An acceptable level is food, water, and basic shelter.
It doesn't include a cell phone.
It doesn't include a car, or car insurance.
It doesn't include cable tv.
It doesn't include an xbox.
It doesn't include health insurance.
It doesn't include luxuries.
Minimum wage is far beyond the bare minimum to live - the argument seems to be that minimum wage should offer a middle class lifestyle. The problem is that you cannot magically create wealth by altering the minimum wage - if we could, we could simply raise the minimum wage up to $1,000,000/hour, and magically everyone could work only one hour ever ten years and pull in 100k/year.
, you're claiming that our metabolic system essentially malfunctions in the presence of carbohydrates
Actually, it's just slightly different - I'm claiming that at the very least a majority of observations of obesity (malfunctions in our metabolic system) trace back to carbohydrate intake. *Some* metabolic systems malfunction in the presence of carbohydrates, not all. It's quite possible (and indeed expected), for some people to be insulin sensitive enough to be able to eat carbohydrates in nearly any quantity they want, and not have obesity.
What I haven't seen (and I find this to be a bold claim), is that non-insulin (or insulin resistance) stimulating calories can cause fat accumulation if they simply exist in some sufficient quantity - i.e., enough calories of butter, and even in the absence of carbohydrate, they will stimulate insulin and cause fat accumulation. Assuming we agree that excess fat accumulation (obesity) is a metabolic malfunction, I don't think you can find many, if any, examples of that obesity *without* carbohydrate intake, or some other differential insulin stimulation. Certainly not differential insulin stimulation based solely on caloric quantity.
it would entail a bunch of secondary research to figure out what was legit and what was misleading.
That's exactly what I did, and I found the vast majority clearly legit. Seeking truth takes significant effort:)
As for the differential insulin resistance hypothesis, it's not that I think it's not complicated enough or given insufficient weight, I think it's flat out wrong.
And there we part company - unless you can identify some other mechanism for fat accumulation in fat cells, magically transforming non-insulin stimulating calories into insulin stimulating calories, or perhaps showing that at some calories > X, all additional calories promote insulin secretion and differential insulin resistance, I think your denial of the basic biochemistry is flat out wrong. We may disagree on the contributions of various factors, but can you really disagree with the biomechanics of differential insulin resistance?
And it's a bit rich for Taubes to call the actual researchers embracing the actual data pseudo-scientists ignoring confounding data while he trots out his grand theory of obesity that ignores huge swathes of evidence.
Thus sayeth the man who didn't even read the book:)
I explained why it was complicated and why it didn't serve as a useful explanation for obesity.
But you seemed to hold it in more esteem than the complicated differential insulin resistance hypothesis...or did I misinterpret you?
But there's a lot of other evidence that contradicts the differential insulin hypothesis.
I'll argue that at best, you can dither about the contribution differential insulin hypothesis has to the total explanation of obesity - you may say 49%, I may say 51%, but to consider it useless is to ignore the basic biochemistry of the kreb's cycle.
Frankly I don't feel it's worthwhile to read his book
And thus, your credibility in your critique is painfully slim.
Honestly I'm reluctant to read his book because I'm worried about the knowledge he'll put in my head.
That's a refreshing bit of honesty, thank you. I'll suggest to you that one day, when you overcome that reluctance, you'll gain a more nuanced and complex picture of Taubes' point of view and contribution, one that very well may include disagreement with him, but will definitely contain a better understanding and a more credible basis for critique.
As for me, my read of him was skeptical (which I believe he encourages), and I followed his cites back to the original sources on dozens of occasions to spot check his assertions, all of which, with very little exception, were spot on.
And how is cherrypicking data to come to a foregone conclusion the scientific method?
Taubes presents a falsifiable hypothesis, and a thorough accounting for the history and literature since 1850. Moreover, he continually stresses the dangerous line that is trod by those pseudo-scientists who, in the name of their personal precautionary principle, take their passion and drive past reality regardless of confounding data.
I never said "calories in/calories out" was false at all (no one considers lego calories).
You said that if the answer isn't "well, it's complicated", then it's wrong. Do you think calories in/calories out isn't simple enough to be wrong?
This is because reducing calories in as a matter of simply eating less is thwarted by hunger, and increasing calories out through exercise is difficult and potentially hamstrung by your resting metabolic rate.
Isn't that direct support for the differential insulin hypothesis? Hunger is caused by the partitioning of calories into fat, rather than muscles (through the influence of insulin), and exercise only drives hunger further unless fat is released from fat cells (again, moderated by insulin).
Doesn't it scare you to think that you're basing your understanding of dietary science almost solely on a book by a man who's been shown numerous times to mislead his readers?
You haven't even read his book, but you think he has misled people?:) As for basing my understanding, Taubes does us a great favor by actually *citing* his sources, and driving back to the source materials he's reviewed, I've come to the considered conclusion that he's done more than a fair job of representing the facts. Yes, there are nits to pick here and there, where one might argue he didn't quite give leptin enough play, but frankly, your assertions that he has misled anyone are all hearsay until you actually read the book.
Now granted, you might not need to read the Bible to understand that God doesn't exist, but you cannot knowledgeably critique the bible without reading it closely first. If you truly wish to speak critically on Taubes, do yourself the favor and actually read him - you'll gain more credibility that way.
But hey, if you don't like Taubes, look at Lustig - or do you have some personal reservation about Lustig because you think he misrepresented a fructose molecule once?:)
Science isn't done through books, public outreach is done through books.
Now you're going to argue that science is simply the output of the process of peer review, rather than the scientific method?:)
Like it or not, Taubes has performed the definitive synthesis of obesity research history since the 1850s, and the establishment looks quite terrible in the harsh light of the passage of time. The fact that you still refuse to read his book, yet still seem to have this obsession with discounting the man and his work, is quite remarkable.
Getting back to your original contention, that somehow any simple explanation is obviously false, but "calories in/calories out" is a less false(?) explanation than "differential insulin resistance" for obesity, seems to be a bit of cherry picking on your part. At the very least, if you're going to be consistent, you should be staking the claim that calories in/calories out doesn't capture the complexity of the biochemistry involved, and that differential insulin resistance doesn't capture the complexity of the biochemistry involved. Instead, it seems you've architected a complex rationale to buttress your belief system that you're afraid of letting go.
Does it scare you to think that the past 40+ years of dietary advice and "common wisdom" of the researchers involved in the proposition might have been completely misguided?
But you *only* get obesity if it is accumulated as fat. On that point I hope we're both clear.
This article noting the 10-20% [blogspot.ca] of MHO's just popped up in my RSS feed in the time since I last posted.
MHO is queerly and ambiguously defined depending on the study (as noted by the citation).
He did NOT "make the definitive survey of the literature and history"
Yes indeed, he did. I challenge you to name any other book that comes close to doing such a thorough examination of the history and literature on obesity research over the past 150 years.
Of course, you can only say that with certainty if you'd actually *read* Taubes:) Actually *reading* the book and author you're critiquing seems like a necessary step for someone looking for the truth:)
As for his initial intentions, I believe Taubes notes in one of his lectures that his initial foray was inspired by a charlatan who claimed something about nutrition...since Taubes was certain of this man's poor judgement, he was inspired to dig deeper. As he proceeded, the hole got larger and larger until finally he had a book. If I find a lecture cite, I'll note it for you.
Strawman, calories in/out has always referred to digestible calories.
But that's not really what matters for obesity - it's fat accumulation. Not only does a calorie need to be digested, it has to be stored as fat.
There were multiple populations with carb, starch, and even sugar heavy diets who were all thin as well as a significant proportion of obese people with no insulin resistance.
That's not true at all. Insulin resistance was inferred, not measured, and differential insulin resistance (the key factor with the insulin hypothesis of obesity) wasn't even considered.
It's not like Gary Taubes is some explorer who sailed a ship across the ocean, and told everyone he found a new island.
Of course not. He was just the first one to make the definitive survey of the literature and history and publish his investigation. The townspeople who thought the castle was the tavern they were just drinking at were too drunk to see straight:)
You never did read his book, did you?:) Borrow it from a library if you're worried about lining his pockets, but please, understand that Taubes isn't simply pointing at an old tavern and calling it a castle, he's showing that the emperor has no clothes.
Calories in vs. calories out isn't just accurate on the cellular level, it's Newton's first law.
For fat accumulation, it only matters on the cellular level. If you put 1000 calories of undigestible plastic into your mouth, you may count it as a "calorie in" on the organism level, but it simply doesn't count for fat accumulation. Heck, if I put a pound of lead in my mouth, without swallowing, theoretically, I've gained a pound of weight - but will you really assert I need to expend a pound of lead worth of calories of exercise to compensate for it?
Interesting that when it comes to diet and exercise, nobody talks about the other "calories out" path of excretion - imagine if the standard advice was "eat less, defecate and urinate more", perfectly consistent with the first law:)
And I showed you a ton of counter evidence against the insulin hypothesis last time.
And none of it was very compelling, primarily because differential insulin resistance was never directly measured in any of your citations. As I believe we both agreed, what's necessary is a definitive series of metabolic ward studies.
If they don't answer "well... it's complicated" then they're probably wrong.
So, at least you're on my side when it comes to asserting "calories in/calories out" is wrong:)
Certainly the Kreb's cycle is complicated. Certainly insulin is the dominant player in fat accumulation, but not the only one. Certainly people have unique differential insulin resistance. I'm not sure why you think the insulin hypothesis, given all of the complications it admits to, is too simple to be true.
His gross simplification is accurate on the cellular level, not the whole organism level, which unfortunately is the mistaken conclusion he derives. My assertion, on the other hand, certainly glosses over the details of the kreb's cycle, but is arguably a truism. To call my statement inaccurate is inaccurate, although I'll agree that it is grossly simplified and that further detail is available.
Hogwash. Saturated fats are perfectly fine for you.
The problem with losing weight is carbohydrate intake. The issue with fats is whether or not you keep a healthy omega3/6 balance, and grass fed butter is a perfect way to do that.
The desire to hold on to the "good fats/bad fats" trope is simply a leftover from the original failed admonition to avoid dietary fat at all (note, transfats aka frakenfats are obviously bad - they shouldn't even be considered fats). Saturated animal fats, with the proper omega3/6 ratio, are perfectly healthy, and unsaturated fats of any sort do not have any additional nutritional benefit, period (and you'll note, animal fats actually include both saturated and unsaturated fats).
ridiculous choice of consuming 750-1500 calories of butter every day.
How is that a ridiculous choice? Grass fed butter has the proper omega3/6 ratio for health, and in order to get high fat, butter is a great way to do it.
Even if there weren't good reasons to believe that saturated fats are harmful to at least some people, they are nothing more than empty calories.
That's a statement without meaning. Grass fed butter is a healthy part of a balanced diet, low in carbohydrates, and is *perfectly* nutritionally valuable.
Now of course, you're going to need sufficient animal proteins to get all of your vitamins and minerals, but the idea that we have to go far afield to get our essential fatty acids is silly - the key with fats is the omega3/6 balance, and grass fed butter handles that perfectly.
Let's be more specific, why don't we - fat is "created" by biochemical processes, and it is accumulated into fat cells via the influence of insulin. Without the hormonal signals required, fat is not accumulated into fat cells.
Therefore, when we talk about "calories in/calories out" and obesity, we really need to look at the level of the fat cell, not the level of the mouth and the muscular system. If a fat cell absorbs more calories than it releases (through the influence of insulin), you get weight gain. If a fat cell releases more calories than it absorbs (through the absence of insulin), you get weight loss.
What matters to the fat cell calories in/calories out is not the gross matter you put into your mouth, but the insulin that matter decides to stimulate.
Again, biochemistry *matters* here, and what you've failed to understand is that whether calories are absorbed into fat cells or not is determined not by the number of calories, but by the *type* of calories.
I do consume between 750 and 1500 calories of butter a day - usually 4-6oz (800 - 1200 calories). Throw one stick of butter in each cup of coffee, and have three cups of coffee.
It's worked wonders, with better HDL/triglyceride ratio, lower weight, lower blood pressure, and better blood sugar.
The laws of physics state that if you put one end of a solid into warm water, the heat will transfer from one end of the solid to the other, based solely on the insulative properties in question. A bar of steel will propagate the heat at one rate. A bar of glass will propagate the heat at another rate.
Now, put your left hand in a warm tub, and tell me how long it takes for the heat to travel to your right hand.
Understanding that biochemical processes *are* fundamental, and obey the laws of physics, but result in very different ends when in a complex system like a life form, is as important as understanding that the wave particle duality happens at the atomic level, but not at the macroscopic level.
You sir, need to learn more about something called *context* of physics.
Sorry DogDude, but you've barked up the wrong tree. Calories in, calories out is a gross simplification that glosses over the most important factors of biochemistry.
Fat accumulation is driven by insulin, and the specific insulin resistance of fat cells versus other cells. You may be one of the lucky folks who is particularly insulin sensitive, allowing you to eat whatever you want without fat accumulation. Bully for you. On the other hand, anyone who is obese is suffering from a biochemical problem, not a mathematical calorie problem.
Put another way, the *type* of calorie matters. If you are obese, the only way to address it is to address the biochemistry, not the math.
The underlying mechanism of obesity is insulin, and the specific insulin resistance of fat cells versus other cells.
Improve your insulin sensitivity, or reduce your insulin production, and you reduce fat accumulation.
"eating less" is a *symptom* of improved insulin sensitivity, or reduced insulin production, not a cause. Getting the causality backwards leads you to incorrect conclusions.
You're simply wrong. Saturated fats aren't a problem, and have never been a problem.
That being said, omega3/6 fatty acid balance *is* important. Stick to grass-fed butter rather than corn fed cows.
If you're obese, and serious about changing, stop eating carbohydrates, and dramatically increase animal fat intake, with special attention to omega3/6 fatty acid balance.
I lost 50 pounds the same way, and have kept it off for 7 years now. On top of that, my HDL/triglyceride ratio improved, my blood pressure went down, and my blood sugar stabilized out of the "pre diabetic" zone.
Nowadays, a large portion of my diet includes grass fed butter sticks mixed in with my coffee.
Prescribing drugs for obesity is like prescribing a drug so that people can continue their heroin habit without suffering some of the typical "nodding" effects.
...then gay-conversion therapy has a rational basis.
Look, if people can be naturally different in sexual proclivity, then people can be naturally different in interests and career choices. To pretend like the only reason that women participate in varying percentages in various industries is due to cultural factors is opening the gate to the assertion that the only reason men are attracted to men in varying percentages is due to cultural factors, not inherent biological ones.
Of course bro-gramming harassment is bad. Of course some women have crappy, unfair experiences. But simply because a black teenager plays the knockout game and assaults a jewish grandma doesn't mean that every black teenager is a thug.
I expect men and women to be different. The question is, are you able to appreciate those differences, or are you determined to override them by any means necessary?
I'd be interested to know if you have, as per this brain scan study, a more feminine brain.
If you do, I'm liable to accept your struggle as something with natural, legitimate origins.
If you don't, I'm liable to consider your struggle as something more akin to a disease.
No offense intended - of course your problems are no doubt very real to you, just commenting on how we might discern between mental "isness" and mental illness.
Slashdot Mirror
An acceptable level is food, water, and basic shelter.
It doesn't include a cell phone.
It doesn't include a car, or car insurance.
It doesn't include cable tv.
It doesn't include an xbox.
It doesn't include health insurance.
It doesn't include luxuries.
Minimum wage is far beyond the bare minimum to live - the argument seems to be that minimum wage should offer a middle class lifestyle. The problem is that you cannot magically create wealth by altering the minimum wage - if we could, we could simply raise the minimum wage up to $1,000,000/hour, and magically everyone could work only one hour ever ten years and pull in 100k/year.
Actually, it's just slightly different - I'm claiming that at the very least a majority of observations of obesity (malfunctions in our metabolic system) trace back to carbohydrate intake. *Some* metabolic systems malfunction in the presence of carbohydrates, not all. It's quite possible (and indeed expected), for some people to be insulin sensitive enough to be able to eat carbohydrates in nearly any quantity they want, and not have obesity.
What I haven't seen (and I find this to be a bold claim), is that non-insulin (or insulin resistance) stimulating calories can cause fat accumulation if they simply exist in some sufficient quantity - i.e., enough calories of butter, and even in the absence of carbohydrate, they will stimulate insulin and cause fat accumulation. Assuming we agree that excess fat accumulation (obesity) is a metabolic malfunction, I don't think you can find many, if any, examples of that obesity *without* carbohydrate intake, or some other differential insulin stimulation. Certainly not differential insulin stimulation based solely on caloric quantity.
That's exactly what I did, and I found the vast majority clearly legit. Seeking truth takes significant effort :)
And there we part company - unless you can identify some other mechanism for fat accumulation in fat cells, magically transforming non-insulin stimulating calories into insulin stimulating calories, or perhaps showing that at some calories > X, all additional calories promote insulin secretion and differential insulin resistance, I think your denial of the basic biochemistry is flat out wrong. We may disagree on the contributions of various factors, but can you really disagree with the biomechanics of differential insulin resistance?
Thus sayeth the man who didn't even read the book :)
But you seemed to hold it in more esteem than the complicated differential insulin resistance hypothesis...or did I misinterpret you?
I'll argue that at best, you can dither about the contribution differential insulin hypothesis has to the total explanation of obesity - you may say 49%, I may say 51%, but to consider it useless is to ignore the basic biochemistry of the kreb's cycle.
And thus, your credibility in your critique is painfully slim.
That's a refreshing bit of honesty, thank you. I'll suggest to you that one day, when you overcome that reluctance, you'll gain a more nuanced and complex picture of Taubes' point of view and contribution, one that very well may include disagreement with him, but will definitely contain a better understanding and a more credible basis for critique.
As for me, my read of him was skeptical (which I believe he encourages), and I followed his cites back to the original sources on dozens of occasions to spot check his assertions, all of which, with very little exception, were spot on.
Taubes presents a falsifiable hypothesis, and a thorough accounting for the history and literature since 1850. Moreover, he continually stresses the dangerous line that is trod by those pseudo-scientists who, in the name of their personal precautionary principle, take their passion and drive past reality regardless of confounding data.
You said that if the answer isn't "well, it's complicated", then it's wrong. Do you think calories in/calories out isn't simple enough to be wrong?
Isn't that direct support for the differential insulin hypothesis? Hunger is caused by the partitioning of calories into fat, rather than muscles (through the influence of insulin), and exercise only drives hunger further unless fat is released from fat cells (again, moderated by insulin).
You haven't even read his book, but you think he has misled people? :) As for basing my understanding, Taubes does us a great favor by actually *citing* his sources, and driving back to the source materials he's reviewed, I've come to the considered conclusion that he's done more than a fair job of representing the facts. Yes, there are nits to pick here and there, where one might argue he didn't quite give leptin enough play, but frankly, your assertions that he has misled anyone are all hearsay until you actually read the book.
Now granted, you might not need to read the Bible to understand that God doesn't exist, but you cannot knowledgeably critique the bible without reading it closely first. If you truly wish to speak critically on Taubes, do yourself the favor and actually read him - you'll gain more credibility that way.
But hey, if you don't like Taubes, look at Lustig - or do you have some personal reservation about Lustig because you think he misrepresented a fructose molecule once? :)
Now you're going to argue that science is simply the output of the process of peer review, rather than the scientific method? :)
Like it or not, Taubes has performed the definitive synthesis of obesity research history since the 1850s, and the establishment looks quite terrible in the harsh light of the passage of time. The fact that you still refuse to read his book, yet still seem to have this obsession with discounting the man and his work, is quite remarkable.
Getting back to your original contention, that somehow any simple explanation is obviously false, but "calories in/calories out" is a less false(?) explanation than "differential insulin resistance" for obesity, seems to be a bit of cherry picking on your part. At the very least, if you're going to be consistent, you should be staking the claim that calories in/calories out doesn't capture the complexity of the biochemistry involved, and that differential insulin resistance doesn't capture the complexity of the biochemistry involved. Instead, it seems you've architected a complex rationale to buttress your belief system that you're afraid of letting go.
Does it scare you to think that the past 40+ years of dietary advice and "common wisdom" of the researchers involved in the proposition might have been completely misguided?
But you *only* get obesity if it is accumulated as fat. On that point I hope we're both clear.
MHO is queerly and ambiguously defined depending on the study (as noted by the citation).
Yes indeed, he did. I challenge you to name any other book that comes close to doing such a thorough examination of the history and literature on obesity research over the past 150 years.
Of course, you can only say that with certainty if you'd actually *read* Taubes :) Actually *reading* the book and author you're critiquing seems like a necessary step for someone looking for the truth :)
As for his initial intentions, I believe Taubes notes in one of his lectures that his initial foray was inspired by a charlatan who claimed something about nutrition...since Taubes was certain of this man's poor judgement, he was inspired to dig deeper. As he proceeded, the hole got larger and larger until finally he had a book. If I find a lecture cite, I'll note it for you.
But that's not really what matters for obesity - it's fat accumulation. Not only does a calorie need to be digested, it has to be stored as fat.
That's not true at all. Insulin resistance was inferred, not measured, and differential insulin resistance (the key factor with the insulin hypothesis of obesity) wasn't even considered.
Of course not. He was just the first one to make the definitive survey of the literature and history and publish his investigation. The townspeople who thought the castle was the tavern they were just drinking at were too drunk to see straight :)
You never did read his book, did you? :) Borrow it from a library if you're worried about lining his pockets, but please, understand that Taubes isn't simply pointing at an old tavern and calling it a castle, he's showing that the emperor has no clothes.
For fat accumulation, it only matters on the cellular level. If you put 1000 calories of undigestible plastic into your mouth, you may count it as a "calorie in" on the organism level, but it simply doesn't count for fat accumulation. Heck, if I put a pound of lead in my mouth, without swallowing, theoretically, I've gained a pound of weight - but will you really assert I need to expend a pound of lead worth of calories of exercise to compensate for it?
Interesting that when it comes to diet and exercise, nobody talks about the other "calories out" path of excretion - imagine if the standard advice was "eat less, defecate and urinate more", perfectly consistent with the first law :)
And none of it was very compelling, primarily because differential insulin resistance was never directly measured in any of your citations. As I believe we both agreed, what's necessary is a definitive series of metabolic ward studies.
So, at least you're on my side when it comes to asserting "calories in/calories out" is wrong :)
Certainly the Kreb's cycle is complicated. Certainly insulin is the dominant player in fat accumulation, but not the only one. Certainly people have unique differential insulin resistance. I'm not sure why you think the insulin hypothesis, given all of the complications it admits to, is too simple to be true.
You still don't believe in biochemistry? :)
His gross simplification is accurate on the cellular level, not the whole organism level, which unfortunately is the mistaken conclusion he derives. My assertion, on the other hand, certainly glosses over the details of the kreb's cycle, but is arguably a truism. To call my statement inaccurate is inaccurate, although I'll agree that it is grossly simplified and that further detail is available.
Hogwash. Saturated fats are perfectly fine for you.
The problem with losing weight is carbohydrate intake. The issue with fats is whether or not you keep a healthy omega3/6 balance, and grass fed butter is a perfect way to do that.
The desire to hold on to the "good fats/bad fats" trope is simply a leftover from the original failed admonition to avoid dietary fat at all (note, transfats aka frakenfats are obviously bad - they shouldn't even be considered fats). Saturated animal fats, with the proper omega3/6 ratio, are perfectly healthy, and unsaturated fats of any sort do not have any additional nutritional benefit, period (and you'll note, animal fats actually include both saturated and unsaturated fats).
How is that a ridiculous choice? Grass fed butter has the proper omega3/6 ratio for health, and in order to get high fat, butter is a great way to do it.
That's a statement without meaning. Grass fed butter is a healthy part of a balanced diet, low in carbohydrates, and is *perfectly* nutritionally valuable.
Now of course, you're going to need sufficient animal proteins to get all of your vitamins and minerals, but the idea that we have to go far afield to get our essential fatty acids is silly - the key with fats is the omega3/6 balance, and grass fed butter handles that perfectly.
You're halfway there. Cutting carbs is important to a healthier diet. Restricting saturated fat is not.
Considering a LCHF (low carb-high fat) diet as a "fad" is to misunderstand the biology involved.
At least we agree popping pills is a bad idea :)
Fat is "created" from calories?
Let's be more specific, why don't we - fat is "created" by biochemical processes, and it is accumulated into fat cells via the influence of insulin. Without the hormonal signals required, fat is not accumulated into fat cells.
Therefore, when we talk about "calories in/calories out" and obesity, we really need to look at the level of the fat cell, not the level of the mouth and the muscular system. If a fat cell absorbs more calories than it releases (through the influence of insulin), you get weight gain. If a fat cell releases more calories than it absorbs (through the absence of insulin), you get weight loss.
What matters to the fat cell calories in/calories out is not the gross matter you put into your mouth, but the insulin that matter decides to stimulate.
Again, biochemistry *matters* here, and what you've failed to understand is that whether calories are absorbed into fat cells or not is determined not by the number of calories, but by the *type* of calories.
I will definitely try that, thanks for the tip!
I do consume between 750 and 1500 calories of butter a day - usually 4-6oz (800 - 1200 calories). Throw one stick of butter in each cup of coffee, and have three cups of coffee.
It's worked wonders, with better HDL/triglyceride ratio, lower weight, lower blood pressure, and better blood sugar.
The laws of physics state that if you put one end of a solid into warm water, the heat will transfer from one end of the solid to the other, based solely on the insulative properties in question. A bar of steel will propagate the heat at one rate. A bar of glass will propagate the heat at another rate.
Now, put your left hand in a warm tub, and tell me how long it takes for the heat to travel to your right hand.
Understanding that biochemical processes *are* fundamental, and obey the laws of physics, but result in very different ends when in a complex system like a life form, is as important as understanding that the wave particle duality happens at the atomic level, but not at the macroscopic level.
You sir, need to learn more about something called *context* of physics.
If one is overweight, one needs to eat fewer calories that trigger insulin response.
The *type* of calorie matters to the biochemical machines that we are.
Sorry DogDude, but you've barked up the wrong tree. Calories in, calories out is a gross simplification that glosses over the most important factors of biochemistry.
Fat accumulation is driven by insulin, and the specific insulin resistance of fat cells versus other cells. You may be one of the lucky folks who is particularly insulin sensitive, allowing you to eat whatever you want without fat accumulation. Bully for you. On the other hand, anyone who is obese is suffering from a biochemical problem, not a mathematical calorie problem.
Put another way, the *type* of calorie matters. If you are obese, the only way to address it is to address the biochemistry, not the math.
The underlying mechanism of obesity is insulin, and the specific insulin resistance of fat cells versus other cells.
Improve your insulin sensitivity, or reduce your insulin production, and you reduce fat accumulation.
"eating less" is a *symptom* of improved insulin sensitivity, or reduced insulin production, not a cause. Getting the causality backwards leads you to incorrect conclusions.
You're simply wrong. Saturated fats aren't a problem, and have never been a problem.
That being said, omega3/6 fatty acid balance *is* important. Stick to grass-fed butter rather than corn fed cows.
If you're obese, and serious about changing, stop eating carbohydrates, and dramatically increase animal fat intake, with special attention to omega3/6 fatty acid balance.
I lost 50 pounds the same way, and have kept it off for 7 years now. On top of that, my HDL/triglyceride ratio improved, my blood pressure went down, and my blood sugar stabilized out of the "pre diabetic" zone.
Nowadays, a large portion of my diet includes grass fed butter sticks mixed in with my coffee.
...treat the cause: carbohydrate intake.
Carbohydrate intake drives blood sugar.
Blood sugar drives insulin.
Insulin drives fat accumulation.
Stop eating carbohydrates. It's simple.
Prescribing drugs for obesity is like prescribing a drug so that people can continue their heroin habit without suffering some of the typical "nodding" effects.
...then gay-conversion therapy has a rational basis.
Look, if people can be naturally different in sexual proclivity, then people can be naturally different in interests and career choices. To pretend like the only reason that women participate in varying percentages in various industries is due to cultural factors is opening the gate to the assertion that the only reason men are attracted to men in varying percentages is due to cultural factors, not inherent biological ones.
Of course bro-gramming harassment is bad. Of course some women have crappy, unfair experiences. But simply because a black teenager plays the knockout game and assaults a jewish grandma doesn't mean that every black teenager is a thug.
I expect men and women to be different. The question is, are you able to appreciate those differences, or are you determined to override them by any means necessary?
I'd be interested to know if you have, as per this brain scan study, a more feminine brain.
If you do, I'm liable to accept your struggle as something with natural, legitimate origins.
If you don't, I'm liable to consider your struggle as something more akin to a disease.
No offense intended - of course your problems are no doubt very real to you, just commenting on how we might discern between mental "isness" and mental illness.