all posts post new thread

Nutrition The Calorie (long article)

Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
Reading about insulin as the culprit used to be entertaining, now it's plain boring.

Meat Insulin Spike

The beef burger without the bun caused more than double the insulin spike of the apple, oatmeal, and pasta...The villains here are processed and chemically derived sugars, table sugar and high-fructose corn syrup, and food that contains them, and not fruits, vegetables, and whole grains. The graph in the video shows meat increases insulin release as much as pure sugar, pure sugar also causes more than twice the insulin release than the apple, oatmeal, and white flour pasta.

Insulin responds to ingestion of everything but fat.

I'm still in the "calories in/calories out" camp, with added caveat that without exercise the human body doesn't function properly no matter what you eat.
 
The protein/insulin thing depends a lot on who you study. As a general trend, people with more metabolic damage tend to release more insulin in response to protein, as well as convert more protein to glucose. Much less so with healthy individuals. If anything, I think this is just another indicator that people can benefit from a certain degree of individualization when trying to improve their health.
 
Sugar is one of the most addictive substances there is. The constant rise and fall on blood sugar diver hunger for a variety of reasons
A PBS Special went into how when mice were give a choice between sugar and cocaine, they chose sugar.
Sugar (glucose) drive food addiction, which drive obesity; especially with Insulin Resistant individuals.

It's a wonder I'm not in rehab.

Tom Sanders, emeritus professor of nutrition and dietetics at King’s College London said that it was “absurd to suggest that sugar is addictive like hard drugs.”

“While it is true that a liking for sweet things can be habit-forming it is not addictive like opiates or cocaine,” said Sanders. “Individuals do not get withdrawal symptoms when they cut sugar intake.”

(from the Guardian, make your mind up if this is fake news, clickbait sensationalism or balance. Never know these days.)

No, Sugar Isn’t the New Heroin - Behavioral Scientist

"So why do I care? As a health psychologist, I often see people choose unnecessary and unpleasant diets based on unsubstantiated claims. Sweeping statements that vilify entire food groups (or specific foods) lead to eating rules that can backfire into overeating the forbidden foods or can become unhealthy obsessions, occupying valuable mental space and leading to self-shaming and other miseries.
There’s nothing wrong with including sugar in your sensible ‘everything in moderation’ eating plan. But I’d avoid the heroin."

thank you
 
Tom Sanders, emeritus professor of nutrition and dietetics at King’s College London said that it was “absurd to suggest that sugar is addictive like hard drugs.”

I find it hard to believe, as well.

However, ...

Intense Sweetness Surpasses Cocaine Reward



Kenny Croxdale
 
Last edited:
IDK about rats, but the Yale food addiction scale (for humans) put pizza at the top of the list - not much refined sugar in pizza...


These data demonstrate that extended but not restricted access to a palatable high-fat diet induces addiction-like reward deficits, overeating and loss of homeostatic energy balance.
Addiction-like reward dysfunction and compulsive eating in obese rats: Role for dopamine D2 receptors

In 1996 Americans ate 2 ½ times as much cheese as they did in 1970! Cheese consumption for the average American jumped 143% from 11 lbs to 28 lbs per year.

For 2017 the per capita average is nearly 40lbs.

Sugar consumption in the absence of an increase in fat intake does not lead to obesity. It is very difficult to gain weight on a high carb/low fat diet.

Added%2Bfat%2Bvs.%2Bobesity.jpg


H9vsLBw.jpg





Trends in Dietary Fat and Macronutrient Intake in Normal Weight, Overweight, and Obese Participants


As in the main analysis (Table 2), the percent of energy consumed as fat and protein increased over time in all BMI categories (p-trend<0.01), while the percent of energy from carbohydrate decreased (p-trend<0.01).

Trends in Dietary Fat Intake and High-Fat Foods from 1991-2008 in the Framingham Heart Study participants
 
Last edited:
It’s worth trying to go a week without sugar to determine whether it’s addictive. If anything, it illustrates how incredibly difficult it is to find ANYTHING in America that doesn’t have a bit of sugar in it.

For gaining weight on a high carb / low fat diet being difficult, I’d qualify it as a high carb from natural vegetables (low calorie volume eating). It’s quite easy to gain weight by eating several loaves of bread each day. I guess that goes back to the calorie baseline again though....

Regarding hormonal effects of dietary fat....I’ve read anecdotes about how a donut is basically fat and sugar. The thought is any time sugar and fat are combined (this could be a sweet bbq sauce on fatty steak) it has the same effect as a donut.

And be careful using BMI as any sort of scientific indicator of anything helpful regarding dietary effects on the body. It’s a height weight ratio, not a body fat percentage. In the military, I had several bodybuilder type Marines that were classified as “overiweght or fat” yet were clearly below 10% body fat.
 
For gaining weight on a high carb / low fat diet being difficult, I’d qualify it as a high carb from natural vegetables (low calorie volume eating). It’s quite easy to gain weight by eating several loaves of bread each day. I guess that goes back to the calorie baseline again though....

Regarding hormonal effects of dietary fat....I’ve read anecdotes about how a donut is basically fat and sugar. The thought is any time sugar and fat are combined (this could be a sweet bbq sauce on fatty steak) it has the same effect as a donut.

You'd have to eat about 10 to a dozen bagels per day to hit 2400 calories from bread - pretty sure you'd be losing weight fast on any bread and water diet even if you had all you could eat.

I agree re sugar, is tough to find any even marginally processed foods that don't have sugar and fat added. Realistically though, as long as you keep the fat to a minimum, you aren't going to be converting much of it to triglycerides/fat. It is the combination of the two that causes the most trouble (give me a bottle of olive oil and some cream cheese to go with those bagels and you have a different story), but what do you expect when you take in more calories than you burn - it doesn't matter what they are.

So yes, it comes back to calorie baseline more or less, everything else is mostly preference and tolerance.

And again, yes BMI can be misleading - I had an old-school doc from Germany when I was into bodybuilding, he was always telling me (from behind his notes) to cut 20 lbs and marry my GF - "You're still with the same girl, what are you waiting for Mr Miller?"
 
This thread is really pushing my buttons and I can sit on my hands no longer.

So if :
a) you can't outfox thermodynamics and
b) the calorie in vs calorie out religion does not seem to have had a positive impact (at a population level)

then what are we left with?

Law 2a of thermodynamics? Obesity, like entropy, will continue to increase over time?

My own thoughts. There is some interesting stuff in the original article:

'Camacho survived but, traumatised, he sank into depression. Soon he was drinking heavily and binge eating. His weight ballooned from a trim 70kg to 103kg.'

It's time to recognise obesity as an illness, as you would anxiety, depression, addiction, not as some kind of moral defect. Sure the guy has eaten poorly - but how much of that was conscious choice and control? More importantly - how does he correct it?

This is from the diet phase of Camacho's life

“I was always tired and hungry and I would get really moody and distracted,” he says. “I was thinking about food all the time.” He was constantly told that if he got the maths right – consuming fewer calories than he burned each day – the results would soon show. “I really did everything you are supposed to do,” he insists with the tone of a schoolboy who completed his homework yet still failed a big test. He bought a battery of exercise monitoring devices to measure how many calories he was expending on his runs. “I was told to exercise for at least 45 minutes at least four or five times a week. I actually ran for more than an hour every day.” He kept to low-fat, low-calorie food for three years. It simply didn’t work. At one point he lost about 10kg but his weight rebounded, though he still restricted his calories.

3 years. 3 years......So - as an analogy, who would stick with S&S - which only takes 30 minutes a day - for 3 years if you never made any progress and moved up to the next bell? And dieting does not require 30 minutes a day - it requires mental discipline for 16-18 hours a day.

Dieters the world over will be familiar with Camacho’s frustrations. Most studies show that more than 80% of people regain any lost weight in the long term. And like him, when we fail, most of us assume that we are too lazy or greedy – that we are at fault.

80% is not an acceptable failure rate. So if you tell me that calories in/out + 'willpower' is the solution then I would reply that your solution has repeatedly and demonstrably failed to deliver and you need to go back to the drawing board.
 
80% is not an acceptable failure rate. So if you tell me that calories in/out + 'willpower' is the solution then I would reply that your solution has repeatedly and demonstrably failed to deliver and you need to go back to the drawing board.

I would agree with you overall, in the context of most Western societies.

If you look at what finally worked for him, it was diet and resistance training. He swapped out treadmill for Crossfit. Whole foods for processed meal replacements.

LSD work by itself for losing weight simply does not pan out for many, neither does dieting by itself. Calories in/out + 'willpower' + real exercise is the best possible answer. And then those calories should be as much from whole foods as possible. Just look at how folks eat and live who do not struggle with their weight.

I would also say that most people simply do not take the time to develop an understanding of how many calories and of what rough proportion are the macros in the foods they're eating. Strange but true, if you asked the average person to estimate the calories in a slice of pizza or a sandwich in their hand, they won't be close, nor will they be able to tell you the rough macro breakdown, especially of processed foods. That is the beauty of eating mostly whole foods - it becomes comparatively easy to estimate calories and macros for any given meal.

I eat cookies, bread, pasta, drink milkshakes, beers, sweetened soymilk and skim dairy milk loaded with whey isolate and added carb calories. I have a pretty good idea how many calories are in the foods I eat because I read the label for pretty much everything. I should be bouncing between extremes of fatigue and sugar high, should be unable to moderate my body comp for all kinds of reasons according to this article.

And yet when I notice my jeans are getting snug or a little too much skinfold is hanging over the waist of my sweatpants, I have a rock-solid coping strategy...eat less. Don't put butter on my vege or rice, don't put big dollops of pesto sauce or extra parmesan on my pasta and put a smaller serving on my plate to begin with, don't eat that cookie after dinner, eat fruit or raw veg for snacks instead of ones that come out of wrappers or packages, regard added fats and refined sugars as the condiments they are and use less of them.

And it works, every time. My pants become more roomy, definition around my abs returns, every time. It is only when my desire to make changes and willingness to occasionally feel a little hungry is not greater than dietary inertia or just not giving a hang does it continue to slide.

As @ LukeV pointed out we already know what works 100% - starving people are universally not overweight, but then they have had the willpower component forcibly eliminated from the program. Change the relationship to food, stop eating for pleasure, prioritize nutrition instead of flavor. Most people have no idea what this means unless they have deliberately attempted it, or had to maintain good health with very little money.
 
Just look at how folks eat and live who do not struggle with their weight.

People often comment on the amounts of food I can shovel down that it is somehow unfair or something.
I usually say I have high energy demands because I'm very active as I have been most of my life and they say something along the lines that if they ate the amounts that I eat they'd be fat. And they are.
Somewhere over the rainbow.....
 
The problem with weight loss studies, and it is a really big problem, is that they don't last long enough to be useful. Lots of dieters (maybe majority) regain weight after five years of the initial intervention. Lots of patients regain weight five years after bariatric surgery (less after bypass than sleeve or band). This simply demonstrates the difficulty of fighting physiology, the tendency of the human body to grab every available nutrient and store it.

I've seen people lose weight with all kinds of approaches. However, lots of them are back at the same weight or higher three to five years later.

Sure, 80% relapse is not flattering and sure, something needs to be changed. What exactly... a million dollar question.
 
I also wish people stopped using the term "empty calories". If they are empty, how come they make you fat?

Calories come from three things: carbohydrate, protein and fat. Each of these can be a friend or a foe, weight wise.

Also, mice experiments are not useful for humans. You can't make conclusions about the addictiveness of sugar based on this, just like you cannot propose sugar as the treatment modality for cocaine addiction.
 
Food addicts are in a really screwed up situation. On one hand, they are inundated with the messages of healthy eating. But then the same evening at home they will be bombarded by adverts of delicious food. And I am not talking about fast food, but delicious sauces, marinades, snacks, chocolates and so on. Imagine a drug rehab where recovering addicts are offered specials on heroine and meth...
 
Lots of dieters (maybe majority) regain weight after five years of the initial intervention. Lots of patients regain weight five years after bariatric surgery (less after bypass than sleeve or band).

Regaining The Weight

Yes, the majority of individual regain the weight, sometime more.

With the majority, do so because it takes work and they lack the motivation to do what it takes.

To reiterate, "Successful individual are willing to do what other won't".

Bariatric Surgery

If someone just has the surgery, they learn nothing and go back to their old ways.

Many physicians now mandate that Bariatric Candidates attend some type of eating modification class as well as work with a nutritionist.

Sure, 80% relapse is..., something needs to be changed. What exactly... a million dollar question.

Motivation

The key factor is motivation. Unfortunately, many individual don't have the DNA Motivation in their genes.

With that said, most overweight individual's genetics make it harder for them. Some may have a thyroid issue, etc.

Kenny Croxdale
 
mice experiments are not useful for humans

The Reason For Mice

1) You have complete control over their environment; what they eat.

That pretty much impossible with humans. The cost of locking them up and feeding them is enormous. Plus, people aren't going to let you do that with them.

2) Under Reporting: People who are put on a diet plan, under report what they eat; that a fact. Thus, any research based on it is garbage.

Kenny Croxdale
 
Food addicts are in a really screwed up situation. On one hand, they are inundated with the messages of healthy eating. But then the same evening at home they will be bombarded by adverts of delicious food. And I am not talking about fast food, but delicious sauces, marinades, snacks, chocolates and so on.

Interesting Point

For some reason, watching TV makes most individual want to eat as they watch. Same with going to a movie, concert, etc.

One of the Exercise Physiologist who did a presentation at one of my Albuquerque Strength Clinics, one year, presented data on that.

One of his data points involved Papa John's Pizza. Papa John marketing department determined a dramatic increase in sale when they advertised on TV during NFL games on Sunday. It was the same with beer companies.

Last night, after eating a fairly good size meal, I watched TV. I wasn't really hungry. However, I did get some snacks to munch on while I watched. At least I made some fairly good choices.

Kenny Croxdale
 
Last edited:
There is a good book by Johan Hari, Lost Connections, about the causes of depression. is earlier book was about drug addiction. While there is a chemical component to the phenomenon, the main reason for addiction is some sort of pain an individual is trying to blunt with drugs. I think eating addiction is similar and is underlined by a depression. With the modern media everything seems to be designed to demonstrate to you that you are not worthy enough and don't have enough money. Someone else is driving Porsche, lives in that three storey house on the beach, charters a private plane for holiday and spends his holiday in $3000 per night hotel. The plague of a highly differentiated society.

Plus myriads other factors. Lack of sleep, lack of time to cook and exercise, psychological traps that lead to overeating (you will finish the extra-mega-large popcorn which only costs 20 cents more than the smallest one) and lack of will, which is expended during the day on many other tasks. And, of course, the most important factor of them all, which we don't really understand, socio-economic class.
 
Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
Back
Top Bottom