[gulex]

While intermittent fasting has long been known to be very healthy, i doubt that it can prevent cancer. Can it help against it? i think so - but whats important to prevent cancer is, i think, to eat very few carbs, because cancer doesn't grow without readily available glucose.

Concerning excercise i do not believe this to be a factor in the general weight gain of the population. Studies (i'll dig them up if you want) show that we aren't actually moving less than hunter gatherers did. In fact, many people living in larger cities where walking is often neccesary moves MORE. The only thing that has significantly changed is our diet. Our ancestors, or most of them, ate a medium/high fat, medium protein and low carb diet. Today the government has convinced everyone to eat cereals, whole grain bread, pasta etc: And these products are the cause of our obesity. Not less excercise.

[Macros]

I beg to differ.

Compare today's world with 100 years ago, hell even 50 years ago.

The shift of manual labour to office and other non manual work has been immense.


Everything is easier now, from travel right through even to cooking, food preparation and storage and cleaning.

everything is becoming more automated and less hands on, less physical effort is required in our day to day lives across the board.

Even our bone mass and strength has decreased significantly in the last few hundred years as our bodies are dealing with less physical loads on a regular basis and so they don't develop, or whatever it is bones do, as much through our lives.

Whilst eating shite and a growing availability to everyone of aforementioned shite, as well as richer diets in general are also factors, to rule out a lack of exercise as a factor in the 'general weight gain of the populaiton' is folly to say the least.

As a whole, on average, sweeping generalisingly, people carry out less physical activity in a week now than they would have in yea oldens days. Couple this with high calorie foods being so easy to make, unwrap, being damn tasty, whatever then you have the bigger picture, but I firmly believe lifestyles have changed significantly in the last 50 years, and its beause stuff is getting easier.

I forget the proper terminology for it, but we're tricking ourselves basically, playing fifa with our mates instead of going out and kicking a ball, eating fastfood that tastes good but is bad for us, etc
sometihng to do with pleasure shortcuts or something

maybe I'll go look it up, but don't hold your breath

[Mrs Savagely Wishy Washy]

gulex, on 20 August 2012 - 10:19 AM, said:

While intermittent fasting has long been known to be very healthy, i doubt that it can prevent cancer. Can it help against it? i think so - but whats important to prevent cancer is, i think, to eat very few carbs, because cancer doesn't grow without readily available glucose.

Concerning excercise i do not believe this to be a factor in the general weight gain of the population. Studies (i'll dig them up if you want) show that we aren't actually moving less than hunter gatherers did. In fact, many people living in larger cities where walking is often neccesary moves MORE. The only thing that has significantly changed is our diet. Our ancestors, or most of them, ate a medium/high fat, medium protein and low carb diet. Today the government has convinced everyone to eat cereals, whole grain bread, pasta etc: And these products are the cause of our obesity. Not less excercise.

Various forms of dietary restriction have been known to extend lifespan and delay onset of age-related diseases, such as Alzeheimers, cardiovascular diseases, and cancer since 1939. It was first shown in rats, since then in all commonly used model organisms, i.e. yeast, fruitfly, roundworm, zebra fish, mice, dogs, spiders, and recently rhesus monkeys.

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/19590001
That insulin signalling is involved in lifespan/healthspan regulation was discovered in the late 70ies, early 80ies in the roundworm C.elegans, has since then also been shown in flies and vertebrates.
It's not only insulin signalling which is important, but also growth hormone and insulin like growth factor signalling. There are dwarf mice which lack the cells that produce growth hormone, they are tiny, longlived and interestingly obese. Also, some of the longlived dwarf mice develop insulin resistance, which means basically diabetes, and they are still longlived.
Furthermore, it has become evident in the last couple of years that some very malignant cancer cell lines in lab conditions can actually use lipids as energy source: http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/20079333, which came as a surprise to many scientists. So the statement that cancer can only use glucose as energysource may no longer hold true in all cases.

As to the question what causes obesity?
In most cases, unless there is some underlying disease, it's the fact that people overeat. If you take in more energy than you use, you put it on as weight, and that is all kinds of food- carbs, fat and protein. How much and how fast they put on weight differs between people, some have more leeway than others. That is down to differences in enzyme activities for example, which are caused by mutations in genes or non-coding areas of our DNA but which don't make a gene non-functional, but change it's efficiency (i.e. SNPs, and the gene-products to be more accurate). Also, if you are an athlete, exercise a lot or have a very physical job you need carbs, at least some. If you are not very physically active, carbs can be reduced.
If you are talking about healthspan, then the combination of foods can make a difference- but it depends on your genetic make-up and interaction with environment too. Also, our bodies are built to last, so if you eat bad food for ten years of your life, it's unlikely you'll feel the difference in the next 10 years and it's not likely going to kill you immediately- because one aspect of being alive is to endure adverse conditions. But bad food could affect your health as you grow older.
Being physically active is another important factor: metabolic rate goes up, more muscles need more energy, so you can either eat more or lose weight. Exercise also generates a general feeling of well-being because it stimulates the feel-good hormones, endorphins.
Another point that plays a role in obesity is the level of education, and that takes me straight to in my opinion most important thing: the social environment. Family, friends, work. So much of how people develop depends on the interaction between the genes and the environment. There are genes, or rather mutated versions of genes (without totally altering or destroying the function of the genes) which have been found to be more prevalent in overweight people than lean people. So there is also a genetic component to weight, but the thing is, if you have a predisposition to overweight, it doesn't mean that you can't do anything against it and it isn't an excuse neither. It depends on the environment you grow up and live (as mentioned previously), it depends on your lifestyle and your choices, how important it is to you to maintain a "healthy" weight, and by that I don't mean skinny, but also slightly overweight is still fine, unless it becomes pathological.

The question why is obesity on the increase can't be answered with a simple answer and it never is just one thing that makes people fat. It's a combination of factors and has to be "treated" like that as well.

This post has been edited by Miss Savage: 20 August 2012 - 12:17 PM

[Leanoric]

With regard to the original posters question about that website, I think its effect will vary greatly depending on who reads it. Some people it might be inspired to lose weight. Some people might be very offended, suffer low self-esteem etc. Most (overweight people) would probably read it, be about equal parts offended and in agreement, then go off and read something else.

I say this as a person who has lost nearly 5 stone in the last 6 months. I have gone from a size XL (sometimes XXL) to an S. UK sizes, if that makes any difference. I have been cycling to and from work (20 minutes each way) for the last 4 years, which had no noticable effect on my weight but may have kept it lower than it might otherwise have been. I have tried to do a little running in the mornings, but this has been sporadic. So how have I lost 5 stone? Pretty much exclusively by changing my diet. I have not starved myself or done anything extreme. So how was it done?

My brothers started Slimming World last year and have been losing weight quite well. I basically have followed what they said, although without actually joining any groups. Some people might prefer the support a group gives them - I didn't need it. In summary, you can eat as much of you like of 'free foods', which include: lean meat, pasta, fruit, vegetables, rice etc. You can have a daily 'healthy extra' of (a piece of) wholemeal bread and milk (preferably skimmed, or some cheese etc). Everything else has 'Syns'. You can eat around 10 Syns per day (or 5-15 depending on your weight and how much you want to lose), and there is a pretty comprehensive list (and website) with Syn values. For things which are just plain bad (crisps, cakes, chocolate etc) it works out at around 1 Syn per 20 calories. For things which contain some free elements (most convenience food you buy, etc) then you look up the Syn value. You cut out extra fat as much as you can (eg. cooking with Fry-Light, which is pretty much fat free, no butter on potatoes, bread etc). And cut down on sugar as much as possible (a can of sugary drink, for instance, is around 6 Syns! Diet drinks are free).

We cook most/all our meals from scratch. There are Slimming World recipe books, but frankly we can cook most recipes from ordinary cookbooks with just a few simple modifications and they are almost all either 'free' or low Syns. I have some milk (or cheese) and bread as a healthy extra. I can eat some of whatever else I like. I don't feel hungry. I have chocolate every day if I feel like it. But I eat a square or two, not a bar or two. Lots of fat free yogurts.

I didn't think I ate particularly unhealthily before. But convenience food is just shockingly bad for you! I have to say that it is very easy to just gradually gain weight without noticing. I wasn't stuffing myself with Big Macs. I wasn't gorging. But over the years, eating 'regular' Western food is just plain unhealthy. A Big Mac - over 20 Syns. A big plate of steak, new potatoes, peas, carrots etc - free. Add some gravy or sauce for a Syn or two. Make your own burger - lean mince with onions and seasoning on a wholemeal bun, a slice of cheese, some lettuce, tomatoes, ketchup - all free! (with the bread and cheese as your daily healthy extras). Really, a lot of it boils down to HOW YOU PREPARE your food, rather than what it is, as well as choosing healthier alternative of the same things. A cooked breakfast? Get some healthy sausages and they are 1 Syn each (rather than anything up to 11 or so, for unhealthy sausages). Bacon with the fat trimmed off - free. Poached eggs - free. Tomatoes - free. Baked beans - free. Hash Browns? No, skip those - unless maybe you make your own and use Fry Light. Yes, I lost 5 stone eating pasta, steak, burgers and cooked breakfasts BUT if I used the wrong ingredients, cooked them in oil etc - I would be piling on the pounds.

I'm not saying this is the one true way to lose weight. But it worked for me. It isn't a diet. It's a change of lifestyle. I would like to exercise more - and it is certainly easier to exercise now I am officially a 'Healthy Weight' - but exercise played very little part in my own personal weight loss. It takes a degree of will power, and you need to make a bit more effort in preparing food (pretty much anything you just shove in the oven or microwave will be bad for you, I'm afraid!) but I have found it pretty easy, really.

Now I have more or less reached my target weight, I can ease off a little - but for me this will probably mean a few more healthy extras - and maybe an extra square or two of chocolate. I will *not* go back to convenience food - that way lies weight gain.

In short, in my opinion fat people aren't entirely to blame for their weight. The way the western world prepares and markets food is just plain bad. Some people just can eat more than others without gaining weight. Some people (probably me) lose weight more easily than others. This isn't a one size fits all thing. But I do believe that if people are willing to try hard enough, that it can be done. I did it, and it wasn't even that hard! Honest!

Sorry if this has turned into an essay. Anway, take this for what it's worth. It worked for me That's all I can say.

Leanoric

[Solidsnape]

Apparently during the great depression of the 30's, the average life expectancy went up, considerably.
I think this is what sparked the research in the first place.
Surely we should be lowering our protein intake and eating less in general as we age, in order to "repair" and "consolidate" our tissues/organ state.
I know this is going slightly off topic, but it really interests me.
Am I seeing this right? If so, why aren't we told about this?
Why is it always, grow grow grow?

[Slow Ben]

Solidsnape said:

1345466281[/url]' post='989154']
Apparently during the great depression of the 30's, the average life expectancy went up, considerably.
I think this is what sparked the research in the first place.
Surely we should be lowering our protein intake and eating less in general as we age, in order to "repair" and "consolidate" our tissues/organ state.
I know this is going slightly off topic, but it really interests me.
Am I seeing this right? If so, why aren't we told about this?
Why is it always, grow grow grow?

2 reasons IMO.

Food is BIG business. And like any big business they do everything they can to make money and debunk or hide anything that threatens that.

Also, when discussing nutrition plans with people, can you imagine the look on most peoples faces when you suggest NOT eating? Skipping a meal? Fasting an entire day? Oh the horror!

I've been practicing intermittent fasting for about 6 months now and it really is fantastic. It's not even that I eat less, I usually eat more. But I eat during a much smaller window in the day. Then usually once every 1 to 2 weeks I'll fast anywhere from 24-48 hours to completely shut down and rest the digestive system. although it is difficult at first, once you get used to it, it really does become easy to not eat for extended periods.

This post has been edited by Slow Ben: 20 August 2012 - 04:09 PM

[Solidsnape]

Slow Ben, on 20 August 2012 - 04:09 PM, said:

Solidsnape said:

1345466281[/url]' post='989154']
Apparently during the great depression of the 30's, the average life expectancy went up, considerably.
I think this is what sparked the research in the first place.
Surely we should be lowering our protein intake and eating less in general as we age, in order to "repair" and "consolidate" our tissues/organ state.
I know this is going slightly off topic, but it really interests me.
Am I seeing this right? If so, why aren't we told about this?
Why is it always, grow grow grow?

2 reasons IMO.

Food is BIG business. And like any big business they do everything they can to make money and debunk or hide anything that threatens that.

Also, when discussing nutrition plans with people, can you imagine the look on most peoples faces when you suggest NOT eating? Skipping a meal? Fasting an entire day? Oh the horror!

I've been practicing intermittent fasting for about 6 months now and it really is fantastic. It's not even that I eat less, I usually eat more. But I eat during a much smaller window in the day. Then usually once every 1 to 2 weeks I'll fast anywhere from 24-48 hours to completely shut down and rest the digestive system. although it is difficult at first, once you get used to it, it really does become easy to not eat for extended periods.

So this shit is true?
Did you read my link?

I hear what your saying, but surely there must be a way of marketing this diet.
I mean, it's like miraculous, and it's not really a restrictive diet either.
The rather clever scientist chap on the show said that the key was IGF1, and it's levels. Lower levels reduce cell growth and encourage cell repair.

Now, obviously I'm a mere working class drone with no real scientific/laboratory background, and so I'd hate to get caught up in the TV moment and look like a tit, but the BBC are generally quite good in this area of documentaries and
I think I'm convinced.

Any scientists got anything to say? .

[gulex]

Miss Savage, on 20 August 2012 - 12:16 PM, said:

gulex, on 20 August 2012 - 10:19 AM, said:

While intermittent fasting has long been known to be very healthy, i doubt that it can prevent cancer. Can it help against it? i think so - but whats important to prevent cancer is, i think, to eat very few carbs, because cancer doesn't grow without readily available glucose.

Concerning excercise i do not believe this to be a factor in the general weight gain of the population. Studies (i'll dig them up if you want) show that we aren't actually moving less than hunter gatherers did. In fact, many people living in larger cities where walking is often neccesary moves MORE. The only thing that has significantly changed is our diet. Our ancestors, or most of them, ate a medium/high fat, medium protein and low carb diet. Today the government has convinced everyone to eat cereals, whole grain bread, pasta etc: And these products are the cause of our obesity. Not less excercise.

Various forms of dietary restriction have been known to extend lifespan and delay onset of age-related diseases, such as Alzeheimers, cardiovascular diseases, and cancer since 1939. It was first shown in rats, since then in all commonly used model organisms, i.e. yeast, fruitfly, roundworm, zebra fish, mice, dogs, spiders, and recently rhesus monkeys.

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/19590001
That insulin signalling is involved in lifespan/healthspan regulation was discovered in the late 70ies, early 80ies in the roundworm C.elegans, has since then also been shown in flies and vertebrates.
It's not only insulin signalling which is important, but also growth hormone and insulin like growth factor signalling. There are dwarf mice which lack the cells that produce growth hormone, they are tiny, longlived and interestingly obese. Also, some of the longlived dwarf mice develop insulin resistance, which means basically diabetes, and they are still longlived.
Furthermore, it has become evident in the last couple of years that some very malignant cancer cell lines in lab conditions can actually use lipids as energy source: http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/20079333, which came as a surprise to many scientists. So the statement that cancer can only use glucose as energysource may no longer hold true in all cases.

As to the question what causes obesity?
In most cases, unless there is some underlying disease, it's the fact that people overeat. If you take in more energy than you use, you put it on as weight, and that is all kinds of food- carbs, fat and protein. How much and how fast they put on weight differs between people, some have more leeway than others. That is down to differences in enzyme activities for example, which are caused by mutations in genes or non-coding areas of our DNA but which don't make a gene non-functional, but change it's efficiency (i.e. SNPs, and the gene-products to be more accurate). Also, if you are an athlete, exercise a lot or have a very physical job you need carbs, at least some. If you are not very physically active, carbs can be reduced.
If you are talking about healthspan, then the combination of foods can make a difference- but it depends on your genetic make-up and interaction with environment too. Also, our bodies are built to last, so if you eat bad food for ten years of your life, it's unlikely you'll feel the difference in the next 10 years and it's not likely going to kill you immediately- because one aspect of being alive is to endure adverse conditions. But bad food could affect your health as you grow older.
Being physically active is another important factor: metabolic rate goes up, more muscles need more energy, so you can either eat more or lose weight. Exercise also generates a general feeling of well-being because it stimulates the feel-good hormones, endorphins.
Another point that plays a role in obesity is the level of education, and that takes me straight to in my opinion most important thing: the social environment. Family, friends, work. So much of how people develop depends on the interaction between the genes and the environment. There are genes, or rather mutated versions of genes (without totally altering or destroying the function of the genes) which have been found to be more prevalent in overweight people than lean people. So there is also a genetic component to weight, but the thing is, if you have a predisposition to overweight, it doesn't mean that you can't do anything against it and it isn't an excuse neither. It depends on the environment you grow up and live (as mentioned previously), it depends on your lifestyle and your choices, how important it is to you to maintain a "healthy" weight, and by that I don't mean skinny, but also slightly overweight is still fine, unless it becomes pathological.

The question why is obesity on the increase can't be answered with a simple answer and it never is just one thing that makes people fat. It's a combination of factors and has to be "treated" like that as well.

Regarding cancer - i am aware that not all (merely most) cancer forms needs glucose to grow - a few doesn't but i chose to sacrifice truth for simplicity in my earlier post.
Regarding why people get fat i still do not believe that overeating makes you fat. Sure, eating x2 your caloric needs will cause a weight gain - but many obese people who starts on a low-carb diet lose weight without eating less, they simply restrict carboydrates. Unfortunatly, the MDA isn't willing to fund research in this since it would contradict their own dietary advice. But the idea that our body is a simplistic energy in/energy out newtonian machine needs to die. It just isn't true. Our body treats calories differently - eating 4000 calories of carbohydrate will make you gain more weight than eating 4000 calories of fat. I'm an example of that. I eat more than i did during my 'standard high carb low fat' diet years than i do now, eating eggs and bacon every morning etc - yet i actually lost weight and i was by no definition fat.
So far this is the only study done specifically to test an isocaloric LCHF diet with a LFHC diet:
http://jama.jamanetw...ticleid=1199154 since there weren't that many participants the data cannot be said to be conclusive - but they suggest a metabolic advantage to low-carb eating ie: You burn more calories by eating fewer carbs than people eating the same amount of calories on a traditional high carb diet.
On the subject of excercise: We do not actually move less than our hunter-gatherer ancestors. While it is true, that hard work will burn more carbohydrates and therefore make long-term health more easily maintained it is not essential for weight loss. Sure, it could potentially help the state of obesity in the population right now - but i dont America going back to rough industrial/agricultural labour like the 1950's to shed a few pounds. Making people eat fewer carbs is more realistic and would have a much more significant effect.
Regarding athletes a higher carb consumption is not neccesarily needed, though often preferred by many athletes, it is perfectly possible to be a low carb athlete. Within endurance athletics it would even be a benefit since they are able to effortlessly burn their own bodyfat when their muscle glucogen is spent as opposed to the high carb crowd that has to either replenish muscle glucogen by eating carbs at some point or experience a 'wall' that can, worst case scenario, sent them into a coma.
In fact, a low-carb athlete just won an ultamarathon: http://www.meandmydi...ff-volek-study/

This post has been edited by gulex: 20 August 2012 - 05:25 PM

[Macros]

Were going to have to disagree on the exercise part then, because in a world with planes, trains and automobiles the simple fact is, average Joe moves under his own steam a hell of a lot less these days.

Regarding the whole fasting intermittently
@ slow Ben

When you say fasting for 24 hours every once in a while, do you mean fasting as in nothing at all but water all day, or fasting in the sense of the link, super low calorie foods and low quantities?

[Coco with marshmallows]

Slow Ben - you on leangains mate?

(for those that don't know, its an intermittent fasting programme for weightlifters, essentially revolving around starving yourself for 16 or so hours per day every day, eating a small meal [circa 3/400 calories] before training then most of your calories [2000+] after training)

[Mrs Savagely Wishy Washy]

gulex, on 20 August 2012 - 05:19 PM, said:

Regarding cancer - i am aware that not all (merely most) cancer forms needs glucose to grow - a few doesn't but i chose to sacrifice truth for simplicity in my earlier post.
I think future research may discover a more complex metabolic pattern in cancer than the Warburg effect, and maybe more than just merely a few that don't need glucose.


Regarding why people get fat i still do not believe that overeating makes you fat.
What kind of answer are you looking for exactly?

Sure, eating x2 your caloric needs will cause a weight gain - but many obese people who starts on a low-carb diet lose weight without eating less, they simply restrict carboydrates. Unfortunatly, the MDA isn't willing to fund research in this since it would contradict their own dietary advice. But the idea that our body is a simplistic energy in/energy out newtonian machine needs to die. It just isn't true.
I agree. As long as there is no malnutrition, the daily caloric intake can be reduced to up to 50%, both carbs and protein, as long as vitamins, minerals, essential fatty acids and essential proteins are covered in the diet. http://www.caloriere...Getting_started

Our body treats calories differently - eating 4000 calories of carbohydrate will make you gain more weight than eating 4000 calories of fat. I'm an example of that. I eat more than i did during my 'standard high carb low fat' diet years than i do now, eating eggs and bacon every morning etc - yet i actually lost weight and i was by no definition fat.
You cannot assume that what you observe on yourself applies to a whole population and conclude that it would be the same for everybody. There are seven billion different metabolisms on this planet. We share characteristic responses to food stuff, but there is also an awful lot of variation between people. You can see that even within families that there are differences in how they react to certain food types.
I always thought that fat gets stored as fat immediately, whereas carbs can also be stored as glucogen, and then fat, no?


So far this is the only study done specifically to test an isocaloric LCHF diet with a LFHC diet:
http://jama.jamanetw...ticleid=1199154 since there weren't that many participants the data cannot be said to be conclusive - but they suggest a metabolic advantage to low-carb eating ie: You burn more calories by eating fewer carbs than people eating the same amount of calories on a traditional high carb diet.
Can't look at that thing at home. However,there are a lot of studies where researchers find such and such doesn't make a difference but there were not enough participants or the duration was not long enough etc. Difficult to make general statements based on research where they can merely discover trends because the conditions weren't ideal.

On the subject of excercise: We do not actually move less than our hunter-gatherer ancestors.
Who are we? I think this statement is another generalisation that is not applicable to a whole population. I am sure obese people move less than our ancestors- simply because carrying the extra weight around becomes more difficult. They may have moved more before they developed the disease.


While it is true, that hard work will burn more carbohydrates and therefore make long-term health more easily maintained it is not essential for weight loss. Sure, it could potentially help the state of obesity in the population right now - but i dont America going back to rough industrial/agricultural labour like the 1950's to shed a few pounds.
After some time, the body gets used to a certain form of exercise and it will no longer require an extra amount of energy for the same task. Hence you stop losing weight when you keep doing the same thing over and over again. A change in the type of physical activity can under certain circumstances elicit a new response in terms of weight loss or increase the energy consumption again.


Making people eat fewer carbs is more realistic and would have a much more significant effect.
Yes, but in my opinion you have to differentiate between types of carbs. Cereals, e.g. quinoa, buckwheat, spelt, barley, corn, and pulses, beans, contain complex carbs, essential nutrients and dietary fibre. The carbs that should be avoided are sugar, sweetened drinks, candy- I am afraid booze is part of the same category.
There are studies in animal nutrition development that show when pig food is supplemented with artificial sweeteners this actually increases the rate at which pigs gain weight and are ready to be slaughtered (lots of money going into that research).
Artificial sweeteners seem to prime the system to absorb more sugar. In humans, there is no direct evidence, but it has been suggested that artificial sweeteners trick the organism into believing that there is sugar in the blood because the sweeteners bind to the same receptor as the real sugar, hence insulin is secreted, the blood glucose level is lowered and this sends out signals to eat and drink to recover the glucose levels.
Additionally, processed foods such as convenience meals (as mentioned above) contain flavour enhancers such as monosodium glutamate which has also been shown to increase appetite and thirst, among other really bad stuff. Additives can mess around with hormones that regulate fasting/feeding periods, the feeling of when you have had enough to eat etc. It is imperative that people are educated about food, how to prepare and cook, and they need to develop the awareness that food can directly affect the well-being, and self awareness about their food choices too.


Regarding athletes a higher carb consumption is not neccesarily needed, though often preferred by many athletes, it is perfectly possible to be a low carb athlete. Within endurance athletics it would even be a benefit since they are able to effortlessly burn their own bodyfat when their muscle glucogen is spent as opposed to the high carb crowd that has to either replenish muscle glucogen by eating carbs at some point or experience a 'wall' that can, worst case scenario, sent them into a coma.
In fact, a low-carb athlete just won an ultamarathon: http://www.meandmydi...ff-volek-study/
Again- I think these are extreme cases and they don't actually reflect how the average population would react to high fat/low carb. Also, these guys decide to change their diet because they are somewhat fanatical about food and their health and being able to run 100 miles. How many normal people do you think would voluntarily subject themselves to this kind of dietary regime? No more socialising with friends, no more beers after work- it's a lonely life to be exremely strict about one's diet.

Also, high fat diets cause an inflammatory response in the gut during digestion, much more so than when complex carbs are digested. Inflammation is never good- can develop into a chronic response.

Obesity is now generally referred to as metabolic syndrome http://en.wikipedia....abolic_syndrome. It is a complex disease and there is no one size fits all answers to the questions what causes it and how can it be treated. If you are lucky enough to find out what works for you through trial and error, you can't extrapolate and expect your experience to be the same for everybody, unfortunately. It would be easy, but it's not the case.


It's a little bit like a vicious cycle in a sense- one thing leads to another. Lets say somebody is under a huge amount of stress. This causes a measurable change in the physiology of this person and often leads to an increased secretion of stress hormones such as corticosteroids. These hormones stimulate the storage of fat among other things. This in turn can be a trigger for metabolic syndrome if circumstances are right- i.e. maybe the diet and lifestyle and genetic make-up predispose that person to the development of metabolic syndrome, so if one hormonal regulatory system gets out of balance that causes other problems and eventually, leads to metabolic syndrome.

This post has been edited by Miss Savage: 20 August 2012 - 10:35 PM

[Slow Ben]

Macros, on 20 August 2012 - 09:37 PM, said:

Regarding the whole fasting intermittently
@ slow Ben

When you say fasting for 24 hours every once in a while, do you mean fasting as in nothing at all but water all day, or fasting in the sense of the link, super low calorie foods and low quantities?

Just water. The longest i've done is 48 hours. Anything more than that and you risk lean muscle loss and your body starts to shift to "starvation mode". Believe it or not, you might be hungry, but you feel fantastic.

Cocoreturns, on 20 August 2012 - 09:43 PM, said:

Slow Ben - you on leangains mate?

(for those that don't know, its an intermittent fasting programme for weightlifters, essentially revolving around starving yourself for 16 or so hours per day every day, eating a small meal [circa 3/400 calories] before training then most of your calories [2000+] after training)

Yeah man, I'm a big fan of doing this. I usually have to change mine up since I either lift really early in the morning or really late at night. In a perfect day (which with work, hardly happens) I get up around 7 and dont eat until around 2 or 3, when i'll snack on nuts, fruits and veggies. Then have my workout around 5 or 6. Then go home and eat 2-3 huge meals in a 3-4 hour period. It also makes it easier for your body to process carbs for muscle gain instead of fat storage. Since right after your workout its easier for your rebuilding muscles grab those proteins instead of being stored as fat (This works especially well if you go VERY low carb for about 10 days before starting this).

[Macros]

Shit, 24 hours of just water? I'm thinking Id be lacking oh the will power front for that.
would it be as effective if I munched on some celery as well as the gallons of water?

[Slow Ben]

Nope. Anytime food goes down there it restarts your digestive system.

No adding flavor to your water either. It causes the brain to recognize it as food.

I know it sounds impossible, but its really doable. Its more mental than physical, your body will adapt to not having food, but your minds saying, its time to eat!!! The trick is to drink a metric shitton of water and keep busy so you dont think about it.

[Macros]

Ok, might try this when i get back to Ireland, how often?

[Slow Ben]

Depends on your activity level. You can do once or twice a week. But if you're really active it can make it difficult. When im trying to lean down i usually do it every Monday (helps flush all the weekend booze out as well) and go till lunch or dinner on Tuesday.

Even if your not weight training, some people like doing the daily fasting as well. Just not eating until about 3, then getting your meals in up until about an hour or two before bed. Basically, you give yourself a 7-8 hour window to eat all your food for the day.

[Macros]

I can see a Monday being a good day to drink oodles of water right enough

my activity is work, but typical Mondays are slow as everyones dying a shooting the shit about the weekend so I think I'll be giving this a go. Cheers SB and other contributors, you're potentially making Macros healthier, I'm fairly sure that was the target for this thread yes?

[gulex]

Quote

You cannot assume that what you observe on yourself applies to a whole population and conclude that it would be the same for everybody. There are seven billion different metabolisms on this planet. We share characteristic responses to food stuff, but there is also an awful lot of variation between people. You can see that even within families that there are differences in how they react to certain food types. <br style="color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 19px; background-color: rgb(24, 24, 24); ">I always thought that fat gets stored as fat immediately, whereas carbs can also be stored as glucogen, and then fat, no?

I don't. This is how it works for everyone who starts a low-carb diet. The mainstream funders of diet studies just dont want to fund studies for it - therefore only a few have been made. That said, almost every single study every done, comparing an atkins/low-carb diet to a high carb diet shows significant more weightloss in the low-carb crowd. Including three metastudies.
The thing about fat versus carbohydrate is this: fat satiates longer and does not cause an insulin response - this means that you wont spike your blood sugar and so wont experience hunger a few hours after eating. You can go 5-6 hours between meals and be fine because your body simply starts breaking your own fat cells down into ketones for energy. If you're not 'fat adapted' and use carbohydrate for fuel, like most modern people, your body will get very hungry once its carb-load has been depleted. Since it is not used to burn fat, it wont (very effectively at least) you'll instead get ravenous and need more carbohydrates to keep going. Another advantage of low-carb is therefore also that you have a more 'direct' interaction with your fat deposits and can burn them easiler.

Quote

I think this statement is another generalisation that is not applicable to a whole population. I am sure obese people move less than our ancestors- simply because carrying the extra weight around becomes more difficult. They may have moved more before they developed the disease.

Do you have a point?

Quote

Yes, but in my opinion you have to differentiate between types of carbs. Cereals, e.g. quinoa, buckwheat, spelt, barley, corn, and pulses, beans, contain complex carbs, essential nutrients and dietary fibre. The carbs that should be avoided are sugar, sweetened drinks, candy- I am afraid booze is part of the same category.<br style="color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 19px; background-color: rgb(24, 24, 24); ">There are studies in animal nutrition development that show when pig food is supplemented with artificial sweeteners this actually increases the rate at which pigs gain weight and are ready to be slaughtered (lots of money going into that research).

My point, in this regard, is evolutionary. Somehow people just forget that evolution also applies to what we are adapted to eat - although they'll readily invoke the concept whenever some far-right christian talks about earth being 6000 years old lol.
The thing is that we did not evolve to eat cereals, beans or any other complex carbohydrate. Two million years of our life as a species preceding agriculture was fueled by eating animals (natural fats and proteins) and the vegetables, nuts and fruits we could scavenge. We didn't start our day with oatmeal. This is a strong indicator that we cannot handle it (unless you dont believe in evolution) why? let me elaborate:
Even complex carboydrates elicits a significant insulin response(due to the high carb content) which is problematic since this long-term can lead to disorders of insulin regulation like diabetes and neurodegenerative diseases and cancer due to the excess amount of available glucose. Proof? well cancer, alzheimers and diabetes rates are through the roof. These diseases were relatively unknown before the rise of modern western civilization. These are diseases of a diet that violates the dietary imperative on which our health was built in the paleolithic. Again, i urge you to watch the Gary Taubes lecture i linked to. He explains this alot better than me. But well - this was the hormonal argument. The biochemical argument is almost as important: There are virtually no nutrition in grains and legumes per calorie compared to vegetables and fruits. They are high in carbs but low in vitamins and minerals compared to vegetables. Also grains and legumes (like cereals, beans, buckwheat etc) contains phytates - an antinutrient that homo sapiens have no enzyme to break down. These antinutrients binds themselves to magnesium, calcium, zinc and iron and prevents us from utilizing them - this is likely the cause of the widespread deficiencies these days.
Regarding artificial sweeternes i completely agree. And we could, as a people in general, probably regain alot of health by 'only' cutting out the simple carbohydrates - since these are the worst of the worst both biochemically and endocrinologically - but the extent is speculative and if we want to virtually exterminate cancer, alzheimers and diabetes we have to get rid of the (whole)grains, beans etc too.

Quote

Again- I think these are extreme cases and they don't actually reflect how the average population would react to high fat/low carb. Also, these guys decide to change their diet because they are somewhat fanatical about food and their health and being able to run 100 miles. How many normal people do you think would voluntarily subject themselves to this kind of dietary regime? No more socialising with friends, no more beers after work- it's a lonely life to be exremely strict about one's diet.

Extreme? how so? only 10-12 thousand years ago every human being on the planet lived on this 'extreme' diet. There is nothing extreme about it. That is purely dogma speaking. Also the socialising bit is simply wrong - the 'movement' is gaining incredible momentum in Sweden as LCHF where it is THE diet. In the US it is known as Paleo which is also very popular and on the rise. All these people are fitting in their diet with their social life nicely we must presume - also, speaking from personal experience i see no 'socializing' problems. My friend group prefers cannabis to beers anyway - so thats luckily not even a problem for me.

[Solidsnape]

Funny, but I've come to think of my Coeliacs disease as a kind of sign of what you just said.
I bet wheat, gluten, soya and lactose intolerance wasn't very common pre-civilisation.
Does that mean it will get more common and we're ultimately heading towards a future where all of us will be unable to consume these things like Gluten and lactose?
Are the main food groups of antiquity to become obsolete?

Bring on the Rice!!!!!

[LadyMTL]

Solidsnape, on 21 August 2012 - 01:30 PM, said:

Funny, but I've come to think of my Coeliacs disease as a kind of sign of what you just said.
I bet wheat, gluten, soya and lactose intolerance wasn't very common pre-civilisation.
Does that mean it will get more common and we're ultimately heading towards a future where all of us will be unable to consume these things like Gluten and lactose?
Are the main food groups of antiquity to become obsolete?

Bring on the Rice!!!!!

Not to sound snarky - because I also tend to think that food allergies are on the rise, though maybe not as prevalent as we'd think - but how do we know that people in pre-industrial times didn't have lactose / wheat / gluten allergies? Medical science wasn't exactly cutting-edge back then, what's to say that Mr. X's gastric troubles weren't actually caused by Coeliac's disease and not just a random illness? Coeliac's (which isn't a food allergy but an autoimmune disorder) was only properly identified at the end of the 19th century, after all, and humans have been consuming grains since the dawn of time, pretty much. I tend to think that allergies of this type have always been around, it's just that we hear about them more frequently these days so we think they're more common.

Anyway! Random aside over, I wanted to add that I checked out that site and I found it really sad. Fat shaming is nothing new but I fail to see how a site like that could motivate anyone to lose weight; to me it came off as hurtful and insulting more than anything else. Full disclosure - I've never been overweight but my parents are and my mother especially gets upset / angry when she feels like she's been targeted or made fun of. She doesn't have a thyroid condition and she doesn't overeat, her issue is that she's not active enough and she's getting older (late 60's) so losing weight is harder. She is consciously and actively trying to slim down, mostly for health reasons, and I'd be willing to bet that a site like that wouldn't help her one bit.

This post has been edited by Maia Irraz: 21 August 2012 - 01:51 PM