Slashdot Mirror
Low-Carb Diets Could Shorten Life, Study Suggests (bbc.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from the BBC: In the study, published in The Lancet Public Health, 15,400 people from the U.S. filled out questionnaires on the food and drink they consumed, along with portion sizes. From this, scientists estimated the proportion of calories they got from carbohydrates, fats, and protein. After following the group for an average of 25 years, researchers found that those who got 50-55% of their energy from carbohydrates (the moderate carb group) had a slightly lower risk of death compared with the low and high-carb groups. Researchers estimated that, from the age of 50, people in the moderate carb group were on average expected to live for another 33 years. This was: four years more than people who got 30% or less of their energy from carbs (extra-low-carb group); 2.3 years more than the 30%-40% (low-carb) group; and 1.1 years more than the 65% or more (high-carb) group.
The scientists then compared low-carb diets rich in animal proteins and fats with those that contained lots of plant-based protein and fat. They found that eating more beef, lamb, pork, chicken and cheese in place of carbs was linked with a slightly increased risk of death. But replacing carbohydrates with more plant-based proteins and fats, such as legumes and nuts, was actually found to slightly reduce the risk of mortality.
The scientists then compared low-carb diets rich in animal proteins and fats with those that contained lots of plant-based protein and fat. They found that eating more beef, lamb, pork, chicken and cheese in place of carbs was linked with a slightly increased risk of death. But replacing carbohydrates with more plant-based proteins and fats, such as legumes and nuts, was actually found to slightly reduce the risk of mortality.
Almost everyone I know who eats low carb does so for a reason. They are fat, prone to be fat, diabetic, celiacs, or some other health problem that made them switch to low carb in the first place. Otherwise healthy people generally don't choose low carb without a health problem first.
https://www.explainxkcd.com/wi...
I read a report this week that sticking long term low carb diets may trigger diabetes also.
Who to believe? I guess I should just outdoors and do some physical activity instead of stuffing my face with food while reading slashdot!
Butter is good. Low carb leaves a lot of parameter space for what are you replacing it with. At the end of the day you pick a caloric intake and you pick a method of filling it. Turning down the mid range doesn't say what you did with the treble, base and volume knobs.
Here's the thing. If you lower your carbs and 2 years later your whole body still feels great then whatever you did probably was the right thing. I'm not saying eat what makes you happy. Because if you do that, and happy is pancakes, then 2 years from now you won't feel healthy or happy about how you feel when you aren't eating pancakes.. Unless maybe you are a kid.
You body doesn't have sense on a meal by meal basis but it lets you know you are not eating well overall.
SO no frigging way are the people on low carb diets long term and likeing how they feel doing damage.
On the other hand low carb diets could be bad ideas if for example you stay on the atkins diet or something equivalently stupid. Atkins is better than being obese but once you shed that, get off it man!
The thig about low carbs is that for some people it's incredibly easy. Once you stop using sugar you just lose the desire for it. it's not punishment. And that's the magic of low carbs. It's one of the few "diets" that doesn't lead to yo-yo. At least not for a subset fo people. It's sustainable.
It isn't for every one. But for some folks it is an easy way to feel good over the long term. That can't be unhealthy.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Its a myth that just fat folks get type 2, you can be i shape and still get it. But yeah, 90% of folks with love handles probably have type 2 even if they dont know it yet.
Why do we keep covering these obvious causation vs correlation studies. Heck this one looks like it was crafted in reverse just to tarnish low carb diets. They get 2 minute blurbs on news stations and you never hear from them again. Ridiculous.
History of consumption counts more than what they allow. So what have you consumed from birth, what damage has been done during growth and now manifests with poor outcomes and a requirement for diet change.
Diet change can mitigate further harm and to an extent repair harm already caused dependent age and duration or poor dietary choices. So you need family diet history and probably environmental exposure to pollution, in order to make a more valid analysis.
Of course source of proteins and herbivorous dietary choices, also make a difference. Animal proteins often being sources of concentrated environmental pollutants, concentrating the pollution the plants pick up and then delivering the concentrated pollutants to you. Healthiest food likely possible in the reasonable near future, genetically modified algae grown in tanks in industrial scale facilities, with all nutrients and fluids supplied to the algae monitored 24/7/365. That algae largely supplied unprocessed, modified to provide very desirable tastes and textures of any imaginable variety as well as of course trace elements for health promotion. Well engineered algae you could grow in home aquariums of the specific varieties you prefer. Algae genetic modification is cool because it could provide any taste or texture you desire, as well as altered balances of specific proteins and carbohydrates, and DNA from any species can be introduced into algae to produce actual real world super foods, not those B$ make believe super foods, all natural plants have positives and negatives with regard to consumption, else they would not survive. Algae grown in a tank only needs to protect itself from what is allowed in the tank with the algae ie designed specifically to be eaten and not to be particularly resistant to any form of consumption, unless of course you are going for roughage ;D.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
If you cut all pasta, bread and cakes out of your diet, you won't actually die younger. You'll just wish you would.
You are welcome on my lawn.
No desserts. No sweets. No potatoes. No rice. No bread. No pasta. âoeWhen I say âno,â(TM) I mean âno, or not much,â(TM)â she notes... Kenyon, professor of biochemistry and biophysics at the UCSF, has been on her diet for two-and-a-half years. âoeI did it because we fed our worms glucose and it shortened their lifespan.â
"Tempers are wearing thin. Let's just hope some robot doesn't kill everybody." --Bender
Many comments here about protein, and the sources of protein, yadda. For some bizarre reason scientists and the general public assume that low carb means high protein. IT DOESN'T. Every responsible low carb diet makes it perfectly clear that one should not eat much protein. For one thing, your body will use it to make carbohydrates. Why people choose to ignore this is baffling. More fat, less protein, much less carbohydrate is the formula. Is it that difficult to remember?
And let's not fuss about 'good' fat vs 'bad' fat. There are two primary concerns: Trans fats are bad. The other is never mentioned- rancid fat. This is a problem due to the fad of switching from animal fats to vegetable fats that started around the'80s. The good thing about animal fat is you know when it is rancid- it stinks. But vegetable fat doesn't. You don't know that you are poisoning yourself with it. Buy the smaller container of vegetable oil (if you must use it; lard is acceptable) and put it in the refrigerator after you open the bottle. Throw it out if you have any doubt. Coconut and MCT oil seem pretty stable at room temp and they are very good fuel for athletes and diabetics and most people.
...omphaloskepsis often...
Eat this, don't eat that, blah blah.
Eat what makes you feel good and die when you die. The worry and stress of trying to "eat healthy" will make whatever years you do have miserable.
I read a report this week that sticking long term low carb diets may trigger diabetes also.
Who to believe? I guess I should just outdoors and do some physical activity instead of stuffing my face with food while reading slashdot!
Was that "study" perchance funded by the corn growers lobby?
Eat 50% carbs and get your protein & fat from nuts & beans.
Hmm.. pretty much what I've been aiming for since a couple of years. Almost no sugar, and don't be afraid of fats! Just watch the kinds of fats & what other nutrients (protein, minerals, fibres etc) their sources come with. As the body adapts to pull calories from fats & high-fibre 'slow' carbs (vs. from sugar and low-fibre carbs found in many processed foods), blood sugar highs and lows tend to disappear. Making you loose those cravings for sugar rich, unhealthy in-between snacks.
One thing the article fails to mention: animal fat tends to be high in saturated fats, which are considered not-so-healthy. Whereas plant based fats tend to be high in mono- or polyunsaturated fats, which are considered healthier than the saturated variety. This could explain some of the differences.
Note that although plant based, for example coconut or palm oil (the latter put in almost any processed food these days) are also high in saturated fats. And thus may fall into the not-so-healthy camp. Not to mention ratio of omega-3 vs. omega-6 fats in a diet. Also FTA:
(..) greater consumption of animal proteins and fats, which have been linked to inflammation and ageing in the body.
Yeah, tends to be unhealthy and shorten life of the animals involved, too. One of many good reasons for having been a veggie most of my life.
Who to believe?
Learn critical thinking. What critical word appears in the very first sentence of the summary?
Answer: "Questionnaire"
This was a SURVEY, of people that selected their own diets, not a controlled study. People that give up meat and eat "plant based proteins" are the same people that will exercise, avoid smoking, drink a glass of red wine instead of a keg of beer, etc. Correlation is not causation, and the results of this survey really don't mean anything.
Eat what makes you feel good and die when you die.
So how much did the cheesecake lobby pay you to say that?
I've been diagnosed with diabetes a couple of years ago. I knew that lowering caloric intake can cure type 2 diabetes, but I am not fat, in fact, I am more on the skinny side, so I had few option of lowering my caloric intake much. However, I knew that carbs are associated with diabetes and started researching the issue more in depth. I decided to severely cut the amount of carbs I eat.
It was difficult at first, but as time went on, I gradually found it easier and easier. I replaced it with vegetables everywhere I could, which turns out to be a lot of places.
I am happy to announce that I have no symptoms or readings associated with diabetes anymore, and I do feel awesomely good. Whether this diet will shorten my life or not, I can't say (though I doubt it very much), but I really don't care. Quality of life matters more than length of life, and the quality of my life is so much higher than before the diet, I am glad to sacrifice a decade of shitty diabetic life for it.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
A couple things.
I was looking stuff up and found that studies on the effects are CONTRADICTING EACH OTHER.
I would take the one that says that being on a ketogenic diet causes diabetes with a HUGE grain of salt - it's backwards of the others for instance.
Also there's a huge difference between being low carb and out of ketogenesis and low carb IN ketogenesis.
And there's a difference between relying on oils or fats or meat...
The fact is that we don't really have good information on the effects of macronutrient balance - doctors and the government have been making assumptions for years, but those assumptions were wrong. It turns out that you can't infer things in biological systems you can only measure.
...and are they still recruiting?
*asking for a friend
I hope what they mean by carbs here is rice and potatoes, not burgers and donuts
There are so many possible explanations for this result, you can't draw these conclusions from this.
E.g. people who eat ~50% carbs might be the normal ones, living a relaxed life, not having the need for any diets. People who make diets, such as low carbs, might be more fat. Also, replacing carbs with nuts is pretty expensive. These are people with money, it is no surprise they live longer.
Eat varied and don't follow fad diets. That is all yoy need to believe in.
... the most deadly disease there is. There are no known cases of survival. Sometimes, regrettably it is associated with dementia and fear tho. I drink wine and beer, eat bread, noodles and meat too. Till some goodperson bans it or put under such prohibitive tax that nobody except the goodpeople can afford them I will continue doing so. Fuck goodpeople. When I was young I thought only evilpeople are bad for us. Not so now. Too many goodpeople telling me how evil I am because I live. My current answer to that is: fuck you.
Ach and my next car will most likely have diesel engine. In next elections I will vote right wing radicals (till they win and then I will be voting left wing variety).
Those replacing carbs with steaks and cold cuts sure ruin the statistics.
This study (really a survey) defines a low-carb diet as between 30-40% of calories. And the average is about 38% for the observed low-carbers.
That's lower carb, for sure, but it's not meaningfully low-carb. Ketosis (fat metabolism) doesn't begin until about 20% carbs (50-60g per day of carbs, as a rule of thumb).
A few months ago another study, 'proving' that low-carb diets had no advantages, also gave a firm conclusion recommending a 'plant based diet' while talking up low-carbing's supposed health issues. That study had low-carbing defined as 135g per a day, which is laughable.
It's as if the nutrition world is pushing a creationist diet (Adam and Eve were apparently vegetarians). Which is interesting, because Senator George McGovern, whose commission made it official US dogma that animal fat is bad for you, was a Christian. He pushed that agenda against the advice of his own scientists who advised him that the theory was unproven. The charts show the obesity epidemic starting at that point as diets went increasingly towards carbs. (Ironically, however, most of Christianity has never had a dogma of a literal translation of the bible; with Catholics even having the inventor of the Big Bang theory among their priests, Lemaitre; and Mendel, the father of modern genetics, was a monk).
Meanwhile, Stanford Uni did a study of a bunch of diets, including low-fat and Atkins, where the study lead, who was a longterm vegetarian, was surprised to find that Atkins beat all the other diets in improvements on every single cardio-vascular marker.
It's a fascinating youtube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eREuZEdMAVo
And meanwhile, in another study, vegetarian women hit the menopause several years earlier than normal people. And the fertility rate in men has dramatically dropped. hmmmm........
Well, i can tell you that I won't be getting a case of 'vegan face' any time soon.
A diet that feels strange (only one kind of food lik a "banana diet" or avoiding something like "no fat" or "no carbs) are all wrong.
The body basically knows what it needs - that is why some foods taste great!
Our taste can be fooled to some extent, with refined artifical products. But other than that, eat what's good and don't eat the same every day. Don't overeat and use your muscles - and you won't get very fat either. Lifestyle problems solved, lets move on to nerd stuff . . .
What doesn't metabolize into glucose?
Ezekiel 23:20
The problem with ketogenic diet that no matter how much it improves certain health outcomes (cancer, neurological disorders, whatever) all of that pales in comparison to the leading killer ... heart disease. Cardiac arrest and it's influence on lifespan happen to be poorly captured in mouse models. Human epidemiology is always the final arbiter for long term health outcomes, but in this case there is little alternative.
I think despite the particle size angle, the extra cholesterol needed to digest the fat in a ketogenic diet will make it very unlikely to optimize human lifespan. We live long past our intended use by dates, the optimal diet for the functioning of our body during our prime isn't necessarily the best at keeping it running the longest.
Lots of uncontrolled variables in this study. Contradicts many others
Glad to see they didn't just say "low carb = death do the opposite." I worried at first it was going to be an article saying they found low carb people dying younger so therefor eat a ton of carbs all the time.
Instead it looks like they are actually saying low carb only shaved 2ish years off while high carb was actually the "true villain."
Sounds like a truism, but what you said is a falsehood.
Too many of my friends and colleagues are dying of sugar/carb addiction. They don't have to be huge, just not monitoring their blood A1C score (blood sugar).
It's not a fad diet. People consume a huge amount of starchy foods, sugary beverages, and worse, get no exercise. Type 2 diabetes is almost the epidemic that opoids are!
Often, people do this too late. The damage to their pancreas is already done, the effects of fat uptake because of enormous insulin dumps to battle the constant sugar cycles eventually takes its toll. Some people are even more reactant genetically; they don't need to have huge fat uptake to become insulin resistant.
The Lancet's study isn't an observation-- instead, people took a freaking survey-- people never lie on polls and surveys!! Right?? (looking at you, 538.com).
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Sorry, cheese cake is disgusting. The apple pie lobby on the other hand wants you to know how good apples are for you and in pie form it's nothing but happiness.
Once you stop using sugar you just lose the desire for it. it's not punishment. And that's the magic of low carbs. It's one of the few "diets" that doesn't lead to yo-yo. At least not for a subset fo people. It's sustainable.
It isn't for every one.
This just reminds me of reading some "article" by someone several years ago about why low carb was bad and not good for weight loss. They literally did low carb for 3-4 weeks.... then got off it and admitted to eating an entire cake... THEN complained about gaining weight after that day. They said something about how it was so great that they lost 2-3lbs while doing the diet then how they gained 4lbs the day after they quit it and ate *A CAKE*.
In this decreases lifespan, but mantains, or actually increases, the number of healthy years in that decreased lifespan, is actually a welcome development.
*** Suerte a todos y Feliz dia!
The body basically knows what it needs - that is why some foods taste great!
Bull shit. The human appetite evolved to deal with times when food frequently scarce. That's why sugar taste so good - it's high density energy. Following your appetites is NOT optimum in a land of excess such as most of us now live in.
You do not seem to have understood the comment that you have replied to. If people are eating a varied diet then they are spreading their calorie intake across different food types - not overeating carbs/sugar.
Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
15k people is actually pretty good. Unless the completely muffed the statistics, they really have proven that of people who respond to this survey, the ones who are on a diet (likely because they are SICK) satisfy some other test (which may or appropriate here) which implies they will live less long than people who don't watch what they eat (presumably because they don't HAVE TO) in this particular way.
That and a quarter will buy you something from a cheap gumball machine.
The Con Syrup lobby agrees with all of you.
"His name was James Damore."
Thinking about this more, it's good that they published this. This is essentially a null result. The really desirable number to come out of this would be "Go on a low fat diet and live longer even when you're initially unhealthy!" They didn't see that. That would be a really medically useful result.
And they didn't get that. They got bupkis. And it's REALLY GOOD that they published their bupkis, since most studies where there's no interesting result don't get reported which is really bad for science.
But dressing up bupkis like it's something is bad for the lay world and also for stupid scientists/doctors, of which there certainly are quiet a few. Most competent people in the field (I would hope) would just see this and realize they cannot claim going on a diet is going to fix everything. You still need to tell your patients to go on a diet, but you can't say it's gonna immediately be roses and daffodils forever, once they do that. Unless you have to tell them that to get them to go on a diet....
Eat more beans, it will save your life.
This would work if we didn't pay for their healthcare. But we do, since (in the US) we're pooled in the same insurance group as them.
So, no. Don't slowly eat yourself to death because that costs ME money. If you want to kill yourself, please do so quickly and inexpensively in a way which causes little mess: Stick a note on the outside of a thick plastic bag, move the plastic bag to the receiving area of the morgue, get in the plastic bag, seal the bag up tight, and THEN eat yourself to death.
Or be a healthy productive member of society and make good choices.
Either one is fine.
Are we talking the home-made apple-pie lobby, or the commercial apple-pie lobby, which is secretly controlled by the salt, cornstarch, and high-fructose corn syrup lobby? (And also possibly the not-many actual apples in the apple pie lobby.)
Obesity is unhealthy. thats the alternative.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
No, you miss the point.
It's not about calories, it's about net carbs after fiber. Counting calories works well for high-output individuals, who in the US, are about 2 in 10. The rest of the people need to count carbohydrates by the gram or other measure.
Calories isn't so much of a figment, rather, it doesn't portray the accuracy of a nutritional diet. See https://www.amazon.com/Case-Ag... for questions. His other books are equally as well annotated, chapter and verse.
Truly and sincerely, it's not the calories, it's the carbohydrates net of fiber content.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Are those your videos? That stuff is great and you should have posted this non-anonymously.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
The idea that you can extend the results of this study to the current definitions of "low carb" eating is bogus.
In this study "low carb" was 38% of calories from carbs.. way higher than anything you would need to approach nutritional ketosis (the target of current low-carb eating). In fact the group identified as "low carb" were basically "shitty lifestyle", and in the words of the study: "were more likely to be young, male, a self-reported race other than black, college graduates, have high body-mass index, exercise less during leisure time, have high household income, smoke cigarettes, and have diabetes."
So in fact the study showed something that is common sense.. people who don't care about their health fair worse than people who do.
I thought I'd been reading that saturated fats really aren't as bad for you as had been thought....??
Have you seen any of that out there in the literature lately?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
There's actually some studies showing that being 20-40 pounds "overweight" can add a couple years to your life.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
This is just an obscured example of the Broken Window Fallacy. Healthy people spend money on many things, some of which will actually advance technology, many of which actually make lives better.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
I am approaching my 6th year on a low-carb high-fat diet. I am 5'11" tall and I weighed 172 when I started. I hold steady right around 160 now, +-5 lbs. Went from 34" waist to 32", and am still there.
I know plenty of people who chose a low-carb diet who were not overweight. I was in good shape (not my best) but saw significant improvements after only a month. Joint pain went away, my teeth are better, my cardio vascular health improved. I suspect these were due to things like lowering of inflammation due to drastically reduced sugar and grains. From an evolutionary perspective, we've only been farmers for 10k years.... so how did we evolve over 2mm years without farming? Go actually look at 2mm of something, then 10k of something. Not just the numbers, but that many things. It's staggering. We haven't evolved to eat the garbage we eat today is just high percentages and refinement.
However, you are partially right, but you don't know why.
People generally DO have health problems, they just don't know it - they are addicted to carbs. Your body tells you to carb up so you can get your blood sugar fix. Once you break that addiction and retrain your body to not ride the glucose roller coaster, everything just works better and more easily. Sure, there are people who do have health problems who benefit from it, but there are lots of regular and very fit people who follow it as well. It is gaining a lot of support in the scientific community as well, there are more and more studies about it that will benefit us all in the long run. Look up Peter Attia, Ron Krauss, Dom D'Agostino, Mark Sisson, Gary Taubes. There are more hard-core scientists, but those should give you a sense of what's out there.
You could read up on it and give it a try, for three weeks. Chances are you won't because you think eating like a caveman is silly. I did. You think it's a fad, and it's just for sick people. But you don't realize how much better you can feel until you do it. What's to lose, eating differently for 3 weeks? What's to gain, feeling a lot better with more energy and the ability to maintain your weight with little effort, potentially staving off diseases that are plaguing our society?
The only thing I felt bad about was that I didn't do it sooner in my life.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
No, you miss the point.
It's not about calories, it's about net carbs after fiber. Counting calories works well for high-output individuals, who in the US, are about 2 in 10. The rest of the people need to count carbohydrates by the gram or other measure.
Calories isn't so much of a figment, rather, it doesn't portray the accuracy of a nutritional diet.
Counting calories works for everyone. If you consume more energy than you need, the excess is stored as fat. Our population is not facing nutritional deficiency, but an obesity epidemic. And exercise is a pitiful amount of energy expenditure, so its not the lack of that. Its the lack of accurately counting kcal consumption that is causing it. Blaming carbs, protein and fats for this is foolish.
You completely missed the entire chemistry behind insulin, insulin reaction, ketosis, and more.
The obesity epidemic is the direct result of sugar/starch/carb addiction. It's like nicotine or crack-- but worse. Cheap carbs are the basal cause of the epidemic. Sugar feeds a serotonin release caused by a chemical pathway to the brain. It's addiction.
Calories aren't useful for most people, but carbs are necessary for all. You've been hypnotized by the BRIBED research. Read the book in the citation. Read its bibliography. Understand how the cereals and sugar industry have skewed "nutritional pyramids" and other fantasies of logic. KCals are a horrific reference point. Read the book. I have other citations available as well.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
There is no possibility of controlling for all the relevant variables.
This conflates every kind of carbohydrate and fatty acid.
There are so many other things I could point out but this is enough to prove the worthlessness of the study.
Again, you seem to have missed the meaning of words.
“If people are eating a varied diet then they are spreading their calorie intake across different food types - not overeating carbs/sugar.”
Do you understand what varied means?
Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
Nutritionists and health food nuts have been trying to "fix" what people eat for decades. The fix is always worse than the original problem if there really was any problem to begin with. And so what if you live to be 95? You'll most likely have some debilitating degenerative disease that makes daily life pretty miserable.
Simply not true.
People don't discriminate. They drink a coke with lunch, eat a sandwich, then have pasta or something with rice. A beer, perhaps later.
Each of these has too much sugar. Let's say they have a nice meaty steak, then have potatoes. Oops. Add these carbs up. NOT the calories. It's the sugary and starchy (often with grains) part that few people understand.
In today's culture, you need to actively watch the carbs, because carbohydrates are everywhere. Groceries devote aisle after aisle to carbs. Chips/crisps, cereals, rice, processed frozen foods, all of these pack it on. Add the skew of genetic propensity to high-efficiency fat storage (read the insulin sensitivity literature, please) and they've packed in on. Secrete insulin, and wear what you eat. It's that simple. What triggers insulin (rather than ketosis)? Carbohydrates. That moderation-in-all-things bullshit is a simple answer, and it's wrong. Example: ketosis stops cold with alcohol consumption, because most bodies would MUCH rather get fuel from blood alcohol (ethyl) than from either fat or sugars.
Stop saying calories. Start saying carbs and fat, and you'll get to the heart of the matter. "Calories" is a sloppy cover for energy exchange. It's a dog-whistle word. Read the book. Discover why I'm so adamant.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Who but a diabetic monitors their "blood A1C score", whatever that is? Jeez, nobody keeps a blood monitor around the house to check after meals.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Counting calories works for everyone. .
You're assuming that counting calories leads to a sustained decrease in caloric intake over a long period of time. That simply does not happen for the vast majority of people, even if you are only looking at the people strongly motivated to lose weight.
You’re not so good at reading are you?
Instead of projecting your ideas onto what somebody has written, try reading what they have written. What you are arguing against is not a varied dist.
Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
You completely missed the entire chemistry behind insulin, insulin reaction, ketosis, and more.
I don't think I have sir.
The obesity epidemic is the direct result of sugar/starch/carb addiction.
No, its excess kcal over time.
Calories aren't useful for most people, but carbs are necessary for all.
Calories are necessary for human life. Its a unit of food energy. The books you are reading are running contrary to thermodynamics. Nobody has hijacked your brain using sugar. You just want to blame that so you don't have to take responsibility.
Physics doesn't really care either way. You eat an excess, you'll wear it.
The body basically knows what it needs - that is why some foods taste great!
Carbs taste great, on the whole. So you should eat as much of those as you want, right. Type 2 diabetes cannot possibly be the result as the 'body basically knows what it needs'
If it wasn't for motorcycles then work on synthetic organs would need to be much more advanced.
I don't have an issue with motorcycles, as long as they have more than two wheels for stability, and maybe some sort of outer covering for poor weather, and a reasonable amount of luggage space. Maybe space for some friends to come along too. Air con would be great for hot days, or heating in winter.
Most folks eating "low carb"... would consider 30% carbs to be obscenely high; ketosis probably doesn't work for most people even at 10%.
Both the low carb folks and traditional dieticians would agree that fat is bad when you have enough carbs to trigger strong insulin responses. 30% carbs is going to trigger strong insulin responses, so both the low carb folks and the traditional dieticians could kinda look at this ahead of time and predict the outcome?
There's a saying. I see old people. I see fat people. I don't see old fat people.
I have seen middle aged fat people with major health problems due to being fat. Such as losing digits, limbs, etc.
However your statement is very true. Death is something that occurs to 100% of the people. You can't cheat it - so far.
Yeah, you completely missed the Kreb Cycle.
Try applying basic physics to this problem:
Take an aluminum rod, 2 feet in length. Place one end of the rod in a pot of warm water. Measure the time it takes for the other end of the rod to increase in temperature and reach equilibrium.
Now, do the same experiment with a human. Place one hand in a pot of warm water. Measure the time it takes for the other hand to increase in temperature and reach equilibrium.
Now, of course, basic physics still works - but what you're really interested in isn't "calories in/calories out" as measured by "food in the mouth, physical activity of the muscles". You could put a metal ball with 10,000 calories of energy in your body, and not be able to metabolize any of it. So the *quality* of the calorie counts too.
In the case of insulin, which drives fat accumulation, it is driven by blood sugar levels, which is driven by carbohydrate intake (particularly refined carbohydrates). If you don't include that in your calculation, you're using a simple formula for a complex scenario.
Yeah, you completely missed the Kreb Cycle.
Not really.
but what you're really interested in isn't "calories in/calories out" as measured by "food in the mouth, physical activity of the muscles". You could put a metal ball with 10,000 calories of energy in your body, and not be able to metabolize any of it. So the *quality* of the calorie counts too.
Good thing calories come calculated using the modified atwater system which only includes things humans can gain energy from.
In the case of insulin, which drives fat accumulation, it is driven by blood sugar levels, which is driven by carbohydrate intake (particularly refined carbohydrates). If you don't include that in your calculation, you're using a simple formula for a complex scenario.
The calorie values for carbs(4kcal/gram), nor protein(5kcal/gram) or fat(9kcal/gram). Insulin doesn't drive fat accumulation without excess consumption. It doesn't create energy from nothing. Once again, you eat an excess over your TDEE, your body will store it as fat. There is no simpler way to put it.
I'm agreeing with you as hard as I can.
I think what you don't see is that excess consumption doesn't drive fat accumulation without insulin :)
Even further, I think what's interesting is that when you see a 500 pound fat man eating pizza like he's starving, it's because his muscles *are* starving, and his fat cells, under the influence of insulin, are stealing all the energy from his muscles.
Now, is it "excess consumption" if your muscles are starving? If your energy is being partitioned poorly into fat cells, it's actually a *survival* skill to eat more to provide your muscles energy :)
Again, you seem to have missed the meaning of words.
It does not do you credit to be so condescending. Especially when the other guy is right: you can eat a hundred vastly different foods that all contain too much sugar. A varied diet will not save you. Unless you mean a molecularly varied diet rather than a diet whose foods vary, but to my view that would be silly: we can gain energy from very few categories of molecules, and any way you split them up (which constricts sugars and simple carbs to one category of many) would be fairly arbitrary.
A cat can't teach a dog to bark.
I'm James Shareef from USA, I have been suffering from (HERPES) disease for the past 13 months and had constant pain, especially in my knees. During the first month , I had faith in God that I would be healed someday.This disease started to circulate all over my body and I have been taking treatment from my doctor, a few weeks ago I came on search on the internet if I could get any information concerning the prevention of this disease, on my search I saw a testimony of someone who has been healed from (Hepatitis B and Cancer) by this Man DR JOHN and she also gave the email address of this man and advise we should contact him for any sickness that he would be of help, so I wrote to DR JOHN telling him about my (HERPES Virus) he told me not to worry that I was going to be cured!! hmm i never believed it,, well after all the procedures and remedy given to me by this man few weeks later I started experiencing changes all over me as the DR assured me that I have cured, after 2 weeks i went to my doctor to confirmed if I have been finally healed behold it was TRUE, So friends my advice is if you have such sickness or any other like HSV1,2,HPV1,2,3,CANER HIV,COLE SORES,TOOTH JOHN, ETC you can email DR JOHN on drjohnhivcurehome@gmail. com sir I am indeed grateful for the help I will forever recommend you to my friends!!! with your lovely Email Address or you can also phone/Whats App him on this number +2347064365391
it's hard to say... they use "obese" and "overweight".
And the standard for that changes constantly.
Like for diabetes, 10 years ago 125 was "pre diabetic". Now it's "diabetic".
Like for "binge" drinking. Having 5 drinks in 5 hours is "binge" drinking. "Binge" sounds horrible... but 5 drinks in 5 hours would not even give you a buzz.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.