# Paleo/Primal/Ancestral/Low-Carb Dietary Lifestyles



## Weregrognard (Oct 3, 2012)

Any other gamers here into this health lifestyle?  I have to say, I've experienced some very good results with this.  I dropped clothing sizes, look leaner, and feel healthier.  I only wish I had discovered this stuff earlier in life, not that I'm old or anything, but I want to keep gaming happily and healthily well into my twilight years.

If you dig this stuff, tell me of your experiences.

I get sad to think that some of our hobby's pioneers could still be with us if they had known about and followed this lifestyle.  My own father is now experiencing complications from diabetes and other lifestyle-related illnesses, and I'm sad I can't convince him to change his ways 

I know we gamers get a bad rep on the health and fitness side of things, our hobby being of the more sedentary kind, and I'm not trying to offend here, but if your health and fitness concerns you, I heartily recommend books like Robb Wolf's [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Paleo-Solution-Original-Human-Diet/dp/0982565844"]_The Paleo Solution_, [/ame]or Mark Sisson's [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Primal-Blueprint-Reprogram-effortless-boundless/dp/0982207786/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1349282679&sr=1-1&keywords=primal+blueprint"]_Primal Blueprint_[/ame], and the author's respective blogs:

Mark's Daily Apple  (there's a *free* set of guidelines here)
Robb Wolf's blog

Bonus:
Nerd Fitness (I wish I had come up with the idea for this one!)


----------



## Morrus (Oct 3, 2012)

Not heard of it.  How does it differ from a thousand other low-carb diets?


----------



## Umbran (Oct 3, 2012)

Androlphas said:


> I get sad to think that some of our hobby's pioneers could still be with us if they had known about and followed this lifestyle.




My opinion:

There is a big, big, big question here.  Are you and others seeing results because you are on *this* particular plan, or because you're on *a* plan?  I suggest it is more the latter.

Virtually anyone who goes on any type of dietary plan will see results, as long as they stick to the plan.  The issue here isn't whether it is low-carb, or paleo, or superfoods, or Weight Watchers, or whatever, but that it is a plan, and it has you observing and paying attention to what you eat.  Following a plan gets better results than acting at random.  Duh!

The danger isn't in failing to eat paleo, but in failing to watch what you eat, in general.


----------



## Morrus (Oct 3, 2012)

Umbran said:


> My opinion:
> 
> There is a big, big, big question here. Are you and others seeing results because you are on *this* particular plan, or because you're on *a* plan? I suggest it is more the latter.
> 
> ...




I'm largely of the opinion that all of these plans in their own way pretty much reduce calories. Some have small percentage advantages over others, but not enough that any normal person cognizant of confirmation bias will notice; the hi-tech science stuff in these diets only really matters to Olympic athletes and the like where tiny differences are important. To everyone else, they're all much of a muchness.

There's no magic diet. There just isn't (well, there's one every year - or one that claims to be). It all boils down to the same thing: eat less, exercise more, and if one of those thousands of plans indirectly accomplishes that for you then great. Don't worry about types of fat and types of carbs and glycemic indexes and all that stuff unless you're literally an Olympic athlete within 1% of your required physical condition, in which case it'll matter.

Calories in - calories out.  It's just basic mathematics and the laws of thermodynamics.  All the rest is just fluff to sell you books.


----------



## RangerWickett (Oct 3, 2012)

So should D&D characters lose levels over time? I mean, they kill monsters and absorb their calories (XP), and likely have to expend calories to kill more monsters, but as long as they consume regularly enough they'll get ahead. But if they grow idle, they'll burn off calories.

Maybe more D&D characters should just be fat. 

Sorry, it's the end of my work day and my brain is too tired to make sense.


----------



## Weregrognard (Oct 3, 2012)

Morrus said:


> Not heard of it.  How does it differ from a thousand other low-carb diets?




Not much, to be honest.  Individual diet plans differ on the details, but the overall movement has a few things in common:

- Favoring "real" foods over processed stuff.  Basically, eating the kinds of foods our ancestors could get in the wild during our hunter/gatherer days: animal products (preferably, free-roaming and grass-fed), fruits, nuts, and vegetables (esp. leafy greens and tubers).

- Avoiding wheat and other grain products, soy, and processed sugar, as they all have deleterious effects on the body and its metabolism.

- Avoiding processed fats (vegetable/canola oil, trans fats) in favor of fat from animals and/or other naturally-obtainable sources, like olive or coconut oil.

As for exercise, most recommend intensity (lifting heavy things, and sprinting a couple of times a week) over volume (running on a treadmill every day).  Mind you, this is for overall fitness.  More athletic types will have different, individual needs.

As you can see, some of it is pretty controversial if you go by what authorities tell you should do for health (eat low-fat products and whole-grain wheat, avoid fat, jog every day, etc.).  Of course,  I don't expect you to take my word for it.  Check it out for yourself.   Mark Sisson even has all his info on his blog for free, so you don't really even need the book, or any other purchase.

Guys, while I don't want to start an Edition War of Diets here, and you're right that there are no magic diets, suffice it to say I respectfully disagree with the both of you on several points, "calories-in-calories-out" being one of them.  What you eat is far more important than how many "points" it's worth.  I know it's hard to get out of that mentality for us gamers   Seriously though, the thermodynamic explanation for weight gain/loss falls short when you're talking about a complex biological system like the human body.

Umbran, I understand what you are saying about diet plans, and there's a level of "who is right?" fatigue here.  Dr. Peter Attia has an amusing blog post about why diets like Weight Watchers work when they do (hint: it's not what they're eating, but what they're *not *eating).    It's a sad fact that commercial, medical, and political forces have (deliberately or not) muddied the informational waters on what is healthy and isn't*.  The good thing is that you can learn about this stuff for yourself and see what works.  

Anyway, I started this thread for those of us who are into this lifestyle and as a "public service" for my fellow gamers.  As for those who are curious, and (rightfully) question this lifestyle's validity, I cannot stress enough to look this stuff up, learn, and decide (even *gasp* try it out).


* _The Men Who Made Us Fat_ and _Fat Head_ documentaries are pretty good if you want to know more.


----------



## Quickleaf (Oct 4, 2012)

Morrus said:


> Calories in - calories out.  It's just basic mathematics and the laws of thermodynamics.  All the rest is just fluff to sell you books.



While I agree with you that there no magic diet, I'm going to make the bold claim that this mentality is a prime example of tragically misapplied nutritional science. Not picking on you [MENTION=1]Morrus[/MENTION] 

Thermodynamics says nothing about causality. In other words, it's easy to blame fat people for their overeating and sedentary lifestyle (gluttony and sloth) as the cause of their condition, when its equally possible that the gaining of mass in the form of fat is what's causing them to eat more and conserve energy. The question in that case would be "well what's causing them to get fat then?" Which is an *excellent* starting place for a real inquiry.

There's a whole body of research out there that gets deeply into this notion, though as a lay person myself I've relied on Gary Taubes' *Good Calories, Bad Calories* (the heavily footnoted TOME of research) and *Why We Get Fat* (the digest version, sources but no footnotes). Gary Taubes ? Author of Why We Get Fat and Good Calories, Bad Calories. He is a medical researcher, writes for Science, received 3 Science in Society Journalism Awards, and is a Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Investigator in Health Policy Research at UC Berkeley's School of Public Health. IOW he's not a "diet guru" and he's not trying to sell you anything...well, besides his book (but I'm not yet cynical enough to discount any altruism of all authors everywhere).


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 4, 2012)

> Anyway, I started this thread for those of us who are into this lifestyle and as a "public service" for my fellow gamers. As for those who are curious, and (rightfully) question this lifestyle's validity, I cannot stress enough to look this stuff up, learn, and decide (even *gasp* try it out).




Personally, I consider myself "Fry Curious"...

I'm a fat dude who cooks.  I grew up in a medical family, so seeing dieticians was, essentially, free for most of my life.

General consensus: as long as your diet has all the right nutrients, it really is calories in, calories out.  There's some new research coming up showing that types of calories do matter, but the jury is still out as to how much they matter.

(My personal diet?  Wildly varied, quite complete, few red flags.  My issue is mainly one of portion control.)


----------



## Umbran (Oct 4, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> General consensus: as long as your diet has all the right nutrients, it really is calories in, calories out.  There's some new research coming up showing that types of calories do matter, but the jury is still out as to how much they matter.




In physics, we have a useful notion: "to first approximation".  

For example, Newton's Laws are correct, to first approximation.  Einstein gives us corrections, but, for most folks, in most normal situations, Newton is good enough.

I would say that,with all the dietary study done to date, that we haven't already clearly and unequivocally identified certain foods as "evil", that the same holds here - to first approximation, you can treat it as calories in, calories out.  This is where the low hanging fruit of improvement lies - you'll get major results following this principle, and it is the simplest.

Mind you, there is a psychological effect in which having a "trick", or piece of secret knowledge, makes a scheme seem more valid.  The logic goes that, since so many people are overweight, it *must* be that the real issue is something complicated or hidden from normal view, or we'd have solved the problem.  It couldn't be that we snack on high-calorie foods too much, and don't get as much exercise as our bodies are designed to have - that's too simple!



> (My personal diet?  Wildly varied, quite complete, few red flags.  My issue is mainly one of portion control.)




Portion control, and, for many, not really realizing how many calories some foods have (sugared sodas, I'm looking at you!), and how much you actually need for a given level of activity.


----------



## Morrus (Oct 4, 2012)

Quickleaf said:


> While I agree with you that there no magic diet, I'm going to make the bold claim that this mentality is a prime example of tragically misapplied nutritional science.




That's bold indeed. Nutritionists across the planet would be excited to discuss with you this notion of calories being "tragically misapplied nutritional science". 
I'd be amazed if even the authors of these books make that claim about the notion of calorie intake and expenditure.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 4, 2012)

> For example, Newton's Laws are correct, to first approximation. Einstein gives us correction.




Yep.

From what I understand, the new research is suggesting something along the lines of "fat calories in food are more likely to be converted to body fat than other kinds of cells if and only if the body is in a metabolic state in which it is seeking to create fat."  And this is so because it is more efficient to do so.

Also, of course, calories from certain simple sugars are going to be used more efficiently than others because they are already in a state that the body can use for fuel without processing.


----------



## Storminator (Oct 4, 2012)

I started low carb diet on September 1st. So far, I've lost 15 pounds, and today was the first day I've actually been hungry on the diet. I was very surprised to feel hungry, then I noticed it was 1:30 and I usually have lunch at noon. 

I'm pretty sure I haven't reduced calories very significantly, and certainly not as much as when I did actual calorie restriction diets. And I certainly feel vastly better.

That said, there's a proselytizing effect a successful diet has that can be a bit annoying. 

PS


----------



## Storminator (Oct 4, 2012)

Morrus said:


> That's bold indeed. Nutritionists across the planet would be excited to discuss with you this notion of calories being "tragically misapplied nutritional science".
> I'd be amazed if even the authors of these books make that claim about the notion of calorie intake and expenditure.




Actually, Taubes, mentioned above devotes chapters of his book to it.

PS


----------



## Weregrognard (Oct 4, 2012)

Man!  I should have just started a thread about D&D editions 

Umbran, I don't know if you're playing Devil's Advocate, or concerned skeptic, but I admit I am not prepared to intelligently debate my dietary choices here, nor is it what I set out to do in this thread.  I’m already at a disadvantage because the current paradigm on obesity and health puts the burden of proof on me, but nobody questions mainstream hypotheses, even if they are flawed.  If you need more details, feel free to research all this, but I warn you that you'll see "just how deep the rabbit hole goes..."  

The science (and paradigm) IS changing, but it will take a long time.  See things the Ancestral Health Symposium recently at Harvard.  It's maddening to see new studies in the mainstream that dance around potential answers, but ultimately come to flawed conclusions based on the same flawed hypotheses.  Political and market forces that seek to maintain the status quo (food industry, Big Pharma, Big Agra, etc.) are major hurdles to this.  No tin-foil conspiracy here, just capitalism.

And no, calorie restriction is not the simplest way to lose weight.  "Eat less, move more" is only simple for those whose metabolisms are self-regulated due to either lifetime healthy habits, or more likely, winning the genetic lottery.  Ask anyone who's tried depriving themselves of food when hungry, that is what "calories-in-calories-out" is - starvation.  Remember, anorexics and bulimics lose weight too, but would you consider them healthy?  When you're eating mostly carbohydrate from (whole) grains and sugar (even from otherwise healthy fruit), and skimp on animal protein and fat (because it's eevil, and Jillian Michaels would be angry with you), you never reach any form of real satiety (or balanced nutrition, for that matter), thus feeling hungry every 2-3 hours.  Eventually, your will breaks and you wake up from a food coma with several pizza boxes and marinara sauce on your face 

You know what is simple?  Being able to go to work with just a cup of coffee in the morning and not being actually hungry until lunch time because you're successfully regulating your own metabolism.  Then, being able to go to _parkour _or martial arts lessons in the afternoon without a sugar-laden, healthy "energy” bar because your body is working on its own fat stores (as opposed to sugar).  Being able to eat delicious, _eevil _food afterwards (tell me a rack of ribs and sweet potatoes slathered in real butter aren’t deliciously _eevil_), and not only NOT gain weight, but have to go to the store that weekend to get new work clothes because you’re starting to look like a kid wearing his dad’s clothes.

That's what's happening to me.  Now, in the interest of full disclosure, I've never been obese, but definitely overweight off and on since just after  high school, even when I was in the military.  This isn't the first time I've tried losing weight but it's the first time I seem to be losing it consistently, seemingly without effort (or feeling deprived), and in a healthy way (more on that after blood work from my recent physical comes back).  I've been doing this for (give or take) a year.

This isn't "secret knowledge".  There's nothing secret about eating the kinds of foods we would eat in the wild (as animal species ourselves) instead of manufactured foods, which have quantifiable negative effects on our bodies.

I honestly think that quite a few decades from now, hopefully within my lifetime, we'll be seeing things like "calories-in-calories-out", low-fat, whole-grain foods, MyPlate, and other such so-called “healthy” recommendations go the way of old ads with 3/5 doctors recommending Winston cigarettes for health.


----------



## Weregrognard (Oct 4, 2012)

Storminator said:


> That said, there's a proselytizing effect a successful diet has that can be a bit annoying.




*Sigh* yeah.  Sorry 

Not bad for a 300th post, though


----------



## Quickleaf (Oct 4, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Yep.
> 
> From what I understand, the new research is suggesting something along the lines of "fat calories in food are more likely to be converted to body fat than other kinds of cells if and only if the body is in a metabolic state in which it is seeking to create fat."  And this is so because it is more efficient to do so.
> 
> Also, of course, calories from certain simple sugars are going to be used more efficiently than others because they are already in a state that the body can use for fuel without processing.



That's a pretty good summation of the research so far. I learned that the author recently co-founded a non-profit to do some more meaty research, so it'll be interesting once that gets going.

Oh and "fry curious"!! I'd +1 you if I hadn't done so too recently 



Storminator said:


> Actually, Taubes, mentioned above devotes chapters of his book to it.
> 
> PS



There's quite a bit of history involved, but the short version is WWII took a great toll on the European scientific community (where Taubes' argument proto-originated), and at the same time a moralistic streak (I guess you could call it) in a few American doctors was followed by the exercise industry boom. Since then it's basically become accepted wisdom...something like the court cases upholding the rights of corporations as individuals which rely on precedent which rely on precedent, going all the way back to some very faulty research coupled with profit-driven "nutrition experts".

Anyhow, I realize how controversial this is and that nutrition can be a bit like religion or politics. My horse in this race isn't to win anyone else over. Heck, I dont even have a comprehensive answer yet. It has been to improve my health and educate myself, and inspire others to question.

[sblock=My personal health story]When I was on some hard antidepressant meds three years back (thankfully no more), they caused a metabolic reaction where I gained 50 pounds, going from 190 to 240. Some of the weight was water retention, yes, but most of it was fat. While I had low periods of lethargy and overeating, I had more periods of a disciplined exercise regimen and healthy eating (my usual baseline). Of course my doc told me to lose the weight I should eat "right" and exercise more. I grew up that way, and for me those words were pretty much a mantra, so that's what I did.

But the weight was persistent, and while I lost 10 pounds water weight pretty swiftly once I got off those meds, the rest hung around like an unwanted in-law. As I tracked myself with a biweekly spreadsheet and measured portions I realized that my weight would sometimes stay the same after several days of vigorous exercise and normal eating. According to calories in/calories out that made no sense. 

My suspicion was that in recovery I would have high carbohydrate, high glycemic index food and drink (rice, noodles, Gatorade, juice, ice cream) and this somehow induced a state where my body sought to create fat. My friends suggested this or that diet, but I know diets have notoriously poor success ratios and people ping-pong their weight. Instead I started researching "metabolic syndrome" and happened upon Taubes books, which have been a great springboard for my own inquiry and experimentation.

Since implementing the suggestions about diet modification he gives, along with a battery of nutritional supplements from my own research, combined with sufficient sleep, and no change to my normal exercise regimen, I've been losing 1.5 pounds a week for the past 7 weeks, going from 240 to 230. But the biggest change I've noticed is that I have fewer moments of extreme lethargy or sudden urges to overconsume food. It feels like I'm slowly but steadily getting the "old me" back.

-Aaron[/sblock]


----------



## Elf Witch (Oct 4, 2012)

My son is on a primal diet and it has done wonders for his diabetes. I use a low carb diet to control my diabetes.

For people with no health issues then calories in and calories out is kind of true but for people with diabetes or other health issues it certainly is not true. 

Eating 1000 calories of protein for example will have a different effect than eating 1000 calories of brown rice.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 4, 2012)

...because too many starches & sugars wreak havoc in the body of someone with diabetes.  That would be my Mom.

I have to deal with a few different dietary issues as the main cook in the family.

My main dietary issues are a corn allergy, a chocolate allergy and my sodium intake- I'm the most sodium dependent hypertensive my previous doctor had ever seen in his 40+ year practice.  Even on a technically low-sodium diet, my BP hit an astounding (and _asymptomatic_) 220/201.  Most people who hit numbers like that wind up in the hospital...or worse.  He was thinking that if it wasn't sodium, then I must have something super serious, like an undetected micro-tumor in my head.

After 2 weeks on an ultra-low sodium diet coupled with a powerful diuretic, I had dropped to 150/90 and dropped 20lbs of weight- pure water weight.  Currently, I'm at 129/85.

(Still, losing more weight would help even more, so I'm getting more rigorous about my portion control.)


----------



## Quickleaf (Oct 5, 2012)

Wow, Danny that's a staggering drop, way to go! 

Condolences on the chocolate allergy, my mom has that too.


----------



## Karak (Oct 5, 2012)

Edited for clarify around nutritional guidelines.

I have been low carb since 1994. The year after I graduated. Back then it was Atkins and I have, at times, gone between the different versions.

I was 297 when I started, my lowest weight was 187 and I am 203 now standing at 6 foot 2. Personally I could never go back. Though at times I have strayed, due to celebrations and so forth, and also 1 year where I was only training students in martial arts and not working a normal 9-5 job, I have stayed on it consistently. I feel amazing on low carb and have always felt fairly poorly on what nutritional guidelines call a normal amount of carbs these days. It is just not for me.

I am also fairly high energy and high output but don't seem to have any real issues with the lower carbs. I lift weights daily, teach martial arts 3-4 times a week, run, and do some various other physical things and luckily have never really had any issues from low carb as of yet.

I will say that one thing I am not totally happy with is the lower need for sleep. A lot of low carbers talk about it and I do get hit with that harder than most.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 5, 2012)

Karak said:


> I feel amazing on low carb and have always felt fairly poorly on what people call a normal amount of carbs these days. It is just not for me.




Well, part of the issue is that what "people call a normal amount" is not necessarily correct.  "People" forget that a single 20oz sugared soda is 10% or more* of their caloric needs for the day.  This is why so many people can just cut sugared drinks from their diet, and notice beneficial change.  Having just one or two of those a can put you way over your needs for the day.



*It is 10% for a big, moderately active man.  The smaller you are, or the lighter your activity, the higher the percentage is - if you're a couch potato, that one soda is more like 15% of your daily needs.


----------



## Karak (Oct 5, 2012)

Umbran said:


> Well, part of the issue is that what "people call a normal amount" is not necessarily correct.  "People" forget that a single 20oz sugared soda is 10% or more* of their caloric needs for the day.  This is why so many people can just cut sugared drinks from their diet, and notice beneficial change.  Having just one or two of those a can put you way over your needs for the day.
> 
> 
> 
> *It is 10% for a big, moderately active man.  The smaller you are, or the lighter your activity, the higher the percentage is - if you're a couch potato, that one soda is more like 15% of your daily needs.




Sorry I guess I should have made it clear. I am talking about the normal amount within nutritional guidelines not what other random people would call normal. In fact even around 3/4th's of that amount makes be feel off most of the time.


----------



## Janx (Oct 5, 2012)

Umbran said:


> In physics, we have a useful notion: "to first approximation".
> 
> For example, Newton's Laws are correct, to first approximation.  Einstein gives us corrections, but, for most folks, in most normal situations, Newton is good enough.




That's a useful term to know.  There are many things that people try to make complicated and model, when in reality, the "first approximation" is good enough understanding upon which to make a decision.

In general barring wierd disease, fat people eat more than skinny people.  When most fat people eat less, they become skinny.

I've left room for exceptions in my statement.  The exceptions of people who gain weight despite reduced calorie intake requires further medical study.  But the first approximation concept says "calories in, calories out" works for most fat people.  Put them in a secure weight loss camp, and they'll lose weight and be cured of some diseases.  Funny how that works.

I heard part of a Freakonomics Radio cast, where a skeptic argues that there's not conclusive science that being fat causes diseases like diabetes.  Sure, it's POSSIBLE that it's not the fat that causes it, but the extra substance that fat people eat that skinny people don't that's causing it.

But the simplistic observation that people who become fat then tend to get diabetes and it goes when they diet and become skinny leads us to the simple conclusion that being fat causes the disease.

That may not be absolutely technically correct as the true cause of the disease, but it's close enough for government work, and is functionally effective as a treatment for most patients.


----------



## Janx (Oct 5, 2012)

Karak said:


> Sorry I guess I should have made it clear. I am talking about the normal amount within nutritional guidelines not what other random people would call normal. In fact even around 3/4th's of that amount makes be feel off most of the time.




There's no doubt that Americans have a misunderstanding of portion size and calorie intake.

A single serving of meat is supposed to be about the size of a deck of playing cards.  That's 1/2 of a butterfly cut pork chop basically.

My friend, who's gotten heavier over the years topped 300 and started having diabetes and blood pressure problems.  he's on meds, and starting to diet.  He told me he's getting used to smaller portions.  he only eats HALF of the package of butterfly cut porkchops now.  That means he was eating 4 servings in one sitting and thinking that was "normal".  That's not counting the big helping of rice on the side.


----------



## Morrus (Oct 5, 2012)

I challenge those who are claiming that calories are "bad science" to a practical experiment:

1) Eat 5000 calories per day for two months and show that you have not put on weight.

2) Eat 1000 calories per day for two months and show that you have not lost weight.

I'll accept that additional measures can adjust the results slightly; and that there is small minority of people will illnesses which change the game; I reject the premise that calorie-based intake and expenditure is in any way "bad science" and suggest that anyone claiming such is trying to sell you something.


----------



## Karak (Oct 5, 2012)

Janx said:


> There's no doubt that Americans have a misunderstanding of portion size and calorie intake.
> 
> A single serving of meat is supposed to be about the size of a deck of playing cards.  That's 1/2 of a butterfly cut pork chop basically.
> 
> My friend, who's gotten heavier over the years topped 300 and started having diabetes and blood pressure problems.  he's on meds, and starting to diet.  He told me he's getting used to smaller portions.  he only eats HALF of the package of butterfly cut porkchops now.  That means he was eating 4 servings in one sitting and thinking that was "normal".  That's not counting the big helping of rice on the side.




Ya since 1994 I haven't gone on any kind of physical serving size. I go for intake of particular types of calories regardless of size to meet a number that works for me. I do see big portions everywhere and not just America(though leading the charge). Many nations have that issue. Some don't. People can lie to themselves about portion size in any language

I guess I am pretty removed from food now that I think about it. Aside from a craving every couple months for some random thing I eat to live and move on. I can't remember the time I really cared what I ate aside from getting energy from it. I don't connect food with anything other than sort of giving me the THRUST to run out and do the stuff I like to do

I know that drives family crazy when they get excited for something and I would be more than happy eating a pill that gave me all the calories I needed for the day! Man the time that would save would be insane.

I just realized I have never had a porkchop...ever.


----------



## Weregrognard (Oct 5, 2012)

Morrus said:


> I challenge those who are claiming that calories are "bad science" to a practical experiment:
> 
> 1) Eat 5000 calories per day for two months and show that you have not put on weight.
> 
> ...




Calories aren't bad science, just an inaccurate data model to determine nutritional consumption for the purposes of losing excess fat (weight) in a healthy manner.

I have a more realistic (less dangerous) counter-challenge for you.  Try the guidelines above for a month, and see how you feel.  Post your experiences here


----------



## Weregrognard (Oct 5, 2012)

Anyone inflicting this stuff on their RPG groups?  I cooked a sumptuous beef roast for my group, so we wouldn't have to order out. I got no complaints


----------



## Morrus (Oct 6, 2012)

Androlphas said:


> I have a more realistic (less dangerous) counter-challenge for you. Try the guidelines above for a month, and see how you feel. Post your experiences here




What guidelines? The "buy this new book" guidelines?

I eat healthy portion sizes and get a reasonable amount of exercise.  Consequently, I am a healthy weight.  Why on earth would I change that?


----------



## Weregrognard (Oct 6, 2012)

Morrus said:


> What guidelines? The "buy this new book" guidelines?




I don't think I like what you're getting at here.  I don't work for these guys, nor am I a shill for their works any more than someone who's read a good book or seen a good movie and recommends it to his friends is.  If I came off as one, I apologize.  I do feel strongly about the subject, though, and it's become a little more personal since my father's illness.

In any case, the info is out there for free.  Check it out, or not.  It makes no difference to me.  



Morrus said:


> I eat healthy portion sizes and get a reasonable amount of exercise.  Consequently, I am a healthy weight.  Why on earth would I change that?




You've pretty much answered your own question.  If what you're doing works for you, and you're healthy, that's wonderful.   I thought from your initial response that you were curious and/or interested in knowing more; my mistake.


----------



## Quickleaf (Oct 6, 2012)

Quickleaf's Rule: Don't buy any book unless it calls you to buy it!  unless I wrote it



Janx said:


> In general barring wierd disease, fat people eat more than skinny people.  When most fat people eat less, they become skinny.



I realize you left room for exceptions. Do you consider obesity as the "most fat people" you describe or as an exception? I ask because the second assertion may actually be false for many people.

The 1998 Handbook of Obesity (Bray, Bouchard, and James) is still considered a seminal text on the matter and is used in the modern treatment of obesity. It adovcates caloric restriction. However it basically concludes that such restricted diets "are known to be poor and not long-lasting." A recent 2005 text, Joslin's Diabetes Mellitus (in a chapter by Jeffery & Terry Flier), re-examines the research on caloric restriction diets as a tool for weight loss, and while they consider it to be an important part of treatment they too conclude about e various caloric restriction diets they examined, "none of these approaches has any proven merit."

That's some pretty damning evidence for the claim that caloric reduction diet work for the obese!

Btw, by obese we're talking BMI in the 30+ range. It's also worth noting that while these studies focused on that range, there do cite failure of caloric restriction diets to sustain weight loss for people in the BMI 25-29 range (technically "overweight" and not "obese").



Morrus said:


> I challenge those who are claiming that calories are "bad science" to a practical experiment:
> 
> 1) Eat 5000 calories per day for two months and show that you have not put on weight.



Maaaaybe when I was rowing crew and doing competitive karate in college I could put away 4000 calories a day, but 5000 is nuts. I don't think I could will myself to consume that much!



> 2) Eat 1000 calories per day for two months and show that you have not lost weight.



Actually, I did something similar to this: a 30 day juice fast followed by a 10 day master's cleanse (basically a water/tea/lemonade fast). And I dropped from 196 to 169 (my lowest weight ever, I'm 6'1". I was exceedingly weak at the end of that experiment, probably couldn't have lasted any longer than another week before entering a medically critical condition, but I definitely got closer to God 

I'd like to emphasize that fasting in this extreme shuts off the appestat mechanism for feeling hunger, and should only be done by the experienced or with medical supervision.

   [MENTION=1]Morrus[/MENTION] Anyhow, to get to your challenge, I think you've misunderstood the idea I'm trying to present. Where you see willpower (?) as what makes a diet succeed or fail, I suspect something in the physiology, probably induced by type of food consumed (or environmental toxin...but that's another discussion).

 If say I eat fifty pounds of spare ribs, OF COURSE I will gain weight. Likewise if I don't eat food for several weeks. Well, until a point. Indigenous populations (eg. Taubes cites the Pima people of Arizona) suffer obesity while having very little food on their reservation...basically they are / were semi-starving and yet anthropologists observe(d) obesity.

What I'm pointing out is that fat people who calorie restrict or up their exercise for the large part don't successfully keep the weight off. IOW they are *compelled* to either eat more or conserve energy by something physiologically happening in their body which responds as if in a state of semi-starvation. 

Maybe you consider that as an exceptional case? My understanding is that is may be quite prevalent in modern societies.



> I'll accept that additional measures can adjust the results slightly; and that there is small minority of people will illnesses which change the game; I reject the premise that calorie-based intake and expenditure is in any way "bad science" and suggest that anyone claiming such is trying to sell you something.



Yeah, calories aren't bad science, they're just a fact. What I'm calling "questionable" or "misapplied" science is the idea that calorie under/over consumption is the driving cause of weight loss/gain for obese people. And possibly overweight people...though I think more research is needed to clarify what precisely is going on.


----------



## Morrus (Oct 6, 2012)

Androlphas said:


> I don't think I like what you're getting at here.  I don't work for these guys, nor am I a shill for their works




This would not be what I'm getting at. 



> You've pretty much answered your own question.  If what you're doing works for you, and you're healthy, that's wonderful.   I thought from your initial response that you were curious and/or interested in knowing more; my mistake.




Hmm? What question (of mine) have I answered?  I'm feeling slightly off-track here.  I'm clearly not communicating well.


----------



## Morrus (Oct 6, 2012)

Quickleaf said:


> Quickleaf's Rule: Don't buy any book unless it calls you to buy it!  unless I wrote it
> 
> 
> I realize you left room for exceptions. Do you consider obesity as the "most fat people" you describe or as an exception? I ask because the second assertion may actually be false for many people.
> ...




Yikes, that's long; and I hate those point-by-point formats that forum discussions often devolve I to, so I'll try to address all that as a whole.

So you'll agree that eating craploads will put on weight, and eating little will lose it. You mention exercise as a factor, too. As far as I can tell, you've pretty clearly affirmed the calorie budget camp. It's  claims which deny the basic mechanics of calories (except in cases of certain illnesses which screw it all up) that I object to.


----------



## Quickleaf (Oct 6, 2012)

Morrus said:


> Yikes, that's long; and I hate those point-by-point formats that forum discussions often devolve I to, so I'll try to address all that as a whole.
> 
> So you'll agree that eating craploads will put on weight, and eating little will lose it. You mention exercise as a factor, too. As far as I can tell, you've pretty clearly affirmed the calorie budget camp. It's  claims which deny the basic mechanics of calories (except in cases of certain illnesses which screw it all up) that I object to.






			
				Umbran said:
			
		

> In physics, we have a useful notion: "to first approximation".
> 
> For example, Newton's Laws are correct, to first approximation. Einstein gives us corrections, but, for most folks, in most normal situations, Newton is good enough.



Oh, I didn't mean to make the conversation feel like it was devolving! I felt it was getting richer, different perspectives I guess.

Anyhow, treat my viewpoint/hypothesis as one that might be worthwhile for all those for whom "to first approximation" (nutritionally speaking) doesn't cut it. And above all, stay healthy and sexy  Getting your metabolism derailed just sucks, I don't recommend it for anybody, not even goblins.


----------



## Morrus (Oct 6, 2012)

Quickleaf said:


> Oh, I didn't mean to make the conversation feel like it was devolving! I felt it was getting richer, different perspectives




Devolving was a bad choice of words - I meant that your post contained a lot of points, but that I wanted to avoid that point-by-point quote-reply format that forum discussions often find themselves in. Thus my attempt to gather them all into one catch all reply!


----------



## Elf Witch (Oct 6, 2012)

There are a lot of reasons for obesity besides overeating. Especially when we are talking about very high obesity. 

There is an issue of metabolism some very heavy people have such sluggish ones that a diet of 1000 calories won't budge the scale. Also studies are showing more and more that for very overweight people often their brain chemistry is not the same as normal weight people. For one the full signal does not work properly.

When they manage to lose  weight their brain goes into famine mode and the body slows down the weight loss. 

There is also psychological issues involved which is why the people who tend to lose weight and keep it off if they are very heavy have some kind of psychological help going on.  

One of the things about low carb is that you can eat a lot which helps people stick to it also fat makes food more satisfying so dieters feel less deprived and more willing to stick to it.

The big problem is if they don't change the habits and deal with the issues that made them fat in the first place they gain back the weight and usually some extra.

My roommate has celiac which means no gluten and with the research we have done on it we have been finding studies showing the wheat grown today has a higher gluten content than heritage wheat. Some experts in the study of obesity thinks they may cause you to gain weight easier. 

Also chemicals and fake food like high fructose corn syrup are in so many things and one of the bad things they are finding about HFCS is that it interferes with the body ability to recognize it is full.  

I don't think it is any coincidence that they started putting this in our foods in the 1980s and this was about the time we started seeing a raise in childhood obesity. I know it is not the only reason but I do think it is part of it.

Girls are now maturing and getting their first periods earlier than they used to and this is directly related to the growth hormones in our meat. 

One thing that the paleo diets encourages is buying and eating organic meat and meat raised on grasses not corn. 

I am not making excuses for over weight people I am just pointing out that with very heavy people there may be more going on than just eating to much.


----------



## Libramarian (Oct 6, 2012)

As it happens I have just finished 30 days of low-carb dieting. I'm doing the p90X exercise plan, and the nutritional guide for the first 30 days is high-protein, low-carb. It's the first time I've done this type of diet before. I have to say I haven't noticed much of a difference, in terms of energy or general well-beingness. I do feel good, and I've lost about 5 pounds and gained a bit of muscle. But I'm looking forward to upping the carbs in the next phase. I want a bowl of slow-cooked, steel-cut oats for breakfast (yum).

As far as the "Paleo" diet goes -- I think of these diets as narratives. They're stories that some people need to get jazzed enough to make a major change in their lifestyle. The Paleo diet has the whole uber-masculine thing where you pretend to be a caveman. I find that pretty cheesy, so I'm not into it, but if it's what turns you on enough to stop eating junk food and eat more plants, then rock on.

Of course if someone is gluten or lactose-intolerant, then I'm sure they'll feel much better with the paleo diet, or any diet where they eat less grains and dairy. But as far as I can tell I handle grains and dairy fine.


----------



## Janx (Oct 6, 2012)

Morrus said:


> Yikes, that's long; and I hate those point-by-point formats that forum discussions often devolve I to, so I'll try to address all that as a whole.
> 
> So you'll agree that eating craploads will put on weight, and eating little will lose it. You mention exercise as a factor, too. As far as I can tell, you've pretty clearly affirmed the calorie budget camp. It's  claims which deny the basic mechanics of calories (except in cases of certain illnesses which screw it all up) that I object to.




yeah, that was long and sciency.  Don't contaminate my uninformed opinion with fact! 

A majority of fat people who diet and regain the weight is because they drift back to their poor eating habits.  That's a psychological problem/challenge, not a biological one.  If you force them to be on diet, they loose weight.  Clearly, the science confirms the observation.  If you go off that formula, you'll go back to where you were.

It's a seperate problem to get them to adopt and stay on a controlled diet.  That's probably the hardest part.  Shows like the Biggest Loser emphasize that a lot (not discounting the other silly problems with that show).  This paragraph should probably be emphasized.  While people like me are probably right, "eat less crap, be less fat" is true.  Doing it successfully and forever is a huge hurdle.  The argument shouldn't be over my assumed fact, it should be over how best to help overweight people execute a plan to get them healthy.

Folks like the Pima indians (never heard of them), who apparently barely get any food and are fat?  Obviously, that's an exception. Assuming their meal is sparse but healthy (not a 1/4 of butter every day), that's funky wierd and why we pay scientists to research that stuff.

It's possible/plausible that some fat people who start eating a healthy (ie smaller/restricted diet) go into hibernation preparation mode and their body still stockpiles fat, but that's likely not common.  At some point, the body has taken in too little fuel and MUST burn its own local resources (fat, muscle).  A body that doesn't do that, does have a different medical problem than "being fat".  There are more examples of people who were starved/limited food who are scrawny than fat.  Most human bodies respond to reduced food intake in a very predictable way.


----------



## Janx (Oct 6, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> I am not making excuses for over weight people I am just pointing out that with very heavy people there may be more going on than just eating to much.




Thanks for the extra incite in that.

While my principle of "eat less, weigh less" is true enough (a First Approximation), there are undoubtedly extra variables.

There are wierd things in our food.  So what we think is "healthier" isn't as much as it used to be.

Apparently, about 50 years ago, the wheat grain was cross bred with another grass.  Probably to make it yield better.  The resulting grain has some form of opiate in it.   In theory, we are "addicted" to bread because of it.  This grain has been in heavy use for half a century apparently.

If you could fix that (or go back to a different grain), we might be eating less bread, and such.

While on the basic level, I don't mind science tinkering with genes and stuff to make better versions of stuff.  We've been doing that on a primitive scale since people been breeding animals and stuff.  I'm not so keen on wierd side effects that my food didn't used to have because it was "normal"


----------



## Weregrognard (Oct 6, 2012)

Morrus said:


> This would not be what I'm getting at.
> 
> Hmm? What question (of mine) have I answered?  I'm feeling slightly off-track here.  I'm clearly not communicating well.




Fair enough.  I don't think I'm communicating well at all here, either 

I was referring to your question about why you would change your dietary habits.  You don't have any (apparent) problems, so you don't need to.  That's your answer.  

When I say "check this stuff out", I don't mean for you to buy a book and take what the author is saying on faith.  What I am saying is that the information is out there, there's a lot of it, and I can't possibly explain all of it to a convincing degree in this thread.  Therefore, it's up to the individual to research and decide for themselves.


Quickleaf, Elf Witch, and Janx, thank you for explaining this better than I can 

To sum up a few problems with "calories-in-calories-out" as a bottom line solution to weight (fat) accumulation:

- Amounts of food (conflated with "calories" here, I feel) matter, but calorie-counting is suspect, because not all calories are the same.  By extension, so are standard serving sizes.

- All metabolic rates are not the same, so a standard amount of "calories out" activity required  by a human being on a daily basis (as the fitness industry would like you to believe) is also supect.  This is up for some debate.  Please note that I feel sports and exercise are valuable for their own sake, just not as a complete solution to weight control.

- Equating a complex biological system with a mechanical one is problematic, which is what happens when one appeals to the Law of Thermodynamics.   For example, the commonly-used car engine analogy.   Even so, you don't fix your car's engine by putting in less gas and driving it more.

Under normal circumstances the body self-regulates how much food to eat (i.e. feeling hungry/full), and what to do with it (use, store, and/or waste).  This is where "calories-in-calories-out" seems like the simplest solution.  However, someone with a malfunctioning metabolism (usually, but not always, overweight/obese) can't do this, especially when continuing to eat the foods (processed carbohydrates and sugar), that are likely responsible in the first place.  In this light, excess fat accumulation is not a disease, but a symptom.  This is part of Taubes' alternative hypothesis on obesity.


----------



## Weregrognard (Oct 6, 2012)

Libramarian said:


> As it happens I have just finished 30 days of low-carb dieting. I'm doing the p90X exercise plan, and the nutritional guide for the first 30 days is high-protein, low-carb. It's the first time I've done this type of diet before. I have to say I haven't noticed much of a difference, in terms of energy or general well-beingness. I do feel good, and I've lost about 5 pounds and gained a bit of muscle. But I'm looking forward to upping the carbs in the next phase. I want a bowl of slow-cooked, steel-cut oats for breakfast (yum).
> 
> As far as the "Paleo" diet goes -- I think of these diets as narratives. They're stories that some people need to get jazzed enough to make a major change in their lifestyle. The Paleo diet has the whole uber-masculine thing where you pretend to be a caveman. I find that pretty cheesy, so I'm not into it, but if it's what turns you on enough to stop eating junk food and eat more plants, then rock on.
> 
> Of course if someone is gluten or lactose-intolerant, then I'm sure they'll feel much better with the paleo diet, or any diet where they eat less grains and dairy. But as far as I can tell I handle grains and dairy fine.




Indeed.  The problem here is that the message is getting lost because of the need to simplify by labeling.  On one hand, "Paleo" as a buzz-word gets public attention, on the other, any legitimate scientific research behind it (that just happens to run counter to mainstream thought) gets dismissed as a "fad", or pseudo-science.  

When co-workers noticed I was losing weight, they eventually asked what my "secret" was.  At first, I tell them about eating "real" food over processed stuff, and they nod.  When prodded for more details, I talk about my avoidance of (processed) grains and sugar.  That's when I start to get the weird looks.   Finally, the need to simplify means the word "Paleo" or something like it escapes my mouth, and that's when I get the typical: "oh, it's that caveman thing".

P90X is good (I'm a "graduate" myself), and the exercises are "legit" (as opposed to gimmicky gadgets), but I've since realized that I can get the same results with a shorter work-out, fewer times a week, and that works better for me.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 6, 2012)

Androlphas said:


> On one hand, "Paleo" as a buzz-word gets public attention, on the other, any legitimate scientific research behind it (that just happens to run counter to mainstream thought) gets dismissed as a "fad", or pseudo-science.




If you do an end-run around peer review, and go to profit making mass-market dieting books to publicize your material, then yes, I'm going to dismiss you as a profit-hunting fad or pseudo-science.

Peer review is not fast, but in the long run it works.  If you're not using it, I'm giving you the hairy eyeball.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 6, 2012)

What page of the MM are hairy eyeballs on again?

Anyway, the point of peer review in dietary science isn't just to see if a diet helps you lose weight- because, in all honesty, most do- but to ascertain WHY you are losing weight and if it is safe.  As in, are there any unexpected short or long-term deleterious effects to one's health.

It also helps determine if a given diet will tend to produce short term benefits only- leading to yo-yo weight effects- or if it is legitimately a long-term lifestyle diet that you can be on for years with no health concerns.


----------



## Libramarian (Oct 8, 2012)

Androlphas said:


> Indeed.  The problem here is that the message is getting lost because of the need to simplify by labeling.  On one hand, "Paleo" as a buzz-word gets public attention, on the other, any legitimate scientific research behind it (that just happens to run counter to mainstream thought) gets dismissed as a "fad", or pseudo-science.
> 
> When co-workers noticed I was losing weight, they eventually asked what my "secret" was.  At first, I tell them about eating "real" food over processed stuff, and they nod.  When prodded for more details, I talk about my avoidance of (processed) grains and sugar.  That's when I start to get the weird looks.   Finally, the need to simplify means the word "Paleo" or something like it escapes my mouth, and that's when I get the typical: "oh, it's that caveman thing".
> 
> P90X is good (I'm a "graduate" myself), and the exercises are "legit" (as opposed to gimmicky gadgets), but I've since realized that I can get the same results with a shorter work-out, fewer times a week, and that works better for me.



I don't mean to be dismissive by saying it has the caveman angle -- I really do think a "theme" to go along with a diet can be a useful motivator. Diets are psychological tools, they're not just bodies of scientific knowledge.

P90x is the first time I have worked out to a video, and I'm actually liking that a lot. Allows me to zone out a bit and not have to keep track of time. What I'm not liking about it is the old school movements that are known to be pretty risky and hard on you, like upright rows for the shoulders and all the leg raises and straight leg sit-ups. I know enough to work around them but I wish they played it safer with the exercise selection. I wouldn't be surprised if it has a significant injury rate.


----------



## Someone (Oct 9, 2012)

Morrus said:


> Calories in - calories out.  It's just basic mathematics and the laws of thermodynamics.  All the rest is just fluff to sell you books.




I thought the same, until I noticed that all my friends wer fat when they lived with their family, got leaner when they lived alone, and got fat again when they married. 

So what makes you fat are women, not that calories .


----------

