generations, as demonstrated by the gestational diabetes paper.

      Sorry, not bothering.

      Your loss :)

      It's not a caricature, you're convinced insulin resistance is the driver of obesity

      Let's be specific. Differential insulin resistance is the driver of obesity. You keep focusing on "look at this group that eats low glycemic, but high starch and fructose, but isn't obese!", while ignoring the necessary factor of differential insulin resistance.

      Why do you continue to refuse that factor as part of my position, and simplify it down to "insulin"?

      if you want to understand the system you have to actually study the system

      Which has been done in depth with the Kreb's cycle, and the basics of fat accumulation biology. Now, perhaps your position is simply "there is no good answer, and I'm annoyed at Taubes for asserting he has one" (ignoring your support of Guynet for the moment) - but you seem to be wilfully ignoring the study of the system that has occurred.

      My actual beef is he's ignored decades of very high quality research and knowledge

      Odd. You don't seem to hold that research and knowledge up to the same level of scrutiny :)

    85. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      That's not epigenetic, it's the womb environment.

      "In biology, and specifically genetics, epigenetics is the study of changes in gene expression or cellular phenotype, caused by mechanisms other than changes in the underlying DNA sequence"

      The womb environment is a mechanism other than the underlying DNA sequence.

      that's a very long way from explaining why the Kuna have no obesity since the obesity has to start somewhere and 25 tsp a week is a good place to start.

      Read GCBC. Check it out from a library if you don't want to funnel cash to Taubes. The clear, obvious history of the path of diseases of civilization show a pattern of taking hold as generations pass. The Kuna are in for a rough ride if they continue their habits, and there's no reason to believe they'll be an exception to other native cultures who were introduced to refined carbohydrates - unless you believe they've got some sort of genetic mutation that allows them to be immune to the diseases of civilization.

    86. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by quantaman · · Score: 1

      The first quote is talking about damage. Since the widely accepted role of insulin is to regulate blood sugar, so cells neither get too little nor too much, I'd assume that's what the damage refers to.

      The final paper seems to show what you're talking about, that adipose cells being insulin resistant, reduces the risk of obesity, though that is consistent with the idea that insulin is just a fat storage mechanism. I'd be curious to learn more about this line of evidence, it seems to support your claim but I still have reservations.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    87. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by quantaman · · Score: 1

      The impact of white sugar consumption accumulates over generations, as demonstrated by the gestational diabetes paper.

      Which would explain a lower than western prevalence of obesity, but you still need some obesity to start that accumulation. But they have no obesity, they're not outside the non-industrial baseline, is none of this generation are fat why would the next generation be different?

      Let's be specific. Differential insulin resistance is the driver of obesity. You keep focusing on "look at this group that eats low glycemic, but high starch and fructose, but isn't obese!", while ignoring the necessary factor of differential insulin resistance.

      Why do you continue to refuse that factor as part of my position, and simplify it down to "insulin"?

      Well to be more specific I think your position is insulin plus differential insulin resistance. And I don't think many starchy tubors are low GI, they're not all potatoes but they should still have a decent glycemic index.

      Which has been done in depth with the Kreb's cycle, and the basics of fat accumulation biology. Now, perhaps your position is simply "there is no good answer, and I'm annoyed at Taubes for asserting he has one" (ignoring your support of Guynet for the moment) - but you seem to be wilfully ignoring the study of the system that has occurred.

      But isn't that just studying a metabolic pathway in depth? The system we're interested in has to do with eating, appetite, activity, excretions, as well as fat accumulation.

      Odd. You don't seem to hold that research and knowledge up to the same level of scrutiny :)

      I do, but they're usually rigorous enough in their methadology and restrained enough in their results that they pass. They've also been subjected to scrutiny by people in the field a lot more knowledgeable than I and found to stand up. Part of this is at the end of the day I've found it's generally not profitable to argue with the textbook.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    88. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by quantaman · · Score: 1

      That's not epigenetic, it's the womb environment.

      "In biology, and specifically genetics, epigenetics is the study of changes in gene expression or cellular phenotype, caused by mechanisms other than changes in the underlying DNA sequence"

      The womb environment is a mechanism other than the underlying DNA sequence.

      that's a very long way from explaining why the Kuna have no obesity since the obesity has to start somewhere and 25 tsp a week is a good place to start.

      Read GCBC. Check it out from a library if you don't want to funnel cash to Taubes. The clear, obvious history of the path of diseases of civilization show a pattern of taking hold as generations pass. The Kuna are in for a rough ride if they continue their habits, and there's no reason to believe they'll be an exception to other native cultures who were introduced to refined carbohydrates - unless you believe they've got some sort of genetic mutation that allows them to be immune to the diseases of civilization.

      I'm still not convinced those changes to the pre-natal environment are necessarily epigenetic but that's not really important.

      If I even have a chance I'll read GCBC, but I'd really suggest you follow Guyunet's blog or something similar for a while and approach it with an open mind. Taubes is trying to sell you a narrative, and the truth is that true or not you can write a book that convincingly supports that narrative. To actually know if a science book is selling you a factual narrative you need to look at people who are experts in the field and see how they respond.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    89. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      I'd really suggest you follow Guyunet's blog or something similar for a while and approach it with an open mind.

      I actually read Guynet quite avidly - especially the comments. He comes off as passionate, but misguided and oddly defensive. Now, perhaps my opinion is colored by the fact that I've got differential insulin resistance, and while the insulin hypothesis matches my anecdotal experience, the "tastiness" hypothesis is actually 100% opposite of my reaction to food. I'm not above imagining that it's *possible* that there's someone out there who is terribly driven by "tastiness", but still doubtful that those urges can result in obesity if there isn't chronic insulin elevation and differential insulin resistance. Again, though, the proper metabolic ward experiment and I could be convinced that it's possible.

    90. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      Which would explain a lower than western prevalence of obesity, but you still need some obesity to start that accumulation.

      No, the high blood sugar during gestation in an otherwise non-obese woman can grant differential insulin resistance to her child, who then, under the same diet as her mother, ends up being obese instead of normal weight.

      And I don't think many starchy tubors are low GI, they're not all potatoes but they should still have a decent glycemic index.

      Let's find a study that actually measures the glycemic index of Hazda foods then.

      The system we're interested in has to do with eating, appetite, activity, excretions, as well as fat accumulation.

      The problem is that it very well may be that eating, appetite, activity, and even excretions, are driven by fat accumulation. And what I mean by that is that if the *first* order cause is fat accumulation, and that makes you hungrier, and lazier, and makes you eat more, and perhaps even excrete less, we need to be able to discern that.

      Put another way, the orders of magnitude here are important, and I don't think that simply because the system is complex that all factors are of equal weight.

      Part of this is at the end of the day I've found it's generally not profitable to argue with the textbook.

      And it's a good thing that despite that there are some people out there who are willing to argue with textbooks :)

      The sad fact, and Taubes exposes this extraordinarily well in GCBC (even if you dismiss his conclusions), is that the nutrition science in this country has not been driven by science, but by pre-determined agendas, be it to sell more cereals and grains, or to demonize meat eating, or to prop up a pet theory by a powerful government science administrator.

      Honestly, more than a science book, I found Taubes work to be more interesting on the history side of the equation.

    91. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by quantaman · · Score: 1

      Well here's another experiment you can try. Surround yourself with bland foods like raw veggies and plain baked potatoes. When that's what you have to choose from see how not hungry you are.

      I'll admit I don't like always like Guynet's writing style (esp his 'Food Reward Fridays'), but he always strikes me as reliable. I think the defensiveness comes from being a professional researcher who keeps having to argue with highly dedicated amateurs who don't realize the gaps in their knowledge.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    92. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by quantaman · · Score: 1

      No, the high blood sugar during gestation in an otherwise non-obese woman can grant differential insulin resistance to her child, who then, under the same diet as her mother, ends up being obese instead of normal weight.

      Even if that's a thing that can happen you'd need this to be a huge effect to explain western obesity, and you'd need to show immigrants with the same lifestyle and diet don't get fat (they catch up, but there's lifestyle and diet confounders). You'd also need to explain one of Taubes own favourite examples The Tokelau Island Migrant Study who started getting fat in less then a generation.

      The problem is that it very well may be that eating, appetite, activity, and even excretions, are driven by fat accumulation. And what I mean by that is that if the *first* order cause is fat accumulation, and that makes you hungrier, and lazier, and makes you eat more, and perhaps even excrete less, we need to be able to discern that.

      Put another way, the orders of magnitude here are important, and I don't think that simply because the system is complex that all factors are of equal weight.

      I never implied they were of equal weight, but they're all part of the picture and you're discounting every other factor and making it all the result of one root cause.

      And it's a good thing that despite that there are some people out there who are willing to argue with textbooks :)

      Oh I still argue with textbooks, but I've learned that the most common result is that I misunderstood the textbook. There's a difference between digging deeper into the consensus view because a certain part doesn't make sense to you, and digging in because you want to prove it wrong in a specific way.

      The sad fact, and Taubes exposes this extraordinarily well in GCBC (even if you dismiss his conclusions), is that the nutrition science in this country has not been driven by science, but by pre-determined agendas, be it to sell more cereals and grains, or to demonize meat eating, or to prop up a pet theory by a powerful government science administrator.

      Honestly, more than a science book, I found Taubes work to be more interesting on the history side of the equation.

      Frankly my issue with Taubes is when ever I read/listen to him he sets off alarm bells. Why could I listen to an hour long interview with him talking about the dangers of carbs, sugars particularly, but also starches, and I never heard him mention Japan or China? Why when asked about Japan did he start talking about brown rice and 50 years in the past? Why in this summary of his book is Japan only mentioned once, and in the context of Sumo wrestlers who were also high protein in addition to high carb, and who may have chosen the extra calories from carbs because it lead to a healthier fatness? Why doesn't he talk about all the cases that seems to be problematic for his hypothesis? Even his post about the lipohypertrophy, presented like a coup de grace even though it didn't challenge conventional wisdom in the slightest.

      Taubes weaves a very nice story, but when he's leaving out something as significant as Asia in his main argument you have to wonder why. A proper researcher embraces the conflicting evidence because it offers another part of the story, a crank ignores it because his goal isn't the truth but the theory. That's why I don't trust Taubes, his goal is to push his theory and I don't think he looks at conflicting evidence as anything other than something to explain away.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    93. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by quantaman · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah, and I meant to check how Taubes explains vegetarians:

      TAUBES: And soy. But that’s Yeah, it’s tough. So you’re pretty much stuck with (gasp!) animal products. And it becomes this ethical issue, this religious issue, this environmental issue when it’s fundamentally The argument I You know, let’s get the health right. Like if somebody knows that they’re going to doom their kids to a life of obesity and diabetes cuz they’re going to make them vegetarians or vegans, then that’s fine as long as they understand that they’re not doing their kids any favors and that (that’s) the choice they made.

      That's a very good narrative, too bad he's just making things up?

      --
      I stole this Sig
    94. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      Again, it's obvious that vegans have serious health problems, and that vegetarians can be both high glycemic and low glycemic, not to mention whatever variations of lacto-ovo cheats they may have.

      But beyond that any observational study is essentially worthless other than for speculation - http://www.marksdailyapple.com/will-eating-red-meat-kill-you/#axzz2chiATIP6

      So how do we tell if Taubes is right, and that universally acclaimed "healthy" diets such as veganism (which kills babies), and vegetarianism aren't in fact, universally healthy?

      We go back to first principles, and study the issue from the ground up :)

    95. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      Surround yourself with bland foods like raw veggies and plain baked potatoes. When that's what you have to choose from see how not hungry you are.

      Here was my experience with that - I'd wake up in the middle of the night, starving. I'd eat the bland food (raw carrots, plain baked potatoes) until my stomach was so full that I felt like it was overflowing into my esophagus. I'd still be desperately hungry.

      Now, the insulin/differential insulin resistance hypothesis models this well - most of the calories sent to my stomach were being shunted to my fat cells, starving my muscles. I suffered through competing "hunger" signals - the stomach feeling so bloated that I was nauseous, but my muscles feeling so starved I was ravenous.

      I think the defensiveness comes from being a professional researcher who keeps having to argue with highly dedicated amateurs who don't realize the gaps in their knowledge.

      And that's definitely something Guynet needs to work on - his apparent attitude precludes there being gaps in *his* knowledge, which means it's hard to trust that he's been thorough in critiquing himself. It doesn't help either that his financial interests are aligned with the status quo, and gaining study grants that must pass through the hoops of bureaucrats with a vested interest in maintaining a certain narrative.

    96. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      You'd also need to explain one of Taubes own favourite examples The Tokelau Island Migrant Study [blogspot.ca] who started getting fat in less then a generation.

      What?

      http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2009/01/tokelau-island-migrant-study-background.html

      "Tokelau's troubles began in 1765 with its 'discovery' by British commodore John Byron. "

      Where's the evidence that they got fat in less than a generation? I see the graph starting from the 1960s...but where's the data on diet from 1765 - 1960?

      Furthermore: "Between 1968 and 1982, Tokelauans in nearly all age groups gained weight, roughly 5 kilograms (11 pounds) on average."

      11 pounds doesn't seem like rampant obesity...although I'd like to see the age breakdown (my suspicion is that younger cohorts increased more (say, someone pregnant in 1968, with a high blood sugar uterus, might produce a 4 year old child in 1972 that was significantly more obese than a 4 year old child in 1968).

      Why could I listen to an hour long interview with him talking about the dangers of carbs, sugars particularly, but also starches, and I never heard him mention Japan or China?

      A few excerpts from GCBC:

      "By the mid-1990s, however, the Japanese contingent of the Seven Countries Study, led by Yoshinori Koga, reported that fat intake in Japan had increased from the 6 percent of calories they had measured in the farming village of Tanushimaru thirty-five years earlier, to 22 percent of calories. “There have been progressive increases in consumption of meats, fish and shellfish and milk,” they reported. Mean cholesterol levels rose in the community from 150 mg/dl to nearly 190 mg/dl, which is only 6 percent lower than the average American values (202 mg/dl as of 2004). Yet this change went along with a “remarkable reduction” in the incidence of strokes and no change in the incidence of heart disease. In fact, the chance that a Japanese man of any particular age would die of heart disease had steadily diminished since 1970. “It is suggested that dietary changes in Tanushimaru in the last thirty years have contributed to the prevention of cardiovascular disease,” Koga and his colleagues concluded."

      "When Keys linked the low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet of the Japanese in the late 1950s to the extremely low incidence of heart disease, he paid no attention to sugar consumption. Fat consumption in Japan was extremely low, as were heart-disease rates, and so he concluded that the lower the fat the better. But the consumption of sugars in Japan was very low, too—less than forty pounds per person per year in 1963, and still under fifty pounds in 1980—equivalent to the yearly per-capita consumption recorded in the United States or in the United Kingdom a century earlier."

      "And these investigators, too, concluded that differences in cancer rates could be explained by differences in fat consumption and animal-fat consumption, particularly between Japan and the United States. They did not serve science well by ignoring sugar consumption and the difference between refined and unrefined carbohydrates."

      "This model also explains, as Pete Ahrens suggested in 1961, why high-carbohydrate diets appear innocuous in populations that are chronically undernourished. This was inevitably the case with those Southeast Asian populations extolled by Keys and others for their low total-cholesterol levels and apparent absence of heart disease. Such populations lived on carbohydrate-rich diets out of economic necessity rather than choice. Their diets were predominantly unrefined carbohydrates because that’s what they cultivated and it was all they could afford. As Ahrens had noted, the great proportion of individuals in such populations barely eked out enough calories to survive. This was true not only of Japan in the year

    97. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by quantaman · · Score: 1

      I wasn't claiming vegetarians or vegans can't have health problems, it's well known that they have to pay close attention to their diets to get enough protein and certain nutrients.

      But that's not what Taubes said

      "Like if somebody knows that they’re going to doom their kids to a life of obesity and diabetes cuz they’re going to make them vegetarians or vegans"

      That statement is empirically false. If Taubes only thinks that vegetarians/vegans are obese/diabetic because of his theory than he's laughably inept since a potentially extreme high carb diet in a western setting like vegetarians/vegans should have been one of the first things he looked at. On the other hand if he knows they're much thinner on average he's flat out lying.

      Forget all the other criticism I've had, that quote is probably the most damning thing I've seen from Taubes because it's impossible to justify.

      The embarrassing thing is I listened to that interview at the time, it was actually responsible for making me a Taubes follower for a while. In retrospect I remember something fishy about that statement but figured that he studied that stuff so he must be right.

      If your first principals lead you to think an empirical fact is wrong than the problem is with you, not with reality.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    98. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by quantaman · · Score: 1

      Here was my experience with that - I'd wake up in the middle of the night, starving. I'd eat the bland food (raw carrots, plain baked potatoes) until my stomach was so full that I felt like it was overflowing into my esophagus. I'd still be desperately hungry.

      Now, the insulin/differential insulin resistance hypothesis models this well - most of the calories sent to my stomach were being shunted to my fat cells, starving my muscles. I suffered through competing "hunger" signals - the stomach feeling so bloated that I was nauseous, but my muscles feeling so starved I was ravenous.

      Well my experience is completely different. Maybe you did something different in an important aspect, maybe your diabetes caused the difference, maybe there's an individual variation explained by something else.

      And that's definitely something Guynet needs to work on - his apparent attitude precludes there being gaps in *his* knowledge, which means it's hard to trust that he's been thorough in critiquing himself. It doesn't help either that his financial interests are aligned with the status quo, and gaining study grants that must pass through the hoops of bureaucrats with a vested interest in maintaining a certain narrative.

      I'd argue that. He readily admits shortcomings in his understanding, he's stated they're not completely sure of all the factors behind the low-carbohydrate model, or if insulin might not play a minor in regulating appetite (I think his lab actually studies insulin and obesity), or if fructose or wheat might have a particularly bad effect on health. He regularly brings up examples of surprising studies or examples that don't seem to fit the models that well, the only time he's sure of his knowledge is when dealing with someone who's theories are completely without merit.

      And considering the cranks that regularly invade academia and the invention of tenure (which he wouldn't have, but many do) it's kind of funny for you to throw out the grant money as some great corrupter pushing people towards orthodoxy.

      If Taubes stood up tomorrow and said "Sorry folks, I messed up interpreting the data and it turns out my big insulin hypothesis is wrong" what do you think would happen to his income?

      --
      I stole this Sig
    99. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by quantaman · · Score: 1

      Where's the evidence that they got fat in less than a generation? I see the graph starting from the 1960s...but where's the data on diet from 1765 - 1960?

      You can guess they were similar to surround islands, but we don't have that data. But you can assume it didn't change during that period since there was very little import, the weight gain only started with the jump in imported food.

      Furthermore: "Between 1968 and 1982, Tokelauans in nearly all age groups gained weight, roughly 5 kilograms (11 pounds) on average."

      11 pounds doesn't seem like rampant obesity...although I'd like to see the age breakdown (my suspicion is that younger cohorts increased more (say, someone pregnant in 1968, with a high blood sugar uterus, might produce a 4 year old child in 1972 that was significantly more obese than a 4 year old child in 1968).

      I hope you realize there's no way that the youth could in any way significantly impact the 5 kilo average gain. When it's stated "Tokelauans in nearly all age groups gained weight" you can't just speculate it away.

      And I never said they got obese, just that they got fatter (though maybe there were some obese in there, I don't know the variance)

      As for the GCBC stuff. So Japan is fine just by avoiding sugar. So why is Taubes pushing a low carb diet? Why is he obsessed with insulin that has a huge response to white rice and other starches? Why doesn't he simply tell people to eliminate sugar and white flour and they'll be thin like the Japanese? All that rice only becomes acceptable as a rider when he needs to explain away the east.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    100. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      That statement is empirically false.

      What do you mean? It's empirically true if the vegetarian or vegan diet is high glycemic enough, and their children are, or become differential insulin resistant.

      The point he's trying to make is that you can have an ethical and moral reason to be a vegetarian or vegan (although Lierre Keith would disagree), but don't pretend it's a health choice - or at least don't pretend that it's some universally healthy choice (which maybe you could agree with). If anything, his snark against vegetarians and vegans is tame compared to the vitriol spewed against meat eaters.

      So yeah, Taubes is snarky, but I think he makes a valid point with his rhetoric - there are people who would make a different choice about veganism or vegetarianism if the only way they could justify it to themselves was on a moral or ethical basis.

      BTW, Lierre Keith's "The Vegetarian Myth" is a *must* read on the whole vegan/vegetarian thing.

    101. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      Well my experience is completely different.

      And you know what, I can believe that. It's more than possible that your brain has hunger pathways primarily driven by mental "tastiness" properties than mine, and fewer hunger pathways driven primarily by differential insulin resistance and muscle starvation. But I suppose I'd also bet that I've had a worse obesity problem than you ever had...I got up to 250 pounds on about a 5' 11' frame, probably a 44" waist, maybe 46". I'll never be thin and skinny again, but after 7 years of carbohydrate restriction, I've maintained at around 195 and a 34" waist (I also discovered slow burn strength training which greatly increased my relative muscle mass).

      the only time he's sure of his knowledge is when dealing with someone who's theories are completely without merit.

      Maybe my problem is that the alternatives he poses ("tastiness" for example) simply don't hold up to the scrutiny he poses to others - it seems a peculiar myopia. And for many of the refutations he tries to make, just a little scratching on the surface makes you realize that it's not nearly as clean a refutation as he supposes (i.e., the low glycemic nature of the Hazda diet).

      If Taubes stood up tomorrow and said "Sorry folks, I messed up interpreting the data and it turns out my big insulin hypothesis is wrong" what do you think would happen to his income?

      It'd probably increase. He'd write the book that refutes the insulin hypothesis, and laugh his way to the bank! After all, he's just a science reporter - he could write about *anyone's* hypothesis (even Guynet's), and make money because he's a good writer.

      Guynet, on the other hand, probably couldn't get a grant to show that the past 40 years of dietary advice by the USDA has actually caused epidemics of diabetes, cancer, obesity, hypertension, heart disease, and other chronic diseases. Too many people in power with vested interests in the status quo would quash such investigation flat.

      You know the really sad part though - there really are interests on both sides. It just so happened that in the 1950s, with Ancel Keys, the cereal and grain lobby won out over the meat and poultry lobby - but I can imagine a counterfactual that went the other way, where cereals and grains lost out to meat and poultry. We might be healthier today if meat and poultry had won, but as a large interest group they'd have opportunities to abuse their position as well, I'm sure.

    102. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      But you can assume it didn't change during that period since there was very little import, the weight gain only started with the jump in imported food.

      That's only if we believe the import data is good. Again, too much speculation there, too little data.

      I hope you realize there's no way that the youth could in any way significantly impact the 5 kilo average gain. When it's stated "Tokelauans in nearly all age groups gained weight" you can't just speculate it away.

      Sure the youth could impact the 5 kilo average gain. If the youngest cohort gained 10 kilos, and was the most numerous, the oldest cohort could have gained much less. Now, if *every* cohort of Tokelauans gained 5kg, from the youngest to the oldest, that's real data, but they didn't state that - they simply said "in *nearly* all age groups" and "gained weight", which leaves open some age groups *not* gaining weight, and some age groups gaining more weight than others.

      Data. Need data.

      So Japan is fine just by avoiding sugar. So why is Taubes pushing a low carb diet? Why is he obsessed with insulin that has a huge response to white rice and other starches? Why doesn't he simply tell people to eliminate sugar and white flour and they'll be thin like the Japanese?

      Well, I'd bet a few things, but for me and my n=1, I've found that once you've been damaged by sugar, and become differential insulin resistant, it's difficult to heal that. I simply do not have the option to eat a high starch diet now that I've damaged my body with sugar. My bet is that many other Americans are in the same boat, so the low carb option as a treatment for carbohydrate allergy is really the only option.

      So the advice you'd give to one set of people (say, the japanese, just stop eating more sugar every year), might not be the same advice you'd give to damaged people.

      Now, can you show any evidence that the damage done by sugar and refined carbs that induces differential insulin resistance (and other insulin based metabolic syndrome diseases), can be reversed, and then white rice and other starches are fine to eat? Because I do miss my nigiri, and only eat sashimi now :)

    103. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by quantaman · · Score: 1

      Sure the youth could impact the 5 kilo average gain. If the youngest cohort gained 10 kilos, and was the most numerous, the oldest cohort could have gained much less. Now, if *every* cohort of Tokelauans gained 5kg, from the youngest to the oldest, that's real data, but they didn't state that - they simply said "in *nearly* all age groups" and "gained weight", which leaves open some age groups *not* gaining weight, and some age groups gaining more weight than others.

      Data. Need data.

      You realize kids are small? Particularly kids under the age of 14 who would have had this interuterine exposure you're talking about? The actual weight differences required in kids to generate the average effect you're talking about is absurd.

      Granted I'm curious about the "nearly" qualifier about the age groups, but that might be something as simple as statistical significance (ie the 5 90 year olds didn't gain weight).

      --
      I stole this Sig
    104. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by quantaman · · Score: 1

      And you know what, I can believe that. It's more than possible that your brain has hunger pathways primarily driven by mental "tastiness" properties than mine, and fewer hunger pathways driven primarily by differential insulin resistance and muscle starvation. But I suppose I'd also bet that I've had a worse obesity problem than you ever had...I got up to 250 pounds on about a 5' 11' frame, probably a 44" waist, maybe 46". I'll never be thin and skinny again, but after 7 years of carbohydrate restriction, I've maintained at around 195 and a 34" waist (I also discovered slow burn strength training which greatly increased my relative muscle mass).

      The fact that low carb is an effective way for you to lose weight doesn't mean carbs are the reason you gained weight.

      Maybe my problem is that the alternatives he poses ("tastiness" for example) simply don't hold up to the scrutiny he poses to others - it seems a peculiar myopia. And for many of the refutations he tries to make, just a little scratching on the surface makes you realize that it's not nearly as clean a refutation as he supposes (i.e., the low glycemic nature of the Hazda diet).

      Palatability is only part of the puzzle, a significant part but still a part. And there's few perfect tests of hypothesis laying around, but different populations can test different components.

      It'd probably increase. He'd write the book that refutes the insulin hypothesis, and laugh his way to the bank! After all, he's just a science reporter - he could write about *anyone's* hypothesis (even Guynet's), and make money because he's a good writer.

      There's a lot of good writers, the reason he's famous is because he's circled the market on a particular diet belief. If he accepted the consensus view he'd become one of many and fall back towards relative obscurity.

      Guynet, on the other hand, probably couldn't get a grant to show that the past 40 years of dietary advice by the USDA has actually caused epidemics of diabetes, cancer, obesity, hypertension, heart disease, and other chronic diseases. Too many people in power with vested interests in the status quo would quash such investigation flat.

      You really don't understand science do you? He'd get publications in Science, Nature, wherever the hell he wanted. He'd get public speaking engagements, academic job offers, etc. The only reason he'd lose grants is if he couldn't back up his novel hypothesis, which would beg the question, why would he believe something he couldn't show?

      --
      I stole this Sig
    105. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by quantaman · · Score: 1

      In the interview he directly implies that vegetarians are obese and diabetic. This is empirically false, and your response seems to be something between "well Taubes' theory is right so they must be fat!" and dodging the issue entirely.

      I don't give a crap about whether vegetarians are healthy, what they say about meat eaters, or whether it's moral or environmentally friendly. Deal with the fact that Taubes is making a statement that is false.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    106. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      Deal with the fact that Taubes is making a statement that is false.

      Well, to use your own words, he makes a statement that could "directly imply" something that is false. I read a completely different implication (that vegetarians *can* be obese and diabetic), which I derive from an understanding of the rhetorical point he's trying to make (that there are misguided folk out there who turn to veganism and vegetarianism believing it is inherently healthy, when it is not necessarily so).

      Now, you might not care whether or not veganism and vegetarianism is healthy, and you might not even care if people pursue it under false pretenses - but obviously Taubes does, and frankly, that concern resonates with me.

    107. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      The actual weight differences required in kids to generate the average effect you're talking about is absurd.

      That's not true at all - kids have *huge* variation. Heck, one of my kids didn't even hit the bottom of the height/weight chart until they were 7.

      Granted I'm curious about the "nearly" qualifier about the age groups, but that might be something as simple as statistical significance

      All published studies should include the raw data, archived for posterity - otherwise you get people arguing like us over how to interpret the one sentence summary of thousands of rows of data :)

    108. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      The fact that low carb is an effective way for you to lose weight doesn't mean carbs are the reason you gained weight.

      That's an interesting statement - I'm not sure if you'd accept any refutation of it though. If I added tasty carbs back to my diet, and gained weight, you could blame "tastiness". If I added bland carbs back to my diet, and gained weight, you could blame some personal gluttony of mine.

      What would you accept as proof that someone ha a carbohydrate allergy?

      Palatability is only part of the puzzle, a significant part but still a part.

      I'd argue with the second part of that statement - it may be a part of the puzzle, but it's almost certainly an insignificant part. I'm also not convinced palatability is anything but a circular definition...if there was some additive you could put on anything to increase its palatability, you could test it directly, but because it's a subjective measure, you could have the *exact* same diet for two people, one who finds it more palatable than the other person, and you'd still be left with the question as to whether or not subjective palatibility made the difference, or if it was some other fact.

      I suppose if you could find some sort of twins that were equivalent in everything except how tasty they found salt, you could test the palatability hypothesis...but other than that, it seems dubious as a measure.

      If he accepted the consensus view he'd become one of many and fall back towards relative obscurity.

      Wait, you think that a refutation of the insulin/differential insulin resistance hypothesis would be a fall back to the "consensus view"? We know calories in/calories out is bunk, even if you have doubts about insulin/differential insulin resistance.

      Or do you think there is some other consensus view?

      He'd get publications in Science, Nature, wherever the hell he wanted. He'd get public speaking engagements, academic job offers, etc.

      He can't do that without grants, and he can't get grants without toeing the line on the current dogma.

      Seriously, pick up GCBC and read it just as a history lesson on the kind of blackballing that goes on in the nutrition sciences since Ancel Keys.

    109. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by quantaman · · Score: 1

      Lets review the quote again

      TAUBES: And soy. But that’s Yeah, it’s tough. So you’re pretty much stuck with (gasp!) animal products. And it becomes this ethical issue, this religious issue, this environmental issue when it’s fundamentally The argument I You know, let’s get the health right. Like if somebody knows that they’re going to doom their kids to a life of obesity and diabetes cuz they’re going to make them vegetarians or vegans, then that’s fine as long as they understand that they’re not doing their kids any favors and that (that’s) the choice they made.

      It's not ambiguous or open to multiple interpretations, he's not saying that it's merely possible for vegetarians to become obese, or that vegetarianism has other health problems, he's saying that making kids vegetarian will make them obese and diabetic. A statement that is clearly false.

      If Taubes theory is correct it shouldn't matter if he himself lied, the theory should stand on its own merits and you should be able to explain vegetarians on other grounds, so why is it so important to justify that ridiculous statement?

      --
      I stole this Sig
    110. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by quantaman · · Score: 1

      That's not true at all - kids have *huge* variation. Heck, one of my kids didn't even hit the bottom of the height/weight chart until they were 7.

      The have huge relative variation, the absolute variation is much smaller than adults since they weigh less. You know I'm not even going to go link hunting to back up these assertions since the possibility that the 1-14 demographic, the oldest and heaviest of whom probably weighs under 120 lbs on average, and the average something under 80, could do anything but drag down the 5 kg average, is just nonsense.

      What? You think the average 8 year old boy went from 65 lbs to 90 lbs in that period and all the adults stayed skinny? Even that probably wouldn't be enough to create the average. Plus the fact the researchers would miss the obvious sight of the giant kids and scrawny adults and not think to make that the primary focus.

      All published studies should include the raw data, archived for posterity - otherwise you get people arguing like us over how to interpret the one sentence summary of thousands of rows of data :)

      Agreed, though we're not arguing over the study but the summary, presumably the paper itself has the breakdowns.

      One interpretation for the 'nearly' could be babies and toddles since I doubt they'd eat adult food, but again speculation.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    111. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by quantaman · · Score: 1

      That's an interesting statement - I'm not sure if you'd accept any refutation of it though. If I added tasty carbs back to my diet, and gained weight, you could blame "tastiness". If I added bland carbs back to my diet, and gained weight, you could blame some personal gluttony of mine.

      What would you accept as proof that someone ha a carbohydrate allergy?

      Please don't say allergy since I don't think you really mean it.

      But that narrow hypothesis could probably be tested in a metabolic ward. Feed a controlled diet of exactly X calories, one that's carb heavy and another that's fat heavy, and see the results. It wouldn't test the palatability component, but it would test the macronutrient effect on calories in vs calories out.

      I'd argue with the second part of that statement - it may be a part of the puzzle, but it's almost certainly an insignificant part. I'm also not convinced palatability is anything but a circular definition...if there was some additive you could put on anything to increase its palatability, you could test it directly, but because it's a subjective measure, you could have the *exact* same diet for two people, one who finds it more palatable than the other person, and you'd still be left with the question as to whether or not subjective palatibility made the difference, or if it was some other fact.

      I suppose if you could find some sort of twins that were equivalent in everything except how tasty they found salt, you could test the palatability hypothesis...but other than that, it seems dubious as a measure.

      Well salt would probably be a good way to test it since it has no caloric value but tastes good.

      Test foods with salt and bland, see which group eats more over a few weeks.

      Wait, you think that a refutation of the insulin/differential insulin resistance hypothesis would be a fall back to the "consensus view"? We know calories in/calories out is bunk, even if you have doubts about insulin/differential insulin resistance.

      Or do you think there is some other consensus view?

      Calories in/calories out is correct, it's just that both sides can vary even without exercise.

      And the consensus view is complex as evidences by that simplified 9 part model on hunger that Guyenet posted.

      He can't do that without grants, and he can't get grants without toeing the line on the current dogma.

      Seriously, pick up GCBC and read it just as a history lesson on the kind of blackballing that goes on in the nutrition sciences since Ancel Keys.

      Ya don't think the cattle growers association would give him grants to show a high fat diet is better for you? Even if you accept the Federal grant agencies are engaged in some massive conspiracy to blackball dissenters they're not actually the only ones allowed to give grants.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    112. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      Please don't say allergy since I don't think you really mean it.

      Actually, I think it's a pretty accurate term to describe my intention - there are literally some people who cannot eat certain foods without an inflammatory or otherwise adverse effect, and I think this is true as well for carbohydrates. Of course, as with all allergies, it can be on a spectrum, with some able to withstand more of a dose than others, but in my case at least, the level is pretty low...maybe less than 40g or even 30g of carbohydrates per day.

      Test foods with salt and bland, see which group eats more over a few weeks.

      Well, you also have the other part of that - the output of calories. So it's not just which group eats more, but which group eats more relative to the amount of calories their bodies use.

      So I'd run that test with a low-carb regimen, and a high carb regimen. Heck, use twins if you can, and run both tests for everyone (randomize order).

      And if it turns out that "salt" vs "bland" only affects fat accumulation in the high carb regimen, then it could be that it's only a second order effect.

      Calories in/calories out is correct, it's just that both sides can vary even without exercise.

      Put another way, they aren't independent variables - which is what the general nutritional advice of today is. The same advice we use to make people hungry (skip a few meals, do some vigorous exercise), we use to counsel them for weight loss. Doesn't seem rational to think that inducing hunger will help people lose weight.

      Ya don't think the cattle growers association would give him grants to show a high fat diet is better for you?

      Sure they might, but they're no match for the cereal and grain and sugar industry. To imagine that our current nutritional research system is unbiased is very optimistic :)

    113. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      It's not ambiguous or open to multiple interpretations

      Your actual words - "he directly implies".

      Implies: strongly suggest the truth or existence of (something not expressly stated).

      The very *purpose* of implying something is to give a suggestion which could be open to multiple interpretations. If we want to make something unambiguous, we simply *say* it, not *imply* it.

      You even gloss over the fact that Taubes uses an "if...then..." construction, which by definition is a conditional, not an unambiguous assertion.

      Are you so determined to tar Taubes with the "liar" label that you can't actually parse what he really said?

    114. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      Agreed, though we're not arguing over the study but the summary, presumably the paper itself has the breakdowns.

      If you manage to get the full text, please, let me know.

    115. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      FWIW, I found the full text of "The Tokelau Island Migrant Study" published in 1974, but it only contains 1968 data, and I believe the reference was for 1968 - 1982 data. I'll keep looking.

    116. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      Sad news, looks like Guynet's reference is a book, not an peer reviewed article:

      http://books.google.com/books/about/Migration_and_health_in_a_small_society.html?id=dZwPAQAAMAAJ

      Couldn't find data there with a casual search, but maybe someone has it somewhere.

    117. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by quantaman · · Score: 1

      Put another way, they aren't independent variables - which is what the general nutritional advice of today is. The same advice we use to make people hungry (skip a few meals, do some vigorous exercise), we use to counsel them for weight loss. Doesn't seem rational to think that inducing hunger will help people lose weight.

      I've never heard nutritionists counsel people to skip meals.

      Exercise helps for other health measures but for weight loss (at least for normalish people) it sounds like the effect is mild.

      Sure they might, but they're no match for the cereal and grain and sugar industry. To imagine that our current nutritional research system is unbiased is very optimistic :)

      Science isn't that expensive.

      And besides, if the cereal, grain, and sugar industry is so powerful why are they letting the government fund all that research into low-carb diets? I've consistently agreed with you that low carb diets lead to weight loss, that data came from grant funded research.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    118. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by quantaman · · Score: 1

      Note that Taubes also referenced the same study, which isn't surprising since the rise in obesity was tied directly to white flour/sugar. So you're assuming that either Taubes overlooked the fat kids or the 'nearly' qualifier just applies to something mild like babies or sample size.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    119. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by quantaman · · Score: 1

      I've seen politicians with more convincing explanations.

      The "if...then..." construction clearly applies to whether or not the vegetarian parents know they'll make their kids obese, not whether or not the kids will get obese.

      As for implications. If a guy pulls a gun on you and says "if you care about your life you might want to give me your wallet" is he robbing you? I mean he's just implying he'll shoot you, he's not making an unambiguous assertion.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    120. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      That's not where this line of argument started. I noted that epigenetic effects could cause a delay in phenotypic expression of carbohydrate poisoning, after you cited a group that apparently hasn't fallen victim to high sugar intake after a short while of having a sweet tooth. You then took that to mean that I meant epigenetic effects must *always* be visible, and then cited the Tokelau example as a native people who started feeling the effects in less than a generation.

      At this point, the argument is over whether or not the difference between the Tokelau and the...Zuna I think it was, in any way is a refutation of the differential insulin/chronically elevated insulin hypothesis of obesity.

    121. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by quantaman · · Score: 1

      So if I follow for the population eating sugar and not getting fat you say it's delayed because of epigenetic effects.

      So I counter with a population switching to a western diet and getting fat, and you eventually concede that that population shows no epigenetic delay.

      So when the population gets fat there's no epigenetic effect, but if they don't become fat there must be a missing epigenetic factor?

      --
      I stole this Sig
    122. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      So when the population gets fat there's no epigenetic effect, but if they don't become fat there must be a missing epigenetic factor?

      That's correct. Two instantiations of the same issue (clouded by the fact that the Tokelau don't have good data, and may in fact show an epigenetic delay if we had better import and health records).

      I think what you're really trying to go for, is some *falsifiable* prediction, which is important. To be clear, I'm not making the prediction "there is always a 1 generation delay before obesity arrives in native cultures introduced to the high glycemic western diet", nor am I making the prediction "there is always an immediate effect before obesity arrives in native cultures introduced to the high glycemic western diet." You are behaving as if only one of those may be true, and that's not the case.

      The falsifiable prediction I make is actually quite restrained - that under the influence of a high glycemic diet, people with differential insulin resistance will become obese. In both the 1 generation delay, as well as the immediate Tokelau (caveats on data aside), that falsifiable prediction can still be true.

      What *cannot* be true, is to have a population with differential insulin resistance, a high glycemic diet, and no obesity...I guess with the further caveat that you're not forcibly starving the population (they'll just be terribly lethargic and hungry at that point).

    123. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      I've never heard nutritionists counsel people to skip meals.

      You get my point - fewer calories == skipped meals, or smaller meals. The same advice we use to make people hungry (eat smaller meals, do some vigorous exercise), we use to counsel them for weight loss. Doesn't seem rational to think that inducing hunger will help people lose weight.

      And besides, if the cereal, grain, and sugar industry is so powerful why are they letting the government fund all that research into low-carb diets?

      Fund all that research into low-carb diets? Really? I'd love to see a breakdown of just how government grants are partitioned in nutrition studies...while low-carb might be moving forward (despite the attempts of keepers of dogma to beat it down), I'd hardly say that this is very common now, or was at all common under the reign of Ancel Keys.

      I've consistently agreed with you that low carb diets lead to weight loss

      Well, to be specific, I think you've agreed that low carb diets *can* lead to weight loss, but if I'm remembering correctly, the alternate hypothesis to differential insulin resistance you have is "it just makes things taste worse so you spontaneously eat less calories".

      I guess from my POV, I can agree that it's possible that for some small fraction of people, the taste factor may in fact be significant (or maybe even dominant), but I'm not convinced as to the exact biomechanism test we could give in a metabolic ward for it, nor am I convinced that it's a common occurrence (arguably based on my own n=1 bias).

    124. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      Hey, I'm only arguing about the word "if" not "is" :)

      As for Taubes, he's not pointing a gun at anyone with his words :) The proper analogy is some guy just saying "if people care about their lives they might want to send me cashiers checks" - the speaker certainly not robbing anyone, nor is making any sort of unambiguous assertion about harm. In fact, the whole *point* of implying something is to *avoid* being unambiguous.

      In the end, while not a guarantee, I heartily agree with the notion that forcing children to be vegan is always harmful to their health, and forcing children to be vegetarian is almost always harmful to their health. I also agree that the standard American diet is always harmful to health, and that a high glycemic diet is always harmful to health (given that the standard american diet is by very definition high glycemic).

      Furthermore, I think there's a real bias against understanding the dangers of high glycemic foods. When you tell someone your family is vegetarian, very few people would even consider offering your children meat products...it's just considered impolite. But if you tell someone your family is low-carb, you still have to fend off the friends and relatives offering your kids cookies, candies, cupcakes, french fries, and chicken nuggets. The common apprehension is that vegetarianism is a legitimate health choice, and should not be challenged, but that low-glycemic diets are simply the latest "fad-diet", and should be challenged.

      One day, I hope that changes.

    125. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by quantaman · · Score: 1

      I'd almost imagine you were trolling if you hadn't responded to evidence in other places.

      There's no other way to interpret that statement other than the vegetarian diet will make kids fat and diabetic. This isn't parsing some old study of some obscure tribe, it's basic english.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    126. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by quantaman · · Score: 1

      You get my point - fewer calories == skipped meals, or smaller meals. The same advice we use to make people hungry (eat smaller meals, do some vigorous exercise), we use to counsel them for weight loss. Doesn't seem rational to think that inducing hunger will help people lose weight.

      Except they explicitly counsel people that people shouldn't attempt fewer calories by skipping meals. And exercise will make you hungrier, and doesn't necessarily help weight loss, but it shouldn't make you hungry beyond the calories you burned. You're inventing a contradiction by deliberately misunderstanding nutritionist advice.

      Fund all that research into low-carb diets? Really? I'd love to see a breakdown of just how government grants are partitioned in nutrition studies...while low-carb might be moving forward (despite the attempts of keepers of dogma to beat it down), I'd hardly say that this is very common now, or was at all common under the reign of Ancel Keys.

      Well I'm not going to look that up, but Guyenet routinely talks about studies finding low-carb leads to spontaneous reductions in appetite, so apparently that research is happening and not being held down by the man.

      Well, to be specific, I think you've agreed that low carb diets *can* lead to weight loss, but if I'm remembering correctly, the alternate hypothesis to differential insulin resistance you have is "it just makes things taste worse so you spontaneously eat less calories".

      Also the possibility that people replace the calories with protein (which I think works better than low-carb), and that any diet that restricts food groups will cause weight loss.

      I guess from my POV, I can agree that it's possible that for some small fraction of people, the taste factor may in fact be significant (or maybe even dominant), but I'm not convinced as to the exact biomechanism test we could give in a metabolic ward for it, nor am I convinced that it's a common occurrence (arguably based on my own n=1 bias).

      Well for me I don't exclude a small role for insulin in hunger, and I don't exclude the possibility of it being a bigger factor in the already obese+diabetic since I haven't seen that specific evidence, but I'm still skeptical.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    127. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by quantaman · · Score: 1

      The falsifiable prediction I make is actually quite restrained - that under the influence of a high glycemic diet, people with differential insulin resistance will become obese. In both the 1 generation delay, as well as the immediate Tokelau (caveats on data aside), that falsifiable prediction can still be true.

      What *cannot* be true, is to have a population with differential insulin resistance, a high glycemic diet, and no obesity...I guess with the further caveat that you're not forcibly starving the population (they'll just be terribly lethargic and hungry at that point).

      Well considering that the consensus view is differential insulin resistance is caused by obesity I'm not sure how you'll get the second test, but if correct you should differential insulin resistance develop in people followed by a spike in obesity.

      The problem is that diet is a very complex system, so it's difficult to isolate one mechanism because other mechanism try to compensate. It's more a slow accumulation of evidence towards a hypothesis.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    128. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      Well considering that the consensus view is differential insulin resistance is caused by obesity I'm not sure how you'll get the second test

      So, if that's true, we should be able to find a large number of people in the process of getting obese, that don't have differential insulin resistance...unless the consensus view is that differential insulin resistance is caused *immediately* by obesity, with say just a nanosecond delay...

      I guess the other thing we could do is implant fat, and see if it causes insulin resistance. I'd be curious to see what the biomechanism is for excess fat causing differential insulin resistance, rather than the other way around...you'd have to be able to isolate some signal or hormone that the fat cell was emitting that caused muscle cells to get insulin resistant quicker than the fat cell...and on top of that, do it without chronically elevated insulin levels.

      Sounds like a tough row to hoe.

      It's more a slow accumulation of evidence towards a hypothesis.

      Voodoo. Popper was right about the requirement of falsifiability as the cornerstone of the scientific method. Astrology has a slow accumulation of evidence towards Cancers and Leos getting along, but it ain't science.

    129. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      There's no other way to interpret that statement other than the vegetarian diet will make kids fat and diabetic.

      And that is arguably true in some cases. You can choose to give the benefit of the doubt, or not, but it's not a flat out lie as you propose.

      Put another way, eating copious amounts of red meat and saturated fat won't make you fat and diabetic (at least without accompanying carbohydrates) - but nutritionists make that implication all the time. Would you call them out as liars?

    130. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      Except they explicitly counsel people that people shouldn't attempt fewer calories by skipping meals.

      Yes, yes, I adjusted my statement for you:

      "The same advice we use to make people hungry (eat smaller meals, do some vigorous exercise), we use to counsel them for weight loss. Doesn't seem rational to think that inducing hunger will help people lose weight."

      And exercise will make you hungrier, and doesn't necessarily help weight loss, but it shouldn't make you hungry beyond the calories you burned.

      Whoa, unsupported assertion there - exercise can very easily make you hungry beyond the calories you burned. You're assuming no delay between the input of calories into the mouth and the recognition by the body that it has gotten back all the calories exercised away, for one, but that's an assertion you'll need to show in a metabolic ward.

      any diet that restricts food groups will cause weight loss.

      I followed the standard low-fat/low-calorie diet/exercise advice of my doc for two years, and gained weight. *Highly* restricted fat that entire time, ran five miles each day, and put on an extra five pounds per year.

      It may be that you can find individual cases for specific food restrictions that cause weight loss, but for those of us who are differential insulin resistant, if you don't restrict the carbohydrates, you're not going to get weight loss until you're on starvation rations that finally drop the carbs below the level of your allergy reaction.

    131. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by quantaman · · Score: 1

      So, if that's true, we should be able to find a large number of people in the process of getting obese, that don't have differential insulin resistance...unless the consensus view is that differential insulin resistance is caused *immediately* by obesity, with say just a nanosecond delay...

      I guess the other thing we could do is implant fat, and see if it causes insulin resistance. I'd be curious to see what the biomechanism is for excess fat causing differential insulin resistance, rather than the other way around...you'd have to be able to isolate some signal or hormone that the fat cell was emitting that caused muscle cells to get insulin resistant quicker than the fat cell...and on top of that, do it without chronically elevated insulin levels.

      Sounds like a tough row to hoe.

      My understanding is that insulin resistance is at least partly a mechanism to avoid cells taking in toxic levels of glucose, ie the cells can't use up the circulating glucose fast enough so they become resistant and the adipose tissue soaks it up instead. That being said I'm not motivated to go citation diving to figure out more of the mechanism.

      Voodoo. Popper was right about the requirement of falsifiability as the cornerstone of the scientific method. Astrology has a slow accumulation of evidence towards Cancers and Leos getting along, but it ain't science.

      You misunderstand. I'm not arguing against falsifiability, but the trouble with science is that often hypothesis you want to test is not necessarily the hypothesis you can test.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    132. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by quantaman · · Score: 1

      And that is arguably true in some cases. You can choose to give the benefit of the doubt, or not, but it's not a flat out lie as you propose.

      Put another way, eating copious amounts of red meat and saturated fat won't make you fat and diabetic (at least without accompanying carbohydrates) - but nutritionists make that implication all the time. Would you call them out as liars?

      There's a big difference between "X will cause Y" and "X generally causes the opposite of Y, but once in a while it can cause Y". Maybe he didn't flat out claim to be the King of Spain but he certainly claimed to be at the front of the Spanish line of succession.

      Put another way, eating copious amounts of red meat and saturated fat won't make you fat and diabetic (at least without accompanying carbohydrates) - but nutritionists make that implication all the time. Would you call them out as liars?

      I heard them cautioning about saturated fat with things like the atkins diets (which I think is correct though I don't really know the evidence) and that lots of red meat and saturated fat in a standard western diet will make you fatter (well backed by evidence), but nothing as trivially falsifiable as Taubes' statement.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    133. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by quantaman · · Score: 1

      "The same advice we use to make people hungry (eat smaller meals, do some vigorous exercise), we use to counsel them for weight loss. Doesn't seem rational to think that inducing hunger will help people lose weight."

      If you want to get specific the nutritionists are counselling people to eat appropriate amounts.

      Whoa, unsupported assertion there - exercise can very easily make you hungry beyond the calories you burned. You're assuming no delay between the input of calories into the mouth and the recognition by the body that it has gotten back all the calories exercised away, for one, but that's an assertion you'll need to show in a metabolic ward.

      a) Oh well.

      b) A metabolic ward would suck for that.

      followed the standard low-fat/low-calorie diet/exercise advice of my doc for two years, and gained weight. *Highly* restricted fat that entire time, ran five miles each day, and put on an extra five pounds per year.

      It may be that you can find individual cases for specific food restrictions that cause weight loss, but for those of us who are differential insulin resistant, if you don't restrict the carbohydrates, you're not going to get weight loss until you're on starvation rations that finally drop the carbs below the level of your allergy reaction.

      I'm not going to argue with anecdotal evidence.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    134. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      If you want to get specific the nutritionists are counselling people to eat appropriate amounts.

      And, if someone is obese, that "appropriate amount" is less than what they eat now - therefore, smaller meals, therefore, the same advice we give to people to make them hungry.

      The idea that making fat people hungry will help them lose weight is silly on its face, but that's *exactly* the advice we give when we buy into the "calories in/calories out" hypothesis.

      Now, look, I could see someone who believed in the "tastiness" hypothesis giving advice to "don't cook with spices or salt, and drink only bland drinks", and that possibly having some sort of chance (since it doesn't inherently induce hunger), but there's no doubt that the "eat less, exercise more" trope is a gross simplification that is the exactly *wrong* advice for a great many people.

    135. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      My understanding is that insulin resistance is at least partly a mechanism to avoid cells taking in toxic levels of glucose

      Well, that goes along with my understanding that obesity is a mechanism to avoid toxic levels of glucose in the blood - everyone you see who is obese is *exactly* obese enough to prevent toxic levels of glucose, i.e., they're as fat as they need to be.

      That being said, if they're fat in order to keep glucose levels in check, it would make sense to avoid chronically elevated glucose levels driven by a high glycemic diet, if you wanted to attack the obesity problem.

      the trouble with science is that often hypothesis you want to test is not necessarily the hypothesis you can test.

      As with many navel gazing theoretical physicists, there is a fine line between real science, and just entertaining science fiction. The line is called falsifiability. If you can't test your hypothesis, or if there is no response to a test that could possibly cause it to fail, you're not doing science, you're doing astrology.

    136. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      I heard them cautioning about saturated fat with things like the atkins diets

      Which is provably false. Fat is blamed for making people fat unfairly, but it's par for the course to look down on carnivores in our society.

      lots of red meat and saturated fat in a standard western diet will make you fatter (well backed by evidence)

      Not so - none of the evidence put forward controls for the role of carbohydrates. I have, and many others have, diets high in red meat and saturated fat that have made us thinner.

    137. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by quantaman · · Score: 1

      Which is provably false. Fat is blamed for making people fat unfairly, but it's par for the course to look down on carnivores in our society.

      Regardless of your beliefs it is not provably false, even if it had overwhelming evidence is it not provably false. Taubes statement on the other hand makes a specific claim about a specific group of people at it IS provably false.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    138. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by quantaman · · Score: 1

      I'm going to take a shot in the dark and assume you're not actually a scientist (I'm not either), just because you seem to have a very odd and buzzword driven idea about what it is that scientists do.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    139. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by quantaman · · Score: 1

      The actual advice is to eat slower, so the brain has more time to register the food and turn off the hunger, and to eat smaller portions. Part of the reason is that obese people tend to eat beyond what is needed to negate hunger.

      And yes "eat less, exercise more" is a gross simplification because it's only 4 words, but people have short attention spans so that's often all they hear.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    140. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      The actual advice is to eat slower, so the brain has more time to register the food and turn off the hunger, and to eat smaller portions.

      1) you're assuming the brain turns off the hunger, not the muscles.

      2) you're still telling people to eat smaller portions.

      obese people tend to eat beyond what is needed to negate hunger.

      The better phrase would be, "obese people tend to hunger beyond what is needed to maintain a normal body weight". Why do they hunger more? The differential insulin hypothesis asserts that muscles are starving even as obese people take in more calories.

    141. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      Taubes statement on the other hand makes a specific claim about a specific group of people at it IS provably false.

      Again, you're holding a double standard. Taubes speaks of vegans and vegetarians broadly, when he probably could be more specific. Status quo nutritionists speak broadly of red meat and saturated fat eaters, when in fact the studies they tout have shown *correlation* not *causation* - so if they were to be more accurate, they'd have to really point out the controlling factor of carbohydrates on insulin, which they quite nearly actively disparage.

      Think about all the b.s. that came out of the China Study, that denise minger so thoroughly dissected - http://rawfoodsos.com/2011/07/31/one-year-later-the-china-study-revisited-and-re-bashed/

    142. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      Actually, I am a scientist. I, on a regular basis in my daily work, have to come up with falsifiable hypotheses in order to determine causality in complex systems. I can certainly decide to daydream beyond the realm of science, and the falsifiable, but it's not going to help me solve problems or learn truths.

    143. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by quantaman · · Score: 1

      May I ask what kind of science?

      --
      I stole this Sig
    144. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by quantaman · · Score: 1

      Again, you're holding a double standard. Taubes speaks of vegans and vegetarians broadly, when he probably could be more specific.

      There's no double standard, if he has some special group of fat vegetarians he's talking about he should specify, but from the context he's clearly talking about all vegetarians, or at least those not eating tons of oil. Don't imagine some imaginary context to let them off the hook.

      Status quo nutritionists speak broadly of red meat and saturated fat eaters, when in fact the studies they tout have shown *correlation* not *causation* - so if they were to be more accurate, they'd have to really point out the controlling factor of carbohydrates on insulin, which they quite nearly actively disparage.

      Translation: I think nutritionists are wrong, therefore when they disagree with me they're lying.

      Think about all the b.s. that came out of the China Study, that denise minger so thoroughly dissected - http://rawfoodsos.com/2011/07/31/one-year-later-the-china-study-revisited-and-re-bashed/

      I didn't care about the health outcomes, I figured those would be messy. I cared about the obesity correlation which seems to have held up.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    145. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by quantaman · · Score: 1

      1) you're assuming the brain turns off the hunger, not the muscles.

      2) you're still telling people to eat smaller portions.

      1) The sight of food can trigger hunger, that the brain helps regulate hunger is incontrovertible.

      2) Yes. People tend to eat quickly until they're full, instead of eating slowly and stopping when they're less full. This leads to them consuming more calories. Most obese people can lose weight by eating slower and stopping slightly earlier without feeling more hungry in general.

      The better phrase would be, "obese people tend to hunger beyond what is needed to maintain a normal body weight". Why do they hunger more? The differential insulin hypothesis asserts that muscles are starving even as obese people take in more calories.

      That is a factor as well, but that is not the factor they're addressing with that advice.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    146. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      1) The sight of food can trigger hunger, that the brain helps regulate hunger is incontrovertible.

      Can the unsight of food untrigger hunger?

      Surely, the brain can help regulate hunger, but the idea that slow eating will override starving muscle signals is dubious.

      Most obese people can lose weight by eating slower and stopping slightly earlier without feeling more hungry in general.

      Unless you deal with the differential insulin problem obese people have, eating slower and stopping slightly earlier isn't going to be a significant factor. I have personally experienced the duality of feeling completely overstuffed, yet starving - for a differentially insulin resistant obese person, slow eating and slightly smaller portions isn't going to make a significant difference, if any.

      I still wonder - if the brain can trigger hunger on the sight of food, is there any visual that can suppress hunger? Maybe we just need to find the right combination of pictures, flash them to differentially insulin resistant people, we can suppress hunger... ...how many pounds do you think you could lose by suppressing hunger via visual stimuli? ...how many pounds do you think you can gain by triggering hunger via visual stimuli?

    147. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      Certainly, computer science.

      While my hypotheses get to deal with generally discrete systems rather than analog biological ones, I can't possibly find root cause in a behavior in a complex system without using the scientific method and falsifiability.

    148. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      I think nutritionists are wrong, therefore when they disagree with me they're lying.

      Isn't that what you're saying about Taubes in a nutshell? "I think Taubes is wrong, therefore when he disagrees with me he's lying."

      I cared about the obesity correlation which seems to have held up.

      Ah, the hobgoblin of correlation again :)

      That being said, you really don't care about the health outcomes?

    149. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by quantaman · · Score: 1

      There's a saying that if a 'scientist' is in favour of some crank theory they're probably from CS or Engineering.

      I'm finishing my masters in CS and I wouldn't call myself a scientist though I do some science. My brother is an assistant prof in a physics dept and he wouldn't call himself a physicist until he finished his PhD. In a way I think us CS/Engineering types are particularly poorly equipped to understand complex system problems like biology and climate since we're used to being given a complex system and having it based on a simple elegant design, and when we want to perform an experiment it's trivial to tweak and repeat it through every variation we can imagine.

      You need to understand that natural systems are designed by a completely foreign process. Governing appetite using muscle starvation and a simple insulin feedback mechanism to regulate blood sugar is probably how we'd do it. But the hallmark of evolution is bizarre, extremely complex, though generally robust systems. Maybe muscle starvation isn't linked to hunger at all, maybe the brain has to learn that explicitly, and it sometimes forgets and leads to that feeling of being kinda faint but not actually hungry. A properly designed system wouldn't confuse hunger with thirst, but our bodies do. The data I'm analyzing now comes from people suffering phantom limb pain, would you design a body to continually feel sensation and pain from a missing limb? It shows up in us. The one thing that evolution would predict for hunger is that it wouldn't have a simple solution, it would be a complex one with many different inputs and factors, that's one of the reasons it's hard to manipulate.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    150. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by quantaman · · Score: 1

      Surely, the brain can help regulate hunger, but the idea that slow eating will override starving muscle signals is dubious.

      I'm not going to look but I'm certain if you looked for literature some study shows that people told to eat slower will spontaneously eat less.

      I still wonder - if the brain can trigger hunger on the sight of food, is there any visual that can suppress hunger?

      Goatse?

      --
      I stole this Sig
    151. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by quantaman · · Score: 1

      Isn't that what you're saying about Taubes in a nutshell? "I think Taubes is wrong, therefore when he disagrees with me he's lying."

      More like, "Taubes is explicitly denying an easily verifiable fact. Therefore he's lying or ridiculously incompetent, therefore it's easier to discount his other claims"

      Ah, the hobgoblin of correlation again :)

      That being said, you really don't care about the health outcomes?

      There were so many different measures of health outcomes I never bothered to evaluate them and figured they'd be noisy anyways (they looked pretty noisy by eye). That being said I've tried to keep the discussion narrowly focused on obesity because other health outcomes just make things harder to settle.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    152. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      "Taubes is explicitly denying an easily verifiable fact."

      My contention about the nutritionists disparaging red meat and saturated fat. They are taking a *correlation*, and pretending it's a *causality* - a mistake on their part that is easily verifiable by even the most casual of glances at the references they give.

      That being said I've tried to keep the discussion narrowly focused on obesity because other health outcomes just make things harder to settle.

      Ah, so in fact, you do "care" in the emotional sense of the word, but have excluded them because you believe they add too much complexity to the picture. Fair enough, although I do think that in order to "do no harm", nutritionists are obligated to understand the *mortality* effects of their advice before giving it. It could be that the safest thing to say to anyone is "your individual body and response to dietary components may vary greatly from someone else's", rather than promote false tropes like "red meat and saturated fat will cause everyone health problems", or "vegetarianism is a healthy lifestyle for anyone"...it's like insisting that everyone should eat 5-6 servings of peanuts a day, even if they're allergic to peanuts.

    153. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      In a way I think us CS/Engineering types are particularly poorly equipped to understand complex system problems like biology and climate since we're used to being given a complex system and having it based on a simple elegant design, and when we want to perform an experiment it's trivial to tweak and repeat it through every variation we can imagine.

      I'll agree to a point - certainly there's an assumption, particularly in the AI community, that you can build intelligence out of dumb parts, and model neurons like petri nets or simple gates - that's just hubris talking. Great set of lectures on that: https://itunes.apple.com/us/itunes-u/cognitive-ubiquity-evolution/id464839816

      That being said, I'm not just talking about discrete simulations (as Wolfram has made particularly interesting finds in cellular automata), I'm talking about real world root cause failures in complex, integrated, man/logic/machine settings (which, do include a biological component of sorts). You cannot hope to find the truth in an analysis of a real-world system (again, not just some pre-programmed simulation, real computers doing real work with real people), without falsifiability.

      The one thing that evolution would predict for hunger is that it wouldn't have a simple solution, it would be a complex one with many different inputs and factors, that's one of the reasons it's hard to manipulate.

      Certainly hunger would be a complex one, but even in a complex system, you have first, second, third, etc order effects. Furthermore, as you noted, biology generally leads to extremely robust systems, and a system that ignored muscle starvation due to visual stimulation is distinctly *not* robust. The muscle cells can be considered as intelligent actors, just as intelligent as any bit of brain tissue, and they simply cannot be considered a lower order term.

      And so in the end, I think you're making the same mistake you're pointing out here - you're treating a large, complex system, as dictated to by a single organ as a first order effect (i.e., it's all in your brain). In fact, biology is *filled* with intelligence, even down to the cellular level, and a robust system simply wouldn't make "tastiness" it's primary directive - that's not robust by any means. It *is* rational to think that cellular intelligence would be concerned with things like protecting from toxic levels of glucose in tissues and the blood stream, and sufficient energy to survive, and the complex failure of the system to maintain a healthy weight (in order to survive in the short term), is quite neatly explained by the insulin and differential insulin resistance mechanism as a *first order* term.

    154. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      I'm not going to look but I'm certain if you looked for literature some study shows that people told to eat slower will spontaneously eat less.

      The problem here is that even if you identify this effect, it's trivial.

      FWIW, they've had a study of 30 healthy women (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18589027), and 17 healthy men (http://jcem.endojournals.org/content/95/1/333.abstract), neither of which addresses differentially insulin resistant folk, nor gives us much confidence due the small sample sizes. The 17 healthy men study (actually measuring gut response) is definitely more interesting, but the measured effect is tiny.

      Run the same experiments against differential insulin resistant folk, and with a variety of macronutrient combinations, in a metabolic ward, and you've got some real data.

    155. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by quantaman · · Score: 1

      My contention about the nutritionists disparaging red meat and saturated fat. They are taking a *correlation*, and pretending it's a *causality* - a mistake on their part that is easily verifiable by even the most casual of glances at the references they give.

      They take an existing correlation and interpret it as a interpretation (may or may not be right), Taubes does the same, except when he took the correlation he just reversed it. The rationalization is still laughable.

      Ah, so in fact, you do "care" in the emotional sense of the word, but have excluded them because you believe they add too much complexity to the picture. Fair enough, although I do think that in order to "do no harm", nutritionists are obligated to understand the *mortality* effects of their advice before giving it. It could be that the safest thing to say to anyone is "your individual body and response to dietary components may vary greatly from someone else's", rather than promote false tropes like "red meat and saturated fat will cause everyone health problems", or "vegetarianism is a healthy lifestyle for anyone"...it's like insisting that everyone should eat 5-6 servings of peanuts a day, even if they're allergic to peanuts.

      Maybe, but after probably 100+ comments I don't really want to have that debate.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    156. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      Taubes does the same, except when he took the correlation he just reversed it.

      Rather, Taubes ignored the correlation as spurious, and concentrated on the root cause and extrapolated from there. One can argue he should have left caveats in his statement, but by the same token, so should our status quo nutritionists.

      The more and more I think about it, status quo nutritionists must come up with some pretty creative ad hoc special pleadings to excuse the terrible track record of their advice for the past 40 years. Either they must believe that humans have somehow become more slothful and gluttonous (increasing defects of character), or they must believe that there is some "Z" factor out there that is stymying their efforts (say, big bad food companies making food more tasty with evil scientists in lab coats with beakers).

      Which, in essence, is the problem with the mental model status quo nutritionists have - any success is to their credit, but any failure is someone else's fault. I don't think they have a model that they're willing to see challenged, or can even imagine could possibly fail.

    157. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by quantaman · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure we're going to get any further on this point. Taubes came as close to saying "up is down" as you can possibly get, whatever mental gymnastics or false equivalencies you use to justify it you can't get around that fact. Even if some nutritionists did make an equivalent error Taubes claim is that he's supposed to be better, that he's the only one who took an unbiased look at the evidence. Well here we have a clear example where if you took his at his word you would come away seriously misinformed. At least admit the man is capable of failure.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    158. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by quantaman · · Score: 1

      That being said, I'm not just talking about discrete simulations (as Wolfram has made particularly interesting finds in cellular automata), I'm talking about real world root cause failures in complex, integrated, man/logic/machine settings (which, do include a biological component of sorts). You cannot hope to find the truth in an analysis of a real-world system (again, not just some pre-programmed simulation, real computers doing real work with real people), without falsifiability.

      I agree, but that doesn't mean the system is designed to be easily analyzed via falisifiability. I think a pretty common scenario goes something like this

      Researcher: I have a great simple falsifiable hypothesis!

      Other person: Awesome! What does it mean if it's true!

      Researcher: Uhhh, well I got a list of things that might be happening if it's true.

      Other person: Um ok, well you must have a pretty good idea if it's false then?

      Researcher: Oh yeah! I got another list!

      Other person: .... a lot of the items are the same.

      Researcher: Yeah, sorry about that

      Certainly hunger would be a complex one, but even in a complex system, you have first, second, third, etc order effects. Furthermore, as you noted, biology generally leads to extremely robust systems, and a system that ignored muscle starvation due to visual stimulation is distinctly *not* robust. The muscle cells can be considered as intelligent actors, just as intelligent as any bit of brain tissue, and they simply cannot be considered a lower order term.

      And so in the end, I think you're making the same mistake you're pointing out here - you're treating a large, complex system, as dictated to by a single organ as a first order effect (i.e., it's all in your brain). In fact, biology is *filled* with intelligence, even down to the cellular level, and a robust system simply wouldn't make "tastiness" it's primary directive - that's not robust by any means. It *is* rational to think that cellular intelligence would be concerned with things like protecting from toxic levels of glucose in tissues and the blood stream, and sufficient energy to survive, and the complex failure of the system to maintain a healthy weight (in order to survive in the short term), is quite neatly explained by the insulin and differential insulin resistance mechanism as a *first order* term.

      Hunger is a neurological effect so it (probably) all has to end up in the brain at some point, but we don't know the precise inputs, some is undoubtedly largely determined by signals from the body, muscle cells are probably sending some of those signals, but the brain is undoubtedly doing a ton on its own as evidenced by the huge role visual stimuli, social setting, and expectation plays on appetite.

      That's why I'm very leery of anyone who stands up and says "I solved the obesity epidemic and it's due to X!" just because we know of so many contributing factors that go in and the number of variables we're changing.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    159. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      I agree, but that doesn't mean the system is designed to be easily analyzed via falisifiability.

      I'm not sure if I quite understand your researcher/other person example.

      It is quite possible that there are some things that are beyond the realm of science - things for which no falsifiable hypothesis is possible. It's even quite possible that there are some *deterministic* things that are beyond the realm of science (odd to think of, but wolfram makes a fairly strong case with cellular automata that there is no way to discern which simple rules may have created certain complex observations).

      The idea that we can *scientifically* analyze something without falsifiability is a fallacy.

      Hunger is a neurological effect so it (probably) all has to end up in the brain at some point

      You're giving the brain too much credit. Hunger is a *whole body* effect, and arguably a cellular effect. Heck, consciousness is arguably a *whole body* effect, with incredibly tightly coupled influences on the cellular level (as demonstrated by say, phantom limb effects).

      The brain is simply one portion of the complex system, and certainly isn't the only place that intelligent and complex behavior occurs.

      And maybe that's the problem I have with your frame - you're asserting that the brain is some massively omnipotent organ that dictates to the rest of the body, and that we can ignore all other factors and concentrate on it as the first order term.

      I'm arguing a different frame based on our observations of cellular intelligence (http://www.brianjford.com/w-intelcell.htm, for example). Given the biochemical processes on the *cellular* level is the only way to rationally attack this problem, as far as that frame goes.

      That's why I'm very leery of anyone who stands up and says "I solved the obesity epidemic and it's due to X!"

      So, are you leery of those who say "it's due to eating more calories than those burned!"?

    160. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      At least admit the man is capable of failure.

      Surely - he failed to caveat appropriately, and because of that, was misinterpreted by folk, such as you. His attempt at rhetoric could have been sharper, and he's probably better off either in prepared lectures or in written form than on a radio show.

      As to being seriously misinformed, that's a particular brand of tar that status quo, "calories in/calories out" nutritionists are neck deep in :) At worst Taubes glossed, but government advice on diet and exercise has been substantially harmful for the past 40 years.

    161. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by quantaman · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure if I quite understand your researcher/other person example.

      The point is we can't isolate one variable and hold everything else constant. Other variables can kick in to compensate, the brain responds to the situation, and the factor you're measuring never has a total function as simple as your hypothesis. No matter what you do the data is really messy and the answers can only be guessed at by looking at a lot of different experiments.

      And maybe that's the problem I have with your frame - you're asserting that the brain is some massively omnipotent organ that dictates to the rest of the body, and that we can ignore all other factors and concentrate on it as the first order term.

      I'm arguing a different frame based on our observations of cellular intelligence (http://www.brianjford.com/w-intelcell.htm, for example). Given the biochemical processes on the *cellular* level is the only way to rationally attack this problem, as far as that frame goes.

      No, I'm saying we already know the brain is heavily involved, including decisions made at an abstract level like comfort food or eating in company. Therefore to show a particular biochemical process is active you first need to measure the influence of the brain which we know is there.

      So, are you leery of those who say "it's due to eating more calories than those burned!"?

      Oversimplification, I'd be leery of those who say "it's all due to palatability", because activity levels, social factors, mental health, advertising, convenience, and a dozen other factors are all probably involved.

      Btw, since you think the carb/obesity is only in western populations due to a carbohydrate allergy explain Cuba, during an economic crisis calories dropped from 3,100 to 2,300 and:

      "The percentage of dietary fat in the energy intake decreased, while the contribution of carbohydrates (polished rice and refined cereals) increased from 64% in 1990 to 79.4% in 1993. Availability of essential dietary amino acids and fatty acids declined as a consequence of a reduced availability of animal protein and edible oils and fat. Sugar cane, a traditional source of energy in the Cuban diet, rose to 28% of total energy intake, almost three times that of the fat contribution."

      Want to guess what happened? Obesity rates dropped by half. So what happened to the carb allergy that caused the initial obesity? Why did they start eating fewer calories? Despite the economic hardship there wasn't actual starvation so surely they could afford 800 of the cheapest calories per day, if your theory about their obesity being caused a carb allergy was correct the extra sugar and refined carbs should have given them uncontrollable hunger and blew them up like a balloon.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    162. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by quantaman · · Score: 1

      Oh yes,

      His failure was that he was misunderstood. It's not really his fault that in an interview, when discussing in detail the fact that vegetarians were eating foods that by his rules should make them fat and diabetic, he simply claimed that vegetarians were in fact fat and diabetic.

      It's clear that he really wanted to say...

      After googling the only thing I can find about Taubes and vegitarianism is someone saying that in his book he claimed that Vegetarian Hindus in India were fatter than their non-vegetarian Christian and Muslim counterparts. But I could find no mention of that study, and similar studies, or the actual claim, or even another website saying he said it, so I have no idea what his actual explanation is or if there even is one. But given the obvious relevance to his hypothesis it seems odd that he hasn't dealt with the issue explicitly and directly.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    163. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      His failure was that he was misunderstood.

      No, let's be specific - his failure was that he did not speak clearly enough to have his audience understand. That's a failing for someone who is trying to convey a point.

      For the status quo nutritionists, given their terrible track record at improving health with their advice for the past 40 years, they're failure was that they *were* understood, and people abided by their bad advice.

      I mean, honestly, do you think that Taubes' statement in that radio interview convinced a single vegetarian to start on an unhealthy, high glycemic carnivorous diet, as opposed to a healthy low-glycemic carnivorous diet?

    164. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      Other variables can kick in to compensate, the brain responds to the situation, and the factor you're measuring never has a total function as simple as your hypothesis.

      Again, you bring in the messy brain in the example as a point of pride - eventually, every brain response has to culminate in some biomechanism for accumulating fat. You can do a more rigorous and profitable analysis by understanding the basic biomechanisms *first*, and then discovering how the brain might influence those levers. But you can't have a brain doing something magical and unobservable - it eventually needs to get down to the level of accumulating fat in a fat cell.

      Therefore to show a particular biochemical process is active you first need to measure the influence of the brain which we know is there.

      Okay, so let's get the test where we measure the biochemical process by which the brain influences say, tastiness. Let's throw away the subjective questionnaires, and measure the actual biochemical signals. Again, first principles, we need to go to the moment of action.

      explain Cuba

      Easy. Bad data. They even admit to it: "These numbers are probably not particularly accurate"

    165. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by quantaman · · Score: 1

      No, let's be specific - his failure was that he did not speak clearly enough to have his audience understand. That's a failing for someone who is trying to convey a point.

      Understand what? I don't know his point.

      I mean, honestly, do you think that Taubes' statement in that radio interview convinced a single vegetarian to start on an unhealthy, high glycemic carnivorous diet, as opposed to a healthy low-glycemic carnivorous diet?

      I think a lot of listeners went through the program thinking "wow! he's dismantling all these things I knew about nutrition!" and when he got to that bit "huh, I thought vegetarians were usually thin, but I guess they must not be because he's done the research and they apparently weigh more."

      --
      I stole this Sig
    166. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by quantaman · · Score: 1

      Again, you bring in the messy brain in the example as a point of pride - eventually, every brain response has to culminate in some biomechanism for accumulating fat. You can do a more rigorous and profitable analysis by understanding the basic biomechanisms *first*, and then discovering how the brain might influence those levers. But you can't have a brain doing something magical and unobservable - it eventually needs to get down to the level of accumulating fat in a fat cell.

      Wherever you start from you can't go around saying you solved the obesity epidemic when you've left out one of the primary drivers of appetite which you know if being manipulated in modern populations.

      Okay, so let's get the test where we measure the biochemical process by which the brain influences say, tastiness. Let's throw away the subjective questionnaires, and measure the actual biochemical signals. Again, first principles, we need to go to the moment of action.

      What are you talking about? Tastiness is be determined by signals in the brain, there are feedbacks that occur which changes how we perceive taste, but you're going back to this impractical standard of solving the system instead of analyzing it behaviourally.

      Easy. Bad data. They even admit to it: "These numbers are probably not particularly accurate"

      So you're throwing it out entirely? The numbers are fuzzy, but if they're even in the ballpark they contradict your allergy theory.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    167. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      you've left out one of the primary drivers of appetite

      I guess that's the argument in a nutshell - I'm arguing that psychological processes in the brain aren't primary drivers of appetite, they're secondary or tertiary. To quantify that, I think we're looking at metabolic ward studies, with various controls for macronutrients and a search for quantitative data on biomechanisms rather than subjective surveys.

      So you're throwing it out entirely?

      Yes. You can't rely on getting good results out of bad data.

      Tastiness is be determined by signals in the brain

      I disagree. The conscious acknowledgement of "tastiness" may occur in some part of the frontal cortex, say, but when it comes to "tastiness as having an effect on actual biomarkers rather than a survey", that's something that is determined by a complex set of tissues and organs, including but not limited to parts of the brain that are not conscious.

      I wonder if you would put the brain in a place of primacy if we were talking about say, vertical growth rather than horizontal growth. Would it be possible for the brain to psychologically retard (or accelerate) growth in height? Could it somehow reduce the amount of human growth hormone circulated by the pituitary? More importantly, since vertical growth requires a caloric imbalance (need more calories in than calories out), would the mechanisms you imagine for hunger and appetite be suppressible when trying to avoid vertical growth? Could a teenager reduce their appetite enough to limit their calories enough to stop their vertical growth from happening?

      My guess is that you'd admit to the primacy of HGH in determining vertical growth, but that begs the question as to why you wouldn't admit the primacy of insulin in determining horizontal growth.

    168. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      Understand what? I don't know his point.

      Then I've failed to communicate that effectively to you :)

      "huh, I thought vegetarians were usually thin, but I guess they must not be because he's done the research and they apparently weigh more."

      That sounds fair enough, but again, hardly resonating with an actual vegetarian (unless they happened to be one of those fat ones that tried to become vegetarian for health reasons, and weren't seeing success).

      My take would be slightly different: "huh, I thought vegetarians were usually healthy, but I guess they must not be because he's done the research and they apparently aren't healthier" - and this, is arguably true.

    169. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by quantaman · · Score: 1

      I guess that's the argument in a nutshell - I'm arguing that psychological processes in the brain aren't primary drivers of appetite, they're secondary or tertiary. To quantify that, I think we're looking at metabolic ward studies, with various controls for macronutrients and a search for quantitative data on biomechanisms rather than subjective surveys.

      I think that one thing matabolic ward studies would clear up is that they don't really explain the changes that lead to the small (Yes. You can't rely on getting good results out of bad data.

      It's not a binary situation, every dataset has inadequacies, you take that into account with error bars and tempered interpretations, but it's a little too convenient to just throw it out entirely because it's a problem.

      What if there wasn't a problem, what if it turned out the records were in fact good? How would you rationalize the data then?

      I disagree. The conscious acknowledgement of "tastiness" may occur in some part of the frontal cortex, say, but when it comes to "tastiness as having an effect on actual biomarkers rather than a survey", that's something that is determined by a complex set of tissues and organs, including but not limited to parts of the brain that are not conscious.

      I wonder if you would put the brain in a place of primacy if we were talking about say, vertical growth rather than horizontal growth. Would it be possible for the brain to psychologically retard (or accelerate) growth in height? Could it somehow reduce the amount of human growth hormone circulated by the pituitary? More importantly, since vertical growth requires a caloric imbalance (need more calories in than calories out), would the mechanisms you imagine for hunger and appetite be suppressible when trying to avoid vertical growth? Could a teenager reduce their appetite enough to limit their calories enough to stop their vertical growth from happening?

      My guess is that you'd admit to the primacy of HGH in determining vertical growth, but that begs the question as to why you wouldn't admit the primacy of insulin in determining horizontal growth.

      Well there's one big difference between eating and growing in that eating requires a conscious deliberate action and we know that a strong hunger response can be triggered by brain signals.

      And I do agree that HGH is most responsible for height, with the caveat that there's MASSIVE factors I know I'm missing including things that probably counteract, enhance, or regulate HGH, and I don't know how HGH is involved in the feedback mechanism that actually determines how much we grow. We also know the conscious mind doesn't do a lot since vegetative patients still grow to a normal height.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    170. Re:Another "moderation" fraud by quantaman · · Score: 1

      Then I've failed to communicate that effectively to you :)

      You think he meant so say it was merely possible for them to be fat? That vegetarianism could lead to other non-obesity related health problems? Because he didn't say anything remotely like that.

      That sounds fair enough, but again, hardly resonating with an actual vegetarian (unless they happened to be one of those fat ones that tried to become vegetarian for health reasons, and weren't seeing success).

      My take would be slightly different: "huh, I thought vegetarians were usually healthy, but I guess they must not be because he's done the research and they apparently aren't healthier" - and this, is arguably true.

      Unless by "healthy" you mean thin I think your take misses the point.

      The book is primarily about obesity. The interview was primarily about obesity. The exchange was primarily about obesity. And the statement in question specifically mentioned obesity.

      --
      I stole this Sig
  31. Re:Welcome to the publishing industry, newbie crit by emag · · Score: 1

    Alas, we literally lost...

    --
    "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." --H.L. Mencken
  32. Diet books DO help you lose weight by davidwr · · Score: 1

    Between the exercise of tearing the pages out and chewing them and the malnutrition from eating only processed dead trees, ink, and glue, you'll lose weight in no time.

    Disclaimer: The Diet Book Diet can also significantly shorten life expectancy.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    1. Re:Diet books DO help you lose weight by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      The good news about the Diet Book Diet is that you don't have to worry about a lack of fiber!

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  33. Re:Welcome to the publishing industry, newbie crit by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 1

    >> As long as you're fixing thing, take

    things

  34. programmers' diets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In general, programmers aren't actually interested in food, beyond ending the immediacy of hunger.

    But they should be. If what they want is to have sharper and clearer thinking, for longer windows, they should pay attention to what they eat and worse --- they should cook it themselves. Controlling what you eat is a really good thing.

    Yes, it's blasphemy I know, and I didn't believe it myself for... decades. But it turns out that a vegan diet, without processed foods (that means no Trader Joes for you), and low in oil and fats (think Engine 2 diet [http://engine2diet.com/]), does that and more. If you eat this way, it's just about impossible for you to gain weight above your healthy norm; you can't physically take in enough calories once you delete the high energy density foods (the animal products and excess oils and fats). So if you are already over, you'll lose weight, without trying, without hunger. And when you get back to your normal, you'll stabilize there.

    The other interesting side effect of eating this way, is that you don't actually have to worry about protein. If you eat the plants, you'll get enough. I know, I didn't believe it either, but I've got the spreadsheets to prove it. I'm a geek, what can I say?

    There's plenty of science to back this up, from the China Study to the eCornell Plant Based Nutrition certificate program, to the work Dr. Neal Bernard is doing and way more. This is science based eating, and it runs completely counter to what big-ag is trying to get you to eat. But... they are wrong. Science is right. You're geeks, you know this.

    And I've put my money where my mouth is. I was a vegetarian for five+ years, and I've been vegan for nearly 2 years now. The step that worked, was going vegan. It's not enough to cut out meat, you have to cut out all the animal products. Including cheese.

    Yep, that programmers' special pizza is part of what's making you stupid. You won't believe it until you quit eating it. It only takes a few days to a week before you start feeling better. Within a few months you'll forget what meat and dairy even tasted like. Within a year you'll be grossed out by the fast food commercials on TV. If you make it to that point, you'll never go back.

    And that's the problem -- making it to that point. The societal pressures to *not* do this are brutal. Just brutal. You'll catch no end of s**t from your coworkers, especially at lunch when you refuse a trip to a fast food joint and instead eat what you cooked and brought to the office. It's difficult to eat out -- the vast majority of restaurants are hooked on meat and dairy. But it can be done if you'll make the effort. Yelp is often your friend.

    Two other benefits. You'll save money; you can't help it. Plants cost less than animals. And, your general health will improve in interesting and mysterious ways. For me, my knees quit hurting. I can hike up and down the mountains now and never even notice my knees, before, during, or after. For my wife, her breathing improved. She can now hike along side me up and down the mountains, and it's been many years since that was true.

    So... what's it hurt to try it? You can do anything for a month -- I used to tell myself I could stand any class for a semester, and a month is way shorter than a semester. Run the experiment yourself, make an honest try. Draw your own conclusions.

    If you don't know how to get started, look at the Engine 2 Diet book. If you need more, look at Wildly Affordable Organic [http://www.cookforgood.com/buy/], whose recipes I can vouch for. If this engineer / programmer can do it, you can. It's a smaller learning curve than learning C++ was.

    1. Re:programmers' diets by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      Vegans can handle it for a year or two until their body gives up from the chemical assault unleashed by the vegetables that spent 2 billion years evolving chemical weapons to stop you eating them.

      Animals evolved legs and flippers to get out of the way. They're much less poisonous.
       

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    2. Re:programmers' diets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very true! Let's go eat meat!

    3. Re:programmers' diets by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      Are you paying?

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    4. Re:programmers' diets by RockinRoller · · Score: 1

      Their minds often give out b4 their bodies. I have yet to meet a good programmer who is a vegan.

  35. diet book? by Pallas+Athena · · Score: 1

    Oh, this is about a diet book? Really? When I read the title, I was thinking it was some fairytale... Come on, a healthy programmer, really?

  36. ATTN Mr Kutner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here's the topic for your next book:

    "Sustainable Kama Sutra: The Green Revolution"

    shoot

  37. Re: Welcome to the publishing industry, newbie cri by AAWood · · Score: 1

    Good catch, thanks for that!

  38. food density; calorie restriction; muscle mass by SuperBanana · · Score: 1

    If you're hungry, eat. When you're not hungry anymore, stop eating. This sounds simple, but it can be difficult to practice.

    Yup, partially because processed foods have very high calorie counts, and sweetened drinks are everywhere. One of the reasons soda is such a pain is because it's so many calories for not a lot of stomach space. Switching to water, tea, etc helps. I almost never have anything except water with meals now. Kinda nice - cleans the palate, works with everything, cheap, etc.

    But as an instructor pointed out, "You spent 20 years putting on that weight. It's not going to all come off in 20 days."

    Eh, that's kind of a silly comparison or line of reasoning. The problem is mostly that there are a TON of calories in one pound of fat - 3500+. Calorie restriction works, it's just that because of the energy in a pound of fat, it can only work at a certain speed (dropping too many calories from your diet will result in weakness, getting sick more, etc), and that speed is a bit slower than people might hope. Let me put it this way: if your daily calorie usage is about 2000 calories and you don't eat anything for 24 hours, you'll lose well less than a pound (yes, I'm ignoring glycogen stores.)

    Implementation of calorie restriction is difficult for many, yes. If you eat because you're unhappy, for example, then you shouldn't just talk to a dietician - you should also talk to a (licensed) mental health councilor of some sort. If you're snacking throughout the day or eating a massive lunch, you need a better breakfast. Etc. etc.

    Everyone thinks exercise helps - and yes, it does, and you're definitely healthier and better off for it. But one of the cruel jokes about exercise is that when you do more of it, you become more efficient as a food-burning machine. People also underestimate the amount of calories burned from exercise, and above a certain level of activity, most of the calories come from your glycogen stores and carbohydrates, not fat.

    Increasing activity and muscle mass helps, too, as muscle mass increase = daily calorie use increase. Everyone should do at least some sort of weight training, including-and-especially women, where weight lifting helps counteract bone density loss. Walking and cycling for transport helps quite a bit - even a 15-20 minute commute by bike is worth a decent number of calories, maybe 10% or so of your daily needs.

  39. Worth 3240 traditional diet books? by crgrace · · Score: 1

    If diet books are a dime a dozen, but *this* diet book is presumably worth $27, then it must be better than $27*(10 dimes/$)*(12 diet books/dime) = 3240 other diet books..

    Wow. This must be a great book.

    1. Re:Worth 3240 traditional diet books? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get a grip.I do not think it was meant to be taken literally.

  40. [citation needed] by The+Raven · · Score: 1

    Please show me the proof that Slashvertisement Product 1138 is not yet another failure in dieting books. I would like to see a statistical analysis of at least 100 readers who read the book, and their weight changes over the subsequent year.

    What, you say? You just published the book and have no way of verifying this? Then stop making idiotic claims or GTFO.

    --
    "I will trust Google to 'do no evil' until the founders no longer run it." Hello Alphabet.
  41. Re:Don't eat so goddamned much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Also, when you eat really does matter.

    Don't believe me? I'm fine with that, I'm carbing up now for my marathon in 5 years.

  42. Some underlying science by quantaman · · Score: 1

    One thing people might want to check out is a blog by an actual obesity researcher

    Simply put there's a lot of factors of which the author summarized a few with an 8 part series on what motivates people to eat. One of the main hypothesis he pushes is the particularly depressing palatability hypothesis that says the tastier food is the more of it we'll eat.

    He also takes down the nonsense of Gary Taubes.

    --
    I stole this Sig
    1. Re:Some underlying science by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 2

      Guyenet is wedded to a paradigm that keeps his funding flowing. It matters to him that Taubes be wrong not for the health of people, but for his bank account.
      Taubes isn't wrong. His logic is rigorous, as befits a physicist who casts his eyes over the wasteland that is nutrition research.
      Petro Dobromylskyj will set set your thinking straight. http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    2. Re:Some underlying science by quantaman · · Score: 1

      Guyenet is wedded to a paradigm that keeps his funding flowing.

      You sounds like a AGW denialist.

      It matters to him that Taubes be wrong not for the health of people, but for his bank account.

      Yes, clearly a journalist and author cares only about the truth and health of people, and not about having a best selling book, lucrative speaking career, or being worshipped as a genius who has solved the obesity epidemic.

      Taubes isn't wrong. His logic is rigorous, as befits a physicist who casts his eyes over the wasteland that is nutrition research.

      From his bio:
      Born in Rochester, New York, Taubes studied applied physics at Harvard and aerospace engineering at Stanford (MS, 1978).

      A BSc (or even a MSc) in physics doesn't make you a physicist. And even if he was it's not hard to find physicists with crank ideas about physics, why is it so hard to think one could have crank ideas about nutrition?

      Petro Dobromylskyj will set set your thinking straight. http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/

      So nutritionists are incompetent to discuss nutrition, even those with a PhD in neurobiology, but a veterinarian is fine. Besides, all I see from Petro is him rambling about a specific physiological phenomena in an extremely obtuse manner, even if he's right diet is far more complicated than that.

      If carbs are so bad explain why people going on a exclusive potato diet always loose loads of weight when potatoes have a higher GI than sugar?

      Explain why Japan, which eats large amounts of white rice, is virtually the only developed nation to avoid the obesity epidemic?

      The research all points to Taubes being wrong.

      The diets of entire nations point to Taubes being wrong.

      Yet Taubes writing a book that says everyone else is wrong is enough to convince you he's right?

      --
      I stole this Sig
    3. Re:Some underlying science by demonlapin · · Score: 1
      Guyenet has an unfortunate obsession with studies that are just short-term observations of extreme behavior.

      From your first link:

      For example, overfeeding reliably increases fat mass in humans and can produce substantial body fat accumulation, regardless of whether the excess calories come from carbohydrate or fat, and regardless of changes in circulating insulin (49, 50, 51, 52). Similarly, underfeeding reliably decreases fat mass by a predictable amount, also regardless of macronutrients and changes in circulating insulin (53, 54, 55). "Exceptions" to this rule only seem to occur in studies where food intake is not measured accurately.

      Of course, studies where food intake is not measured accurately are also known as "real life". The fact that overfeeding or underfeeding someone produces predictable effects on body mass doesn't really tell you anything about what sort of diet will result in sustained weight loss, because chronically underfed people are hungry, and hungry people eventually give in and eat. The potato diet is a perfect example of Guyenet thinking: it demonstrates that smashing food reward behavior to bits by eating only one very bland food is an effective method for losing weight, but he acknowledges from the start that he doesn't advise it (indeed, there's no reason to believe that it could be a complete diet, which animal products can be). Taubes has many mechanisms wrong but provides an effective solution; Guyenet is right on all the pieces but doesn't actually put it together into anything (though he tepidly embraces paleo in one of his linked articles, and he links to some guy who wants to sell you a diet plan for $40 without telling you anything about it).

      Ultimately, the problem is that people want to know a method that works, and on that, Taubes delivers and Guyenet doesn't. All the rightness in the world can't overcome that.

    4. Re:Some underlying science by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      Guyenet appear to be wedded to his 'food reward' hypothesis which is countered by lots of evidence, including my own personal experience. Food reward is as much a function of the eater as the food and the eater's state of appetite is driven by hormones, which is driven by the food eaten and the state of the mitochondria and probably the feedback circuits in the VMH.

      If there's a single criticism I'd level at most nutrition researchers, it is that they don't understand complex, multi-loop feedback systems well. Such systems create lots of statistical associations, but the effects of any intervention become hard to analyze unless you understand how the various feedback systems interact.

      Most engineers know very well how feedback works and how it can get out of hand when you meddle with variables in a conditionally stable, complex feedback system. Weight is a classic example, where it is obviously conditionally stable, because some people are stable at 'lean' and some people slowly accumulate fat throughout their lives with higher frequency ups and downs superimposed.
       

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    5. Re:Some underlying science by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      Seth Roberts has an alternative hypothesis of how bland foods affect the brain's set point mechanism (yes, set points are not accepted fact). I don't think it's well established either way, but it works for some and so makes for some interesting data that has to be accounted for in any correct model of the human metabolism.

      It worked for me, but low carb works as well and I don't have to drink flax oil, which is one of the least pleasant dietary experiments I've tried.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    6. Re:Some underlying science by quantaman · · Score: 1

      Seth Roberts has an alternative hypothesis of how bland foods affect the brain's set point mechanism (yes, set points are not accepted fact). I don't think it's well established either way, but it works for some and so makes for some interesting data that has to be accounted for in any correct model of the human metabolism.

      It worked for me, but low carb works as well and I don't have to drink flax oil, which is one of the least pleasant dietary experiments I've tried.

      Seth Roberts has a novel approach, but it mostly relies on the palatability hypothesis. Seth Robets advocates drinking tasteless (or at least unpleasant) calories through oil, which according to the palatability hypothesis is going to make you less hungry in general. I tried it for a while but found the oil weird, then eventually figured out I could replace the tasteless oil with tasteless broccoli or a microwaved potato.

      Low carb works, but partially because you replace the carbs with protein instead of fat (high protein works better than low carb), and partially by cutting a big group of tasty foods out of your diet. If you can't eat bread, pasta, rice, or a bunch of other yummy carbs eating becomes less enjoyable so you do less of it.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    7. Re:Some underlying science by quantaman · · Score: 1

      Guyenet has an unfortunate obsession with studies that are just short-term observations of extreme behavior.

      From your first link:

      For example, overfeeding reliably increases fat mass in humans and can produce substantial body fat accumulation, regardless of whether the excess calories come from carbohydrate or fat, and regardless of changes in circulating insulin (49, 50, 51, 52). Similarly, underfeeding reliably decreases fat mass by a predictable amount, also regardless of macronutrients and changes in circulating insulin (53, 54, 55). "Exceptions" to this rule only seem to occur in studies where food intake is not measured accurately.

      Of course, studies where food intake is not measured accurately are also known as "real life".

      Though in this case I think he was referring to low quality studies with spurious results that Taubes relies on.

      The fact that overfeeding or underfeeding someone produces predictable effects on body mass doesn't really tell you anything about what sort of diet will result in sustained weight loss, because chronically underfed people are hungry, and hungry people eventually give in and eat. The potato diet is a perfect example of Guyenet thinking: it demonstrates that smashing food reward behavior to bits by eating only one very bland food is an effective method for losing weight, but he acknowledges from the start that he doesn't advise it (indeed, there's no reason to believe that it could be a complete diet, which animal products can be). Taubes has many mechanisms wrong but provides an effective solution; Guyenet is right on all the pieces but doesn't actually put it together into anything (though he tepidly embraces paleo in one of his linked articles, and he links to some guy who wants to sell you a diet plan for $40 without telling you anything about it).

      Well the blog is about giving you the science behind why people overeat and get fat, not about giving you a diet plan. If you read the blog regularly it's not hard to realize what you have to do to lose weight.

      As for the diet plan a few months back Guyenet caused a mild controversy on his blog by helping someone else design a diet plan based on nutrition science then endorsing/promoting it in a blog post. The post was fairly tone-deaf and alienated a number of readers though I don't think it influences is writing.

      Ultimately, the problem is that people want to know a method that works, and on that, Taubes delivers and Guyenet doesn't. All the rightness in the world can't overcome that.

      If you follow Taubes precisely you might be fine. But if you find his rules don't fit your life so you adapt his "science" by avoiding potatoes and eating lots of steak and bacon you're going to be a lot better served by reading someone like Guyenet.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    8. Re:Some underlying science by quantaman · · Score: 1

      Guyenet appear to be wedded to his 'food reward' hypothesis which is countered by lots of evidence, including my own personal experience. Food reward is as much a function of the eater as the food and the eater's state of appetite is driven by hormones, which is driven by the food eaten and the state of the mitochondria and probably the feedback circuits in the VMH.

      If there's a single criticism I'd level at most nutrition researchers, it is that they don't understand complex, multi-loop feedback systems well. Such systems create lots of statistical associations, but the effects of any intervention become hard to analyze unless you understand how the various feedback systems interact.

      Most engineers know very well how feedback works and how it can get out of hand when you meddle with variables in a conditionally stable, complex feedback system. Weight is a classic example, where it is obviously conditionally stable, because some people are stable at 'lean' and some people slowly accumulate fat throughout their lives with higher frequency ups and downs superimposed.

      Food reward is just one part and I suspect it's his primary area of research so he probably talks about it disproportionately. But in the first post I link to his 8 part series explaining the neurobiological motivations behind eating. Having read his stuff with a critical eye for a while I've never found him to oversimplify or claim more certainty than is warranted.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    9. Re:Some underlying science by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      I do the high fat thing. YMMV.
      I have my local Starbucks trained to put heavy cream in my latte.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    10. Re:Some underlying science by RockinRoller · · Score: 1

      Who is seth Roberts?

    11. Re:Some underlying science by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      He's a Professor of Psychology who is a strong proponent of personal science. He is also the creator of the Shangri La Diet.

      http://blog.sethroberts.net/

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    12. Re:Some underlying science by RockinRoller · · Score: 1

      Shangri La Diet..... knowing that...i know it is bogus!

    13. Re:Some underlying science by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      What makes you think it is bogus? It works for many people.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    14. Re:Some underlying science by RockinRoller · · Score: 1

      the name alone...can't be effective w/ such a bogus name.

    15. Re:Some underlying science by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      Don't let the science get in the way of dismissing a good bit of work.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
  43. Just wait til Gregory House by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...finds out one of his doctor underlings stooped to writing a diet book!
    I can't wait to hear the evilly delicious taunts he'll throw around the hospital.

  44. Easy... by denzacar · · Score: 1

    You basically need a jeweler's scale (pocket-sized ones go for under 7$ on ebay, shipping included), a set of rechargeable AAA batteries (those cheap scales drain them relatively quickly) and a spreadsheet that you can carry around on, say, your mobile communication device.

    There. Now, you know how much of a certain food you're taking in as it is now rather simple to weigh your food.
    On a plus side, if you end up being frisked by police for any reason, you can break the ice by explaining that you're not a drug dealer and that the white substance on your pocket scale is powdered sugar and not some narcotic substance.

    Looking up said food in your spreadsheet lets you know how many calories per gram said food contains.
    Like you stated above, you already know how to find that for the ingredients.
    How much of each ingredient is in actual food you end up eating? Easy.
    You got the recipe - you got the ratio of ingredients in the dish. You only need to calculate the amount of calories per gram ONCE per dish.
    You don't got the recipe, cause you're eating at a restaurant or you don't want to bother your friends for the recipe - guesstimate.
    It's not like one "imprecise meal" will ruin your diet. Or your data.

    Stuff you're "adding to taste" can be ignored if it's less than a "significant amount of calories" per serving - i.e. if it's used as a SPICE.
    In other words, if you're adding a spoon of butter to an entire pot of "dish X" - it does not really matter.
    Though nothing stops you for weighing out the average amount you use (weight of spoon of butter minus the weight of spoon) and adding that to your spreadsheet too.
    On the other hand, if you're spreading butter on slices of bread and eating them - that's not a spice, that's FOOD, and you can easily check how many calories of butter you're spreading on average per an average slice of bread and write that down in your spreadsheet.

    Stuff you can't find exact calories for - write them down and ROUND UP their calories to the closest thing you COULD find exact calories for.
    Considering it erring on the side of caution.

    You could probably make a simple app for adding calorie counts of various ingredients in your spreadsheet (or an actual database at this point), subtracting the weight leftovers or packaging and/or empty plates after the meal (when eating outside your home).
    You could add shiny graphs to show what you've been eating and how often, personal weight counters, a pedometer option to show you how much of your meal you've just walked off, goals, medals for inputting X numbers of unique (one for each ingredient or dish) calorie counts for food (gotta catch them all)...

    There. Now you can treat dieting as a programming task.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  45. It can take a while to feel full. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When you're not hungry anymore, stop eating.

    You will still over-eat if you wait until you are no longer hungry to stop eating.

    While it is true that the body does a good job of telling us when food is required, it is still the product of an environment where food is scarce. Humans did not evolve under conditions where food was practically unlimited (and actually few people live with such abundance to this day). Therefore, eating until you are not hungry does not take advantage of the same healthy instinct as not eating until you feel hungry in the first place.

    I think a better practice is to eat small portions (about half of what you think you want), and then wait several minutes before returning for seconds. Also, drink plenty of water before and during the meal.

  46. This. by Wrexs0ul · · Score: 1

    I came across My Fitness Pal after syncing it to a Withings scale I'd bought. As a data guy this has taken all the fuzziness and cheating out of weight loss. It's great. Calories and nutritional info is recorded, the scale syncs automatically after measuring (just stand on it, no data entry), and I'm getting their version of Fitbit, called Pulse, to help track exercise and sleep.

    I think most Slashdotters who sometimes struggle with weight won't get much more out of a book they haven't scoured Google for already. Easily being able to visualize personal info seems to really help with the accountability part, which I think is way more important to the knowledge-savvy crowd.

    --
    --- Need web hosting?
  47. Escaping the "Pleasure Trap" by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 2

    We can create new habits and preferences: http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/article16.aspx
    "Scientific evidence suggests that the re-sensitization of taste nerves takes between 30 and 90 days of consistent exposure to less stimulating foods. This means that for several weeks, most people attempting this change will experience a reduction in eating pleasure. This is why modern foods present such a devastating trap -- as most of our citizens are, in effect, "addicted" to artificially high levels of food stimulation! The 30-to-90-day process of taste re-calibration requires more motivation-- and more self-discipline -- than most people are ever willing to muster.
        Tragically, most people are totally unaware that they are only a few weeks of discipline away from being able to comfortably maintain healthful dietary habits -- and to keep away from the products that can result in the destruction of their health. Instead, most people think that if they were to eat more healthfully, they would be condemned to a life of greatly reduced gustatory pleasure -- thinking that the process of Phase IV will last forever. In our new book, The Pleasure Trap, we explain this extraordinarily deceptive and problematic situation -- and how to master this hidden force that undermines health and happiness."

    My own collection of health advice and ideas for goign further:
    http://www.changemakers.com/morehealth/entries/health-sensemaking
    http://www.changemakers.com/discussions/discussion-493#comment-38823

    But it was a cool idea to make a book about health just for programmers.

    --
    A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
  48. Office Exercise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I get up and briskly walk up 2 sets of stairs. People have just gotten used to it now, but "I needed to clear my mind" or "The bathroom was full" or a water fountain with better water pressure will give people an answer they want to hear. The healthy types will be okay with it being just a quick exercise. Dips in the office chair, potentially with leg lifts, hit triceps and abs. A quick set of lunges in the hallway or calf raises on the stairs, pull ups in the stairwell, Katas or tai chi are generally tolerated if you look like you might be Asian. Picking your boss up by the neck, though is inappropriate.

  49. Here's an effective diet in one Slashdot Post by Organic+Brain+Damage · · Score: 2

    1. Do not eat at any establishment that normally has a drive-thru window.
    2. Do not drink any carbonated beverage except beer or sparkling wine.
    3. Do not eat candy.
    4. Eat one fresh apple per day. Generally favor fresh vegetables and fruits over grains, meats and dairy.
    5. Eat stuff you like, but don't gorge. For instance, I go to my favorite Taqueria once every week or two, but I get two tacos instead of five. Most days, I eat food I cook myself.
    6. Restaurants are not usually making low-calorie high-nutrient food in reasonable portions. If you are going out to eat, eat 1/2 the portion they put in front of you and share the other 1/2 or take it home or throw it out. There's no points for cleaning your plate.
    7. Avoid packaged convenience foods. If it comes in a cardboard box with a picture of food on the outside, skip it. It's not food.
    8. Count your calories with a smart-phone app. Be honest with yourself. If you log everything you eat, you'll make better choices.
    9. A normal deck of playing cards is roughly the size of a day's healthy portion of meat (3 oz).
    10. Get a moderate amount of exercise throughout the day. By exercise, I mean getting up and walking 15 mins or doing pushups or planking for 90 seconds. Building the big muscles in your body helps you burn more energy while resting. Overdoing this is useless and causes injury.

    For extra credit, try fasting once per week to reset your hunger point and save one day's calories. Learn that being hungry for an hour or two isn't necessarily signaling the imminent end of your world.

  50. My current "Home Renovation" diet by billstewart · · Score: 1

    I've lost 10-12 pounds in the past month, mostly from lower calorie consumption, habit disruption, and moderate exercise increase. I live in a condo, and the condo board finally got around to doing the roof replacement they'd been planning for a while (with nearly no notice), which meant that we could do the ceiling sheetrock repair that the place has needed after a few years of minor roof leaks, and replace the rug which had long since warn out, and since the ceiling was going to need to be repainted, it was really time to repaint the rest of the place. So we moved all our furniture and junk into storage where we can sort through it, and started talking to contractors, floor people, sheetrock fixers, and trying dozens of different samples of paint that aren't quite the same color of almost-white as the wall [long rant deleted.]

    The TV's packed safely away facing a wall, so we're not watching it, and the couch is also packed away. The dinner table's temporarily replaced by a tray table and a couple of chairs. Half the weight loss probably happened the first week, hauling boxes around, but I seem to be eating a good bit less in general, and we've been more likely to have a salad or some hard-boiled eggs at home than to go out for lunch or dinner.

    The classic book "The Hacker's Diet - Weight Loss through Stress and Poor Nutrition" really got a lot of things right...

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
    1. Re:My current "Home Renovation" diet by RockinRoller · · Score: 1

      I went on a diet for a month. I lost 30 days.

  51. Re:Lollerskates!!! by SluttyButt · · Score: 1

    We're sure the rough tongue of saltyanne sure send you into spasmoanic ecstasy.

  52. Health quacks love affinity branding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've seen the same health quack stuff branded for every niche you can think of. They love affinity branding to appeal to niches, because it sells books. You name it, there's a health book targeting it. I've seen Tony Robbins' quackery, autism diet quackery, Christian health quackery, and everything else.

  53. Just Stand - sitting is the new smoking by remoteshell · · Score: 1

    To use a metric that reduces human social standing and health to a silly scalar, I lost 10 lbs when I simply switched my work area to a monitor stand that slides on a spring rail, to standing and sitting positions. Juststand.org provided it, but there are likely other fine vendors. In the past I tried inflated balls and kneeling devices, but standing seems more beneficial, and the dork factor isn't as high. I sit half the day, and stand, and my activity level has increased from this almost imperceptible change. Oh - my back feels better too.

    --
    Just the washing instructions on life's rich tapestry
    1. Re:Just Stand - sitting is the new smoking by Steve_Ussler · · Score: 0

      I know people who tried thatand they messed up their legs and knees, and got really bad varicose veins.

    2. Re:Just Stand - sitting is the new smoking by bmearns · · Score: 1

      There's basically nothing you can do that isn't bad for some part of you. Living produces wear and tear on your body.

      I switched to a primarily standing desk about three years ago and, anecdotally, it's been going great. I don't think I lost any significant amount of weight because of it, but my back doesn't get tired, and I generally feel less lethargic at the end of the day. I also feel like it helps my working because I can more easily pace around my office when I need to work through a tough problem.

      Most people who recommend standing recommend alternating between standing and sitting every few hours, to avoid the kinds of issues you mention. But I think part of it has to do with your general fitness level. If your legs are strong, your knees are in good shape, and you're not carrying around too much extra weight, you'll probably hold up a lot better to extended periods of standing. Then again, if you're not really in shape, you may have even more reason not to sit all day.

      Personally, I sit while I eat my lunch, I typically sit a bit more on Mondays, and I just generally sit when I feel tired, but I spend most of my work day standing. And you don't need a fancy convertible desk, just a set of cinder blocks to elevate your desk, and a high chair to sit on when you feel like it (the kind you find in electronics labs).

      --
      Slashdot is not a game, Slashdot is not a game. Crap, I just lost points.
    3. Re:Just Stand - sitting is the new smoking by Steve_Ussler · · Score: 0

      good point, thank you.

    4. Re:Just Stand - sitting is the new smoking by RockinRoller · · Score: 1

      Great point! Even writing this reply has some danger.

  54. The quickest solution? by the_arrow · · Score: 1

    Eat less, exercise more.

    --
    / The Arrow
    "How lovely you are. So lovely in my straightjacket..." - Nny
  55. Literally stopped reading by bmearns · · Score: 1

    Why on earth would you misuse the word "literally" on Slashdot of all places? How can I possibly take you seriously after a boner like that?

    --
    Slashdot is not a game, Slashdot is not a game. Crap, I just lost points.
    1. Re:Literally stopped reading by Steve_Ussler · · Score: 0

      It was not MISUSED! It's meaning has literally changed!

  56. Working makes me fat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, folks, I've determined that working makes me fat. During periods where I don't work, I typically lose weight. When I start working again, I gain weight. I suspect it is the stress hormones.

    1. Re:Working makes me fat by Steve_Ussler · · Score: 0

      Makes sensebut you ever see all those unemployed guys w/ fat bellies?

  57. Re:Tell the PHB to stop the 80 hour work weeks the by RockinRoller · · Score: 1

    ok...what is the PHB?