I'm talking about a moderate amount of carbs (that is unavoidable anyway, everything has them).
My grilled burgers have effectively zero carbohydrates. My diet coke has effectively zero carbohydrates. My home made beef jerky has effectively zero carbohydrates. My bacon has effectively zero carbohydrates.
You can avoid carbohydrates if you want to, but if you're not conscious about it (looking at that sugary bbq sauce on the ribs, or that hidden sugar in the beef jerky, or even that damn wheat they put in soy sauce for some reason), it can be difficult.
As for "moderate", that's a weasel word -> what is a "moderate" amount of LSD or cocaine for a 5 year old?
99% of fat people can't eat why you eat and lose weight because they have a bigger problem with insulin resistance than you do. The big mistake of characterizing this as "calories in, calories out" is that people assume that outcomes are due to gluttony and sloth, rather than hormonal issues. You wouldn't look down on someone who has an overactive pituitary and keeps growing abnormally tall, but apparently you can look down on someone who has insulin resistant fat cells and who keeps growing abnormally wide on a diet including carbohydrate.
Foods that include sugar, or are quickly converted into blood sugar are called "carbohydrates". The primary cause of excess fat is excess carbohydrate intake, not excess food intake.
Actually, insulin resistance is most likely triggered by fructose intake, which then makes even simple glucose intake from starches dangerous. Lustig talks about this here:
A diet solely composed of animal meats and fats cannot create type 2 diabetes, period. When it comes right down to it, fruit and sugar tend to damage the liver to cause insulin resistance, which then makes simple starches dangerous. Perhaps, if you've managed to avoid fruit and sugar, and stuck strictly to starches, you *might* be okay...but as I've stated elsewhere, while we have essential proteins and fatty acids, there is no such thing as an essential carbohydrate.
I'd argue that's true for agrarian food supplies that tie people to the land and allow for class divisions, but that's not very true of hunter gatherers. When you can simply follow your food, and start eating some other critter when your preferred critter runs out, you're actually much less insecure.
You feed a sedentary fat person 2000 calories of whole wheat bread, bananas, carrots and low-fat yogurt a day, and you'll get diabetes, depression, sleep apnea, atherosclerosis, congestive heart failure and stroke. It's not the calories that matter, it's the carbohydrates.
The vast majority of human evolution has occurred in the tropics. Our venturing out of the tropics into the rest of the world is actually quite recent in evolutionary terms.
Now, we can test your hypothesis by asserting that nordic folk should be more obese than african folks. Of course, we don't see this kind of relationship.
Humans are adapted to eating animal protein and fat, and while we have essential proteins and fatty acids, there is no such thing as an essential carbohydrate.
Most people are fat because they have poor self control
No, fat people are fat because they are insulin resistant, and consume a diet of carbohydrates that is too high. Now perhaps you can rephrase this as "poor self control over carbohydrate intake" (after all, starches and sugars behave like drugs), but the answer isn't to reduce calories, the answer is to reduce carbohydrate.
Take your model, and instead of thinking about the entire body, think about the fat cell. Apply conservation of energy there -> excess fat *input*, plus limited fat *output* means a bigger fat cell.
Now, understand that fat *input* and fat *output* are driven by the hormone insulin, not simply by how many calories of material you put in your mouth.
The body, under the influence of insulin, not only prevents fat from being circulated *from* the fat cells, it also forces accumulation *to* the fat cells.
Put another way, when a child is growing, are you going to assert they have "excess input"? Is their vertical growth caused by "excess input"? Of course not -> their vertical growth is caused by growth hormone, which drives the body to consume what is necessary to complete growth, whether or not that comes from more food input, or, from slowing down metabolism, or cannibalizing existing parts (malnutrition).
Why would you consider vertical growth driven by hormones any differently than horizontal growth driven by hormones?
I went from ~2300 calories a day, to ~3500 calories a day about 3 years ago, and stopped ~5 hours of cardio a week, and have maintained a weight 50lbs. lower than when I began.
My trick? I stopped eating inulin raising carbohydrates. Calories simply don't count the way carbohydrates do.
Just like bears who put on fat before they hibernate, humans would store fat (although nothing like the obesity today) to help them get through the lean winter months.
You do realize that humanity evolved in the tropics, where there aren't "lean winter months" to speak of, right?
You know what makes you fat? As the article says, input vs. output
Bullshit. The human body isn't a simple engine - it is a dynamic, actively regulated system. In the case of fat cells, fat accumulation is regulated by the hormone insulin, not by how many calories one puts in one's mouth. When you see that poor bastard that weights 350 pounds, horking down a pizza like he's starving, it's because he *is* -> the carbohydrate in his diet has caused blood sugar spikes, which causes insulin levels to rise, which causes his fat cells to accumulate fat (stealing calories from the bloodstream), leaving his muscles in his body starving. Put another way, in order to protect his body from the toxicity of blood sugar levels, his body is as fat as it *needs* to be.
To fix obesity, one has to understand the complexity of the human body, and address the true root cause -> carbohydrate intake. Treating it like a simple mathematics equation is the idiot kind of thinking that got us the obesity epidemic in the first place.
Actually, if you feed a sedentary *fat* person 3000 calories a day, comprised of bacon, beef and lard, they will lose weight. A sedentary skinny person simply won't *gain* weight.
Insulin drives fat accumulation, blood sugar levels drive insulin, and carbohydrates drive blood sugar levels. Carnivores simply don't get fat eating protein and fat.
The problem is that some people can tolerate carbohydrate toxicity, and others cannot. We all know that guy who does nothing but chug down sodas, sit on the couch playing xbox, and scarfs down pizza and pop tarts all day without gaining a pound. That guy doesn't have insulin resistance.
All those fat people you see at the mall? They've got insulin resistance, and their carbohydrate intake is what is driving their obesity.
To avoid the "appeal to unnamed authorities" fallacy, here's a specific person (Denise Minger) who specifically tore the China Study to pieces, and has graciously put up her formal critique, including references, here:
First off, standard "correlation is not causality" caveat.
Second, obesity is a disease driven by the hormone insulin. Insulin (in insulin resistant people) is what causes fat cells to accumulate fat. Chronic insulin levels are driven by chronically elevated blood sugar levels. Chronically elevated blood sugar levels are caused by carbohydrate intake, the only food type that causes significant blood sugar rises.
So, go back to 1970 and promote say, nothing but beef or pork production, and you can have a glut of food, without obesity. Promote "healthy" whole wheat, or sugary fruits, or starchy corn, that raises blood sugar levels, and you'll get obesity.
Because the alleged non-falsifiability of AGW is all that's stopping you from believing it?
No, the non-falsifiability of AGW is what is stopping you and I from having a conversation about the *science*. Once we get to your clear, necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement, we can look for falsifications, and then decide, after earnest attempt, whether or not we should provisionally accept AGW as true.
What do you think is stopping you from *not* believing in AGW?
It's easy enough to Google your way to the truth about the falsifiability of climate change
But apparently not easy enough for you to include an actual citation:)
Appeal to yet again unnamed authorities:)
But nothing's going to change your mind
Not unless you make a clear, necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement. Until then, we don't even know what you're trying to change my mind about:)
If you're not even willing to accept that, what is the point of arguing with you?
That's a really good point. Until we can agree on what the scientific method is, and what falsifiable hypothesis we're discussing, there is little point in arguing.
Would you care to specify your necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of AGW, and your understanding of the scientific method?
Here on planet earth there is a lot of solid science that indicates there is global warming. Just see the UN reports for a start.
Of course there is global warming. There is global cooling too. All of this has occurred naturally for the entire lifespan of the planet. Now, where, in what UN report, would you like to cite a clearly necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement that *humans* are causing observed 20th century global warming?
It's clear you have made up your mind that the science is simply wrong.
Actually, it's a bit more subtle than that - global warming alarmists simply *aren't doing science*.
Grab any number of science journals going back over a decade and follow the papers that have been published.
Appeal to unnamed authorities. Cite *one specific* paper that has been published over the past decade that clearly states a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement for catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (or heck, even just anthropogenic global warming).
it can't all be put down to a couple of guys "never requesting data for review".
Actually, the way Phil Jones puts it, it seems that the *expectation* is not to ask for data and codes. That's the *standard* operating procedure.
Can you find a *single* instance where a peer reviewer, in any journal, on any AGW paper, requested the data and codes?
you are attributing ulterior motives to scientists that you disagree with.
I'm am attributing ulterior motives to scientists who don't actually review data or code. I'm attributing ulterior motives to scientists who don't start off with falsifiable hypothesis statements. I'm attributing ulterior motives to scientists who think science is done by consensus, or a "preponderance of the evidence" rather than by falsification.
Essentially, I'm attributing ulterior motives to scientists who have discarded the scientific method:)
"Trust but verify" is exactly how peer reviewed science works.
Really? Can you name a single warmist paper in the past 10 years where any of the reviewers actually asked for the data behind a paper they were reviewing?
From Phil Jones: "I’ve never requested data/codes to do a review and I don’t think others should either."
So much for verify:)
There are volumes and volumes of data and experiments that suggest that AGW is a significant effect.
There are volumes and volumes of data and experiments that suggest that Pisces are generally honest, but sometimes deceitful. Yet we understand astrology isn't a science.
If you want to play the science game, you come up with your clearly necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis, and look *really hard* for falsifications. Can you cite any warmist work that has done that? Stated "this would be a falsification of my theory, and here are all the things I did to look for it"?
Slashdot Mirror
My grilled burgers have effectively zero carbohydrates.
My diet coke has effectively zero carbohydrates.
My home made beef jerky has effectively zero carbohydrates.
My bacon has effectively zero carbohydrates.
You can avoid carbohydrates if you want to, but if you're not conscious about it (looking at that sugary bbq sauce on the ribs, or that hidden sugar in the beef jerky, or even that damn wheat they put in soy sauce for some reason), it can be difficult.
As for "moderate", that's a weasel word -> what is a "moderate" amount of LSD or cocaine for a 5 year old?
99% of fat people can't eat why you eat and lose weight because they have a bigger problem with insulin resistance than you do. The big mistake of characterizing this as "calories in, calories out" is that people assume that outcomes are due to gluttony and sloth, rather than hormonal issues. You wouldn't look down on someone who has an overactive pituitary and keeps growing abnormally tall, but apparently you can look down on someone who has insulin resistant fat cells and who keeps growing abnormally wide on a diet including carbohydrate.
Foods that include sugar, or are quickly converted into blood sugar are called "carbohydrates". The primary cause of excess fat is excess carbohydrate intake, not excess food intake.
Actually, insulin resistance is most likely triggered by fructose intake, which then makes even simple glucose intake from starches dangerous. Lustig talks about this here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM
A diet solely composed of animal meats and fats cannot create type 2 diabetes, period. When it comes right down to it, fruit and sugar tend to damage the liver to cause insulin resistance, which then makes simple starches dangerous. Perhaps, if you've managed to avoid fruit and sugar, and stuck strictly to starches, you *might* be okay...but as I've stated elsewhere, while we have essential proteins and fatty acids, there is no such thing as an essential carbohydrate.
I'd argue that's true for agrarian food supplies that tie people to the land and allow for class divisions, but that's not very true of hunter gatherers. When you can simply follow your food, and start eating some other critter when your preferred critter runs out, you're actually much less insecure.
http://blog.rifftrax.com/2009/01/31/bacon-stupidity/
You feed a sedentary fat person 2000 calories of whole wheat bread, bananas, carrots and low-fat yogurt a day, and you'll get diabetes, depression, sleep apnea, atherosclerosis, congestive heart failure and stroke. It's not the calories that matter, it's the carbohydrates.
Fun fact -> we fatten animals by feeding them starches, not fats :)
The vast majority of human evolution has occurred in the tropics. Our venturing out of the tropics into the rest of the world is actually quite recent in evolutionary terms.
Now, we can test your hypothesis by asserting that nordic folk should be more obese than african folks. Of course, we don't see this kind of relationship.
Humans are adapted to eating animal protein and fat, and while we have essential proteins and fatty acids, there is no such thing as an essential carbohydrate.
No, fat people are fat because they are insulin resistant, and consume a diet of carbohydrates that is too high. Now perhaps you can rephrase this as "poor self control over carbohydrate intake" (after all, starches and sugars behave like drugs), but the answer isn't to reduce calories, the answer is to reduce carbohydrate.
Take your model, and instead of thinking about the entire body, think about the fat cell. Apply conservation of energy there -> excess fat *input*, plus limited fat *output* means a bigger fat cell.
Now, understand that fat *input* and fat *output* are driven by the hormone insulin, not simply by how many calories of material you put in your mouth.
The body, under the influence of insulin, not only prevents fat from being circulated *from* the fat cells, it also forces accumulation *to* the fat cells.
Put another way, when a child is growing, are you going to assert they have "excess input"? Is their vertical growth caused by "excess input"? Of course not -> their vertical growth is caused by growth hormone, which drives the body to consume what is necessary to complete growth, whether or not that comes from more food input, or, from slowing down metabolism, or cannibalizing existing parts (malnutrition).
Why would you consider vertical growth driven by hormones any differently than horizontal growth driven by hormones?
I went from ~2300 calories a day, to ~3500 calories a day about 3 years ago, and stopped ~5 hours of cardio a week, and have maintained a weight 50lbs. lower than when I began.
My trick? I stopped eating inulin raising carbohydrates. Calories simply don't count the way carbohydrates do.
You do realize that humanity evolved in the tropics, where there aren't "lean winter months" to speak of, right?
Bullshit.
http://www.njamworld.com/2010/03/08/low-carb-diet-for-endurance-exercise/
Bullshit. The human body isn't a simple engine - it is a dynamic, actively regulated system. In the case of fat cells, fat accumulation is regulated by the hormone insulin, not by how many calories one puts in one's mouth. When you see that poor bastard that weights 350 pounds, horking down a pizza like he's starving, it's because he *is* -> the carbohydrate in his diet has caused blood sugar spikes, which causes insulin levels to rise, which causes his fat cells to accumulate fat (stealing calories from the bloodstream), leaving his muscles in his body starving. Put another way, in order to protect his body from the toxicity of blood sugar levels, his body is as fat as it *needs* to be.
To fix obesity, one has to understand the complexity of the human body, and address the true root cause -> carbohydrate intake. Treating it like a simple mathematics equation is the idiot kind of thinking that got us the obesity epidemic in the first place.
Actually, if you feed a sedentary *fat* person 3000 calories a day, comprised of bacon, beef and lard, they will lose weight. A sedentary skinny person simply won't *gain* weight.
Insulin drives fat accumulation, blood sugar levels drive insulin, and carbohydrates drive blood sugar levels. Carnivores simply don't get fat eating protein and fat.
The problem is that some people can tolerate carbohydrate toxicity, and others cannot. We all know that guy who does nothing but chug down sodas, sit on the couch playing xbox, and scarfs down pizza and pop tarts all day without gaining a pound. That guy doesn't have insulin resistance.
All those fat people you see at the mall? They've got insulin resistance, and their carbohydrate intake is what is driving their obesity.
To avoid the "appeal to unnamed authorities" fallacy, here's a specific person (Denise Minger) who specifically tore the China Study to pieces, and has graciously put up her formal critique, including references, here:
http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/08/03/the-china-study-a-formal-analysis-and-response/
tl;dr - the China Study ignored data that didn't support their basic conceit, and exaggerated data that did.
That hypothesis, using data directly from the china study, has been thoroughly falsified by a wonderful woman named Denise Minger:
http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/08/03/the-china-study-a-formal-analysis-and-response/
The problem is carbohydrate, not animal protein or fat.
First off, standard "correlation is not causality" caveat.
Second, obesity is a disease driven by the hormone insulin. Insulin (in insulin resistant people) is what causes fat cells to accumulate fat. Chronic insulin levels are driven by chronically elevated blood sugar levels. Chronically elevated blood sugar levels are caused by carbohydrate intake, the only food type that causes significant blood sugar rises.
So, go back to 1970 and promote say, nothing but beef or pork production, and you can have a glut of food, without obesity. Promote "healthy" whole wheat, or sugary fruits, or starchy corn, that raises blood sugar levels, and you'll get obesity.
Stop eating carbohydrates. It's simple.
No, the non-falsifiability of AGW is what is stopping you and I from having a conversation about the *science*. Once we get to your clear, necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement, we can look for falsifications, and then decide, after earnest attempt, whether or not we should provisionally accept AGW as true.
What do you think is stopping you from *not* believing in AGW?
But apparently not easy enough for you to include an actual citation :)
Appeal to yet again unnamed authorities :)
Not unless you make a clear, necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement. Until then, we don't even know what you're trying to change my mind about :)
Simply state your necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement, and I'll stand corrected. Until then, "the lady doth protest too much" :)
That's a really good point. Until we can agree on what the scientific method is, and what falsifiable hypothesis we're discussing, there is little point in arguing.
Would you care to specify your necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of AGW, and your understanding of the scientific method?
Of course there is global warming. There is global cooling too. All of this has occurred naturally for the entire lifespan of the planet. Now, where, in what UN report, would you like to cite a clearly necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement that *humans* are causing observed 20th century global warming?
Actually, it's a bit more subtle than that - global warming alarmists simply *aren't doing science*.
Appeal to unnamed authorities. Cite *one specific* paper that has been published over the past decade that clearly states a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement for catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (or heck, even just anthropogenic global warming).
Actually, the way Phil Jones puts it, it seems that the *expectation* is not to ask for data and codes. That's the *standard* operating procedure.
Can you find a *single* instance where a peer reviewer, in any journal, on any AGW paper, requested the data and codes?
I'm am attributing ulterior motives to scientists who don't actually review data or code. I'm attributing ulterior motives to scientists who don't start off with falsifiable hypothesis statements. I'm attributing ulterior motives to scientists who think science is done by consensus, or a "preponderance of the evidence" rather than by falsification.
Essentially, I'm attributing ulterior motives to scientists who have discarded the scientific method :)
Really? Can you name a single warmist paper in the past 10 years where any of the reviewers actually asked for the data behind a paper they were reviewing?
http://hro001.wordpress.com/2012/02/02/phil-jones-keeps-peer-review-process-humming-by-using-intuition/
From Phil Jones: "I’ve never requested data/codes to do a review and I don’t think others should either."
So much for verify :)
There are volumes and volumes of data and experiments that suggest that Pisces are generally honest, but sometimes deceitful. Yet we understand astrology isn't a science.
If you want to play the science game, you come up with your clearly necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis, and look *really hard* for falsifications. Can you cite any warmist work that has done that? Stated "this would be a falsification of my theory, and here are all the things I did to look for it"?
Can't disprove a religion that doesn't have a falsifiable hypothesis statement :)
Warmer weather? Global warming.
Colder weather? Global warming.
Drought? Global warming.
Flood? Global warming.
More extremes? Global warming.
Less extremes? Global warming.
There is literally no observation that warmists don't have an ad hoc special pleading for. Their hypothesis excludes *nothing*.