Eating Healthy

[Sunstroke]

Blasphemer!

I had beers and a Philly cheeseteak for dinner last night. That is my version of eating a healthy diet.

Sign me up for the Phish diet...and let me get an appetizer of bacon-stuffed mushrooms before that cheesysteak, please!

Yum!

[EKnight]

Always laughable when I see someone advocating a low carb or keto-nonsense approach. It's been established in literally hundreds of studies that macronutrient content does not affect fat loss, calorie deficit is all that matters. Sachs, et al in particular showed this using over 800 research particiaipants across a two-year time frame.  And this 2006 study from the AJCN not only shows no benefit to keto diets, but flat out advises against their use for health reasons: http://m.ajcn.nutrition.org/content/83/5/1055.full

"Conclusions:KLC and NLC diets were equally effective in reducing body weight and insulin resistance, but the KLC diet was associated with several adverse metabolic and emotional effects. The use of ketogenic diets for weight loss is not warranted."

[TonyB0D]

Always laughable when I see someone advocating a low carb or keto-nonsense approach. It's been established in literally hundreds of studies that macronutrient content does not affect fat loss, calorie deficit is all that matters. Sachs, et al in particular showed this using over 800 research particiaipants across a two-year time frame.  And this 2006 study from the AJCN not only shows no benefit to keto diets, but flat out advises against their use for health reasons: http://m.ajcn.nutrition.org/content/83/5/1055.full

"Conclusions:KLC and NLC diets were equally effective in reducing body weight and insulin resistance, but the KLC diet was associated with several adverse metabolic and emotional effects. The use of ketogenic diets for weight loss is not warranted."

This could not be further from the truth.  I never watched caloric intake, didn't exercise, yet shredded pounds.  By making your body burn fat instead of sugar you burn the fat on your body instead off he sugar you eat.  It's simple metabolic science.  If two overweight twins ate the same caloric count but one ate ketogenically,  he would lose the weight faster and with less effort.  There's a reason doctors are starting to prescribe ketosis to morbidly obese patients.  It also can cure diabetics. 

All recent studies show ketosis to be extremely effective at successful weight loss.  Combined with the new science regarding the reversal of decades of "cholesterol=bad", we are realizing pretty much everything we have known about the human diet was wrong.   We have been cutting fat and cholesterol from our diets, yet obesity, heart disease, diabetes, and countless other diet related problems are only getting worse.   The common denominator?  Sugar and processed carbs. 

[Rich]

Always laughable when I see someone advocating a low carb or keto-nonsense approach. It's been established in literally hundreds of studies that macronutrient content does not affect fat loss, calorie deficit is all that matters. Sachs, et al in particular showed this using over 800 research particiaipants across a two-year time frame.  And this 2006 study from the AJCN not only shows no benefit to keto diets, but flat out advises against their use for health reasons: http://m.ajcn.nutrition.org/content/83/5/1055.full

"Conclusions:KLC and NLC diets were equally effective in reducing body weight and insulin resistance, but the KLC diet was associated with several adverse metabolic and emotional effects. The use of ketogenic diets for weight loss is not warranted."

Low carb and keto diets ABSOLUTELY lead to fat loss. And rapid weight loss. And you can eat as many calories as you want.

The big problem is the long term effects from this kind of dieting.

[EKnight]

LMAO. Somebody needs to go back to basic Pathology 101. You can't "cure" diabetes. It's treatable, but not curable. Remission is the closest thing.

Rich, despite your belief that with low-carb (or any diet) you can eat as many calories as you want, you can't circumvent thermodynamics. If your BMR is 2500 calories and you eat 3000- even if NONE are carbs- you WILL gain weight. Thermodynamics. Consistent as gravity.

As for the results of cutting sugar and/or carbs? Sure you'll burn fat- but not any quicker than similar calorie, moderate carb diets. But sure, what do I know? I've only been a nutritionist for nearly two decades. Don't believe me. But DO believe years of clinical research. This isn't a football discussion. You guys are out of your league on this one.

Have a read.

From “Diet-Induced Weight Loss Is Associated with Decreases in Plasma Serum Amyloid A and C-Reactive Protein Independent of Dietary Macronutrient Composition in Obese Subjects” in the April 2005 Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism: "Thus, in otherwise healthy, obese women, weight loss was associated with significant decreases in both SAA and CRP. These effects were proportional to the amount of weight lost but independent of dietary macronutrient composition."

From the Journal of the American Mecical Association Meta anaylsis:
“A review of studies on low-carbohydrate diets published in the May 2004 issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition found no advantage to these diets compared to equal calorie diets that include carbohydrates. Conducted by researchers at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, this review concluded that calories, not the composition of the diet, was responsible for weight loss and there are no differences in satiety (the feeling of fullness) between the two dietary approaches.

A classic study published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation found that any short-term differences in weight loss between those on either a low-carbohydrate or a balanced diet of equal calories is entirely due to water loss, which cannot be sustained over time. This study demonstrated that fat loss is entirely driven by a reduction in calories and was the first to describe “weight snap back”— the rapid regain that occurs on low-carb diets when carbohydrates are reintroduced.

An analysis of the diets of 2,681 people who are listed in the National Weight Control Registry found that fewer than 1 percent who had maintained at least a 30-pound weight loss for a year or more followed a diet with less than 24 percent of the daily calories from carbohydrates.

Despite all the hype, research confirms that low-carb diets do not perform better in the long term than diets that incorporate essential carbohydrates. Moreover, leading nutrition and medical groups caution against the use of low-carb diets because of the increased risk for such serious health problems as kidney and liver disorders, gout, coronary heart disease, diabetes, stroke and several types of cancer.

New England Journal of Medicine, Sacks et al. studied the controlled diets of 811 adults assigned four different macronutrient ratios for two full years. Carb % ranged from 65% down to 35%. Their findings? “Low-carbohydrate diets, whether extreme or moderate, do not consistently result in more weight loss than other approaches. Moreover, our findings confirm that despite best efforts, studies that compare diets for weight loss have not shown large differences in dietary macronutrient composition.”

And finally, from the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2009, “Long-term effects of a very-low-carbohydrate weight loss diet compared with an isocaloric low-fat diet after 12 mo”: “This study showed that the isocaloric LC and LF diets resulted in similar weight loss and reductions in blood pressure, glucose, insulin, insulin resistance, and CRP after 12 mo. However, the diets resulted in differential effects on blood lipids, with greater increases in total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, and HDL cholesterol and reductions in triglycerides with the LC diet than with the LF diet, independent of differences in energy intake and weight loss.”


From “Diet-Induced Weight Loss Is Associated with Decreases in Plasma Serum Amyloid A and C-Reactive Protein Independent of Dietary Macronutrient Composition in Obese Subjects” in the April 2005 Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism: "Thus, in otherwise healthy, obese women, weight loss was associated with significant decreases in both SAA and CRP. These effects were proportional to the amount of weight lost but independent of dietary macronutrient composition."

http://redirect.hp.com/svs/rdr?TYPE=4&tp=iefavs&s=downloads&pf=cnnb&locale=en_us&bd=all&c=104

“Comparison of a Low-Fat Diet to a Low-Carbohydrate Diet on Weight Loss, Body Composition, and Risk Factors for Diabetes and Cardiovascular Disease in Free-Living, Overweight Men and Women” in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism June 1, 2004: “These data suggest that energy restriction achieved by a very low carb diet is equally effective as a low fat diet strategy for weight loss and decreasing body fat in overweight and obese adults.”

http://jcem.endojournals.org/content/89/6/2717.abstract


From the Journal of the American Mecical Association Meta anaylsis:
“A review of studies on low-carbohydrate diets published in the May 2004 issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition found no advantage to these diets compared to equal calorie diets that include carbohydrates. Conducted by researchers at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, this review concluded that calories, not the composition of the diet, was responsible for weight loss and there are no differences in satiety (the feeling of fullness) between the two dietary approaches.

A classic study published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation found that any short-term differences in weight loss between those on either a low-carbohydrate or a balanced diet of equal calories is entirely due to water loss, which cannot be sustained over time. This study demonstrated that fat loss is entirely driven by a reduction in calories and was the first to describe “weight snap back”— the rapid regain that occurs on low-carb diets when carbohydrates are reintroduced.
An analysis of the diets of 2,681 people who are listed in the National Weight Control Registry found that fewer than 1 percent who had maintained at least a 30-pound weight loss for a year or more followed a diet with less than 24 percent of the daily calories from carbohydrates.

http://www.atkinsexposed.org/atkins/117/partnership_for_essential_nutrition.htm

So...apparently no better going lower carb than lower calories....

Finally, a little real world application. I present to you item 1: Chris Voigt. Voigt ate nothing but potatoes between Oct. 1 and Dec. 1. He had them for breakfast, lunch and dinner — about 20 potatoes per day prepared in a variety of ways. His weight dropped from 197 pounds to 176 pounds and his cholesterol level fell 67 points. Lots of carbs, all the time.

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/40424707/ns/today-today_health/t/days-nothing-spuds-leaves-advocate-lbs-lighter/

And item 2: Mark Haub, a professor of human nutrition at Kansas State University. Haub lost "27 pounds in 10 weeks subsisting almost exclusively on Twinkies, Doritos, Oreos and other treats by ensuring that he consumed fewer calories than he burned."

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/dec/06/health/la-he-fitness-twinkie-diet-20101206

[Rich]

Rich, despite your belief that with low-carb (or any diet) you can eat as many calories as you want, you can't circumvent thermodynamics. If your BMR is 2500 calories and you eat 3000- even if NONE are carbs- you WILL gain weight. Thermodynamics. Consistent as gravity. Have a read.

In my 20s, I did the Atkins diet for 8 months. All I did was Atkins and weight lift. And I am not talking about the pussified version of the Atkins that exists today. I am talking about eggs, bacon, chicken, meat, fish, cheese. High fat, high protein. And foods like cheese are high calorie. I was eating roughly 3000-3500 calories a day and doing 45 minutes of weights 4-5 times a week. Mostly push/pull.

I was at 17% body fat when I started, weighing 225 lbs. I lost 20 lbs the first two months. I started lifting heavier and heavier. By the time I was done I gained half of the weigh back but I was at 7% body fat and 215 lbs. So what I gained back was muscle. I also drank whey protein after my workouts, which helped quite a bit. I didn't do any cardio.

On another occassion, I did the Atkins with no exercise, same foods, and lost 10 lbs in 2 months, reducing my waistline two sizes. I also know other people who completely changed their bodies doing Atkins-like diets. Phase 1 Atkins which is the ketosis phase.

You can throw all the credentials and articles you want at me, it has worked for me and I have seen it work for others, including my wife who lost 5 lbs in a month doing it.

The problem is her cholesterol shot up after spending her entire life with cholesterol in the 150s, it went over 220. I also dealt with cholesterol issues until I significantly increased my soluble fiber intake. I could have eaten more fish but I like red meat, not a big fan of fish. I also got kidney stones one time. This while drinking copious amounts of water. You know that when you are in the gym you start craving water.

But ketosis works from a fat elimination perspective. It is just not worth all of the risks.

I'm doing MFP now and consistently staying under my calorie goal. I have lost 12 lbs in 2 months. Also started lifting again for toning purposes, but will eventually up the weight. I did have to start taking glucosamine chondroitin, the joints aren't what they used to be.

[dolphins4life]

This morning I had three chocolate chip cookies and two pieces of cake for breakfast

Ugh. 

[EKnight]

In my 20s, I did the Atkins diet for 8 months. All I did was Atkins and weight lift. And I am not talking about the pussified version of the Atkins that exists today. I am talking about eggs, bacon, chicken, meat, fish, cheese. High fat, high protein. And foods like cheese are high calorie. I was eating roughly 3000-3500 calories a day and doing 45 minutes of weights 4-5 times a week. Mostly push/pull.

I was at 17% body fat when I started, weighing 225 lbs. I lost 20 lbs the first two months. I started lifting heavier and heavier. By the time I was done I gained half of the weigh back but I was at 7% body fat and 215 lbs. So what I gained back was muscle. I also drank whey protein after my workouts, which helped quite a bit. I didn't do any cardio.

On another occassion, I did the Atkins with no exercise, same foods, and lost 10 lbs in 2 months, reducing my waistline two sizes. I also know other people who completely changed their bodies doing Atkins-like diets. Phase 1 Atkins which is the ketosis phase.

You can throw all the credentials and articles you want at me, it has worked for me and I have seen it work for others, including my wife who lost 5 lbs in a month doing it.

The problem is her cholesterol shot up after spending her entire life with cholesterol in the 150s, it went over 220. I also dealt with cholesterol issues until I significantly increased my soluble fiber intake. I could have eaten more fish but I like red meat, not a big fan of fish. I also got kidney stones one time. This while drinking copious amounts of water. You know that when you are in the gym you start craving water.

But ketosis works from a fat elimination perspective. It is just not worth all of the risks.

I'm doing MFP now and consistently staying under my calorie goal. I have lost 12 lbs in 2 months. Also started lifting again for toning purposes, but will eventually up the weight. I did have to start taking glucosamine chondroitin, the joints aren't what they used to be.

I'm not saying it won't work. I'm saying it's not optimal. It's not any BETTER. And it doesn't matter what you want to believe, you can NOT eat above your BMR, even with zero carbs and lose fat. Excess calories- irrespective of where they come from- are stored as fat, because the body will eventually break them down into glucose via gluconeogenesis. Your claim that you can eat as many calories as you want and lose fat is scientifically impossible. Again, you can not circumvent the laws of thermodynamics. That's why they are scientific laws. Period.

MFP is a great app. I use it as well. FWIW, though, you can not "tone" a muscle. A muscle can either atrophy or hypertrophy. Tonicity refers to the constant and residual tension on a muscle that is there at all times and isn't something you can change through weight training.

Rich, from reading your posts here you see like a smart and reasonable guy. Don't take my word on it. I challenge you to go to any fitness forum on the web- BB.com; Simplyshredded.com; MuscleandStrength.com- or any other, and make the claim that you can eat as many calories as you want as long as they don't come from carbs and you'll lose weight. See what kind of responses you get.

[Tenshot13]

I just stopped drinking alcohol for the most part and lost 20lbs in 2 months...

[Rich]

I'm not saying it won't work. I'm saying it's not optimal. It's not any BETTER. And it doesn't matter what you want to believe, you can NOT eat above your BMR, even with zero carbs and lose fat. Excess calories- irrespective of where they come from- are stored as fat, because the body will eventually break them down into glucose via gluconeogenesis. Your claim that you can eat as many calories as you want and lose fat is scientifically impossible. Again, you can not circumvent the laws of thermodynamics. That's why they are scientific laws. Period.

MFP is a great app. I use it as well. FWIW, though, you can not "tone" a muscle. A muscle can either atrophy or hypertrophy. Tonicity refers to the constant and residual tension on a muscle that is there at all times and isn't something you can change through weight training.

Rich, from reading your posts here you see like a smart and reasonable guy. Don't take my word on it. I challenge you to go to any fitness forum on the web- BB.com; Simplyshredded.com; MuscleandStrength.com- or any other, and make the claim that you can eat as many calories as you want as long as they don't come from carbs and you'll lose weight. See what kind of responses you get.

Well then I guess me and the circle of people I know that did this are defying the laws of science. It worked for me and I ate a lot while on it. Maybe you get fuller faster and stay fuller longer eating higher protein.

I didn't argue that it was any better, obviously I am trying a new method that is more balanced and still getting good results. And not pissing out rocks in the process is a plus.

I started at 226 lbs, weighed in at 208.8 lbs this morning and I had pork fried rice for dinner... so there ya go.

As far as "toning", all I know is I started lifting again and the results have been immediate.

[Rich]

By the way, I'll take 140 calories of mashed potatoes over 220 calories of potato chips any day. Mashed potatoes fill you up more.

[EKnight]

Well then I guess me and the circle of people I know that did this are defying the laws of science.

I can assure you that you were not. When you cut out carbohydrates- which make up between 50-60% of the average American's total caloric intake- you're cutting out around half of your total caloric consumption. Because carbs are so easy to eat in so many forms, replacing all of those calories with fat and protein and then going above and beyond that is not easy. You lost weight because you had fewer calories, and for no other reason.

You understand what your BMR is right? The amount of calories you need to maintain your current weight. If you eat more than that, it doesn't matter where they come from, you can't lose weight. You have to understand the math at play there, don't you? 2+2 can never and will never =3 when it comes to this. It just can't happen. I'm not shitting you here. Go post that claim on ANY reputable diet or fitness board and prepare for the shit storm you'll receive.

And of course your results (congrats on that, by the way) have been immediate- you're shedding subcutaneous fat to reveal lean body mass. But you're certainly not "toning" muscle.

Food for thought, from one of Dr. Layne Norton (PhD, nutritional science)'s clients:

https://twitter.com/DustinMRhoads/status/574762742302670849

[Rich]

You cut out carbs but you replace it with something else. Mostly cheese, which unless you're eating skim cheese, you're getting a lot of calories for a small quantity of food.

That being said, I will say I found myself less hungry when on a no carb diet. Conversely, I did have cravings and it was easier to crash.

Doing it the way I am doing now, I don't crave anything because I eat whatever I want, I just control the portions with the appropriate information.

[EKnight]

You're missing the point. I'm not sure if you're doing it purposefully or not.

You can not eat more calories than you burn and lose fat. Macronutrient content is immaterial to that.

[EKnight]

This could not be further from the truth.  I never watched caloric intake, didn't exercise, yet shredded pounds.  By making your body burn fat instead of sugar you burn the fat on your body instead off he sugar you eat.  It's simple metabolic science.  If two overweight twins ate the same caloric count but one ate ketogenically,  he would lose the weight faster and with less effort.  There's a reason doctors are starting to prescribe ketosis to morbidly obese patients.  It also can cure diabetics. 

All recent studies show ketosis to be extremely effective at successful weight loss.  Combined with the new science regarding the reversal of decades of "cholesterol=bad", we are realizing pretty much everything we have known about the human diet was wrong.   We have been cutting fat and cholesterol from our diets, yet obesity, heart disease, diabetes, and countless other diet related problems are only getting worse.   The common denominator?  Sugar and processed carbs. 

This is also not correct. Over the past few decades the research shows that obesity levels increasing has nothing to do with diet (calorie consumption and macro content hasn't changed much since 1988- in fact, eating habits have actually improved), and the common denominator is actually decreased activity. Nice try.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24631411

"Average daily caloric intake did not change significantly. BMI and waist circumference trends were associated with physical activity level but not caloric intake. "