Seth Roberts has an alternative hypothesis of how bland foods affect the brain's set point mechanism (yes, set points are not accepted fact). I don't think it's well established either way, but it works for some and so makes for some interesting data that has to be accounted for in any correct model of the human metabolism.
It worked for me, but low carb works as well and I don't have to drink flax oil, which is one of the least pleasant dietary experiments I've tried.
Guyenet appear to be wedded to his 'food reward' hypothesis which is countered by lots of evidence, including my own personal experience. Food reward is as much a function of the eater as the food and the eater's state of appetite is driven by hormones, which is driven by the food eaten and the state of the mitochondria and probably the feedback circuits in the VMH.
If there's a single criticism I'd level at most nutrition researchers, it is that they don't understand complex, multi-loop feedback systems well. Such systems create lots of statistical associations, but the effects of any intervention become hard to analyze unless you understand how the various feedback systems interact.
Most engineers know very well how feedback works and how it can get out of hand when you meddle with variables in a conditionally stable, complex feedback system. Weight is a classic example, where it is obviously conditionally stable, because some people are stable at 'lean' and some people slowly accumulate fat throughout their lives with higher frequency ups and downs superimposed.
>The only thing I would add is that a ketogenic diet is really hard on the kidneys (look at the studies of kids on ketogenic diets for epileptic seizures, their rate of kidney stones is significantly higher than those on non-ketogenic diets). And it makes your breath stink after a while, too.
Guyenet is wedded to a paradigm that keeps his funding flowing. It matters to him that Taubes be wrong not for the health of people, but for his bank account. Taubes isn't wrong. His logic is rigorous, as befits a physicist who casts his eyes over the wasteland that is nutrition research. Petro Dobromylskyj will set set your thinking straight. http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/
Vegans can handle it for a year or two until their body gives up from the chemical assault unleashed by the vegetables that spent 2 billion years evolving chemical weapons to stop you eating them.
Animals evolved legs and flippers to get out of the way. They're much less poisonous.
The reverse is true. The long period of fasting associated with once-a-day eating tends to lead to reduced insulin during the day, enabling the fat cells to release FFAs and promote fat burning.
Eating all day keeps the insulin high all day, telling the fat cells to hang on to their fat and make more from all the excess glucose in the blood stream. Unless you stick to eating only fat with a little protein.
Indeed. I can think of a few studies that refute the statements by the ACs above. I had red meat with extra butter for lunch. I cheated a little and added four pickled chilli peppers because they're tasty, even though they're vegetables.
>It's no mystery how to eat healthy, the mystery is getting people to do it.
That's odd. Many people think vegetables, antioxidants, grains and a low fat intake are all healthy, when the opposite is true. The mystery is why people keep promoting these diets when the science is clear that they are hogwash.
"I don't think it is simple... The solution to western metabolic disorders is simple..."
The why is not simple and I don't think anyone understands it fully, but we do know a lot. The 'what to do' at the moment is low-carb. There is plenty of evidence, both controlled and epidemiological that shows positive outcomes associates with reduce total carbohydrate intake.
Your list is fine, except the liking potatoes and rice thing and the CI-CO thing. Stop that:)
You need to add the endocrine system in there. That's what upends people's misconceptions about CI=CO. The arrow of causation isn't CI-CO => delta M. It is Food => hormone activity => CI-CO. Weight changes and appetite are mostly a function of the type of food you eat, not its caloric properties.
I don't think it is simple. I've been studying the science for a few years now. It's really very, very complicated.
The solution to western metabolic disorders is simple - reduce carbohydrates to as close to zero as possible (E.G. 10g/day) and eat lots of animal fat.
I only buy cow meat that I know is from happy grass fed cows and locally butchered. It costs more, but the extra cost is better than suffering from Western diseases.
I live on eggs, heavy cream, fatty meat and chocolate(90+%). That's how I keep my weight down, control my blood sugar, keep healthy blood lipids and get a proper supply of fat soluble vitamins. You need zero dietary carbs to live.
Some need glucose. Principally a small subset in the brain. All others can get by on glucose or ketones (I.e. fat metabolism). If you are in ketosis, the liver is synthesizing glucose to the level needed by the brain while other tissues go into physiological insulin resistance to preserve the glucose for the brain. This is a good thing. You would be dead otherwise.
Berries have a little bit of sucrose. But I've not seen any real evidence that they are good for you. Nutritionists like them because they can't fault them. They don't have many calories, they have 'antioxidants' and they don't have much fructose.
But nutritionists aren't the ones who paid attention in science class. There is no evidence that antioxidants do anything to help you. There is strong evidence that the opposite is true. That didn't get a mention in the press until Watson (of DNA fame) said it, but it was already common currency amongst the scientists. http://io9.com/5975002/james-watson-says-antioxidants-may-actually-be-causing-cancer
The antioxidants in plants are there to help the plant protect itself against the poisons it evolved to stop you eating it. Humans and other animals have adpated in kind and can tolerate them to some extent.
We don't know berries are good for you. We have reason to believe they are bad for you, but they're small so you don't get a lot.
The MCTs are inherently ketogenic. The gut and liver separate them out from other fats and metabolize them right away, yielding ketones.
Given the ketogenic diets not using MCTs are effective in protecting against or reversing the effects of various brain disorders (epilepsy, Alzheimer's, parkinsons etc.) and given that we know some of the mechanisms through which ketones are neuroprotective, it's reasonable to presume it isn't the MCTs directly which help, it's the keytones that they promote.
If the above is true, then while MCTs may be fine, a proper ketogenic diet would be better, since it improves blood sugar control.
So quit eating vegetables and start eating lots of saturated fats, eggs and fatty meat if you don't want to go doolally in your old age.
Slashdot Mirror
Seth Roberts has an alternative hypothesis of how bland foods affect the brain's set point mechanism (yes, set points are not accepted fact). I don't think it's well established either way, but it works for some and so makes for some interesting data that has to be accounted for in any correct model of the human metabolism.
It worked for me, but low carb works as well and I don't have to drink flax oil, which is one of the least pleasant dietary experiments I've tried.
Guyenet appear to be wedded to his 'food reward' hypothesis which is countered by lots of evidence, including my own personal experience. Food reward is as much a function of the eater as the food and the eater's state of appetite is driven by hormones, which is driven by the food eaten and the state of the mitochondria and probably the feedback circuits in the VMH.
If there's a single criticism I'd level at most nutrition researchers, it is that they don't understand complex, multi-loop feedback systems well. Such systems create lots of statistical associations, but the effects of any intervention become hard to analyze unless you understand how the various feedback systems interact.
Most engineers know very well how feedback works and how it can get out of hand when you meddle with variables in a conditionally stable, complex feedback system. Weight is a classic example, where it is obviously conditionally stable, because some people are stable at 'lean' and some people slowly accumulate fat throughout their lives with higher frequency ups and downs superimposed.
Oh look. The science agrees with you. Whoodathunk?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=12064344&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSuml
>The only thing I would add is that a ketogenic diet is really hard on the kidneys (look at the studies of kids on ketogenic diets for epileptic seizures, their rate of kidney stones is significantly higher than those on non-ketogenic diets). And it makes your breath stink after a while, too.
You do know that those diets were primarily based on PUFAs and MUFAs and minimized saturated fats.
Don't expect doctors to know their fats. I recommend http://www.amazon.com/Know-Your-Fats-Understanding-Cholesterol/dp/0967812607
Guyenet is wedded to a paradigm that keeps his funding flowing. It matters to him that Taubes be wrong not for the health of people, but for his bank account.
Taubes isn't wrong. His logic is rigorous, as befits a physicist who casts his eyes over the wasteland that is nutrition research.
Petro Dobromylskyj will set set your thinking straight. http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/
Vegans can handle it for a year or two until their body gives up from the chemical assault unleashed by the vegetables that spent 2 billion years evolving chemical weapons to stop you eating them.
Animals evolved legs and flippers to get out of the way. They're much less poisonous.
The reverse is true. The long period of fasting associated with once-a-day eating tends to lead to reduced insulin during the day, enabling the fat cells to release FFAs and promote fat burning.
Eating all day keeps the insulin high all day, telling the fat cells to hang on to their fat and make more from all the excess glucose in the blood stream. Unless you stick to eating only fat with a little protein.
Indeed. I can think of a few studies that refute the statements by the ACs above.
I had red meat with extra butter for lunch. I cheated a little and added four pickled chilli peppers because they're tasty, even though they're vegetables.
>It's no mystery how to eat healthy, the mystery is getting people to do it.
That's odd. Many people think vegetables, antioxidants, grains and a low fat intake are all healthy, when the opposite is true. The mystery is why people keep promoting these diets when the science is clear that they are hogwash.
"I don't think it is simple...
The solution to western metabolic disorders is simple..."
The why is not simple and I don't think anyone understands it fully, but we do know a lot. The 'what to do' at the moment is low-carb. There is plenty of evidence, both controlled and epidemiological that shows positive outcomes associates with reduce total carbohydrate intake.
Your list is fine, except the liking potatoes and rice thing and the CI-CO thing. Stop that :)
You need to add the endocrine system in there. That's what upends people's misconceptions about CI=CO. The arrow of causation isn't CI-CO => delta M. It is Food => hormone activity => CI-CO. Weight changes and appetite are mostly a function of the type of food you eat, not its caloric properties.
I don't think it is simple. I've been studying the science for a few years now. It's really very, very complicated.
The solution to western metabolic disorders is simple - reduce carbohydrates to as close to zero as possible (E.G. 10g/day) and eat lots of animal fat.
I only buy cow meat that I know is from happy grass fed cows and locally butchered. It costs more, but the extra cost is better than suffering from Western diseases.
> It might help me support different (probably better) medical treatment
I think you mean dietary treatment.
Quit with the carbs and sugar. Completely.
> Asians have done pretty well on rice.
Those Asian's haven't fucked up their VMH with bulk sucrose in childhood.
Vibrating In-Bath Feedback is going to be popular with consenting adults I think.
When Does Lenz post the pictures he took?
And where are they?
They're now the most interesting pictures on the net. But he better be quick and post them, because the internets will have moved on by tomorrow.
It's a good thing they don't cover meat in sugar power. They don't do they ?!
I live on eggs, heavy cream, fatty meat and chocolate(90+%). That's how I keep my weight down, control my blood sugar, keep healthy blood lipids and get a proper supply of fat soluble vitamins. You need zero dietary carbs to live.
Some need glucose. Principally a small subset in the brain.
All others can get by on glucose or ketones (I.e. fat metabolism). If you are in ketosis, the liver is synthesizing glucose to the level needed by the brain while other tissues go into physiological insulin resistance to preserve the glucose for the brain. This is a good thing. You would be dead otherwise.
>Berries have a little bit of sucrose.
Argh. I meant fuctose.
There's no significant sucrose in berries.
Berries have a little bit of sucrose. But I've not seen any real evidence that they are good for you.
Nutritionists like them because they can't fault them. They don't have many calories, they have 'antioxidants' and they don't have much fructose.
But nutritionists aren't the ones who paid attention in science class. There is no evidence that antioxidants do anything to help you. There is strong evidence that the opposite is true. That didn't get a mention in the press until Watson (of DNA fame) said it, but it was already common currency amongst the scientists.
http://io9.com/5975002/james-watson-says-antioxidants-may-actually-be-causing-cancer
The antioxidants in plants are there to help the plant protect itself against the poisons it evolved to stop you eating it. Humans and other animals have adpated in kind and can tolerate them to some extent.
We don't know berries are good for you. We have reason to believe they are bad for you, but they're small so you don't get a lot.
You are correct. We are a bag of chemical reactions and they all interact. The brain is no exception, particularly when it comes to the metabolism.
The MCTs are inherently ketogenic. The gut and liver separate them out from other fats and metabolize them right away, yielding ketones.
Given the ketogenic diets not using MCTs are effective in protecting against or reversing the effects of various brain disorders (epilepsy, Alzheimer's, parkinsons etc.) and given that we know some of the mechanisms through which ketones are neuroprotective, it's reasonable to presume it isn't the MCTs directly which help, it's the keytones that they promote.
If the above is true, then while MCTs may be fine, a proper ketogenic diet would be better, since it improves blood sugar control.
So quit eating vegetables and start eating lots of saturated fats, eggs and fatty meat if you don't want to go doolally in your old age.
Yes. A lot of cheap network equipment seems to leak state slowly and eventually slow down and fail until rebooted.
Just unplug it and plug it back in again.