We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Friday, February 7. 2014
An annual re-post, but re-posted again because we seemed to help a number of people with this:
Forget the "Obesity Crisis." That's a crock. Abundant, good food is a blessing and a rarity in human history so it is a great privilege and luxury to be overweight. It certainly is true that, when tasty food is cheap, people will eat a lot of it and their bodies will kindly store what they don't need to survive today, to the detriment of our knees, hips, appearance, comfort, and general vigor. Trouble is, we won't need that storage tomorrow - or ever. It's like hoarding.
We can all be as fat or fit as we wish to be. It's a free country, and being fat (but not obese) isn't terrible for your health unless you are diabetic or want to be able to get around energetically. But don't listen to the Dieticians and Nutritionists. They will want you to get in shape slowly and in a "sustainable" way. In your heart, you know that will never happen. If you are bothering to read this, you just want to get in shape as quickly as you can without liposuction or use of the vomitorium.
Eliminating carbs reduces or eliminates carb craving in most overweight people over several weeks.
This can be a one- to three-month program as desired. Maintenance is another topic.
Details below -
1. Our basic exercise plan is simple. Assuming you do not do physical labor 8-10 hours/day, our minimum is simply 30-50 minutes of any form of vigorous aerobics per day. Intensity to maximum tolerated, whatever that may be for your fitness level. Have to get the body wakened and moving. Ordinary mall-walking doesn't count unless you are frail elderly, nor do sexual encounters count regardless of how athletic they may be.
2. Here's the simple diet plan: Almost Zero Carbs:
- Go easy on the volume. 2 meals/day, plus a small lunchtime snack if you cannot tolerate midday deprivation (eg two shrimp, or one slice of meat, or a hard-boiled egg, a pickle, and salad at the most). If you feel hungry between meals, do something interesting or useful instead and the craving will pass in a few minutes.
Remember that feeling hungry is a feeling, not a fact. Unless you are underweight, a "hunger" for carbs is lying to you. It doesn't signal that you need food, it's just a signal of gluttony and an over-focusing on food as life satisfaction.
If you cheat once on the diet, you will reset the program back by several days or a week. If you are a slacker with the exercise, you will greatly slow your progress and your sense of well-being. It's really not worth it for a momentary pleasure. You are training your body to make the extra effort required to burn your disgusting fat, so why un-train it? Your body thinks of your body fat as precious money in the bank, saved up for the next famine, but for you it's just a load of unpleasant lard and as useless and burdensome as gold ingots on a desert island.
The simple fact is that carbs stimulate insulin secretion, and insulin commands your body to store calories in the form of fat. Proteins and fats do not stimulate insulin. This is why calorie-counting doesn't work very well for weight loss, and why basic thermodynamics do not apply to physiology.
In a few weeks, your stomach itself will shrink and you will be more easily satisfied by a modest meal. Once you have gotten to your target weight and raised the level or duration of your aerobics, you can add 1/2 cup of oatmeal (no milk) daily and 5 or 6 almonds or walnuts per day.
You will lose 1/2 to 1 lb per day on this plan if you make no exceptions - or your money back.
Again - maintenance is a separate topic for another blog post - but you have to get yourself where you want to be first.
Let's be grateful that we live in a time and place where fitness can be a significant concern. It's a blessing to have that sort of problem.
Lied to, again: Saturated fats are not "bad for you"
Saturated Fat is Not Bad For Your Brain, and You've Been Lied to: Unfortunately, the advice to eat less saturated fat probably isn't going away anytime soon. Like the baseless ideas that calories are calories, or fat people simply lack willpo
Weblog: Maggie's Farm
Tracked: May 23, 16:22
After preaching against this for years, finally even the AMA comes around
It's not about calories: Low-carb diet better than low-fat diet for maintaining weight loss. That's for maintenance, mind you. The official Maggie's Farm Weight Loss plan eliminates carbs for the same reason: even minor carbs give you an insulin sp
Weblog: Maggie's Farm
Tracked: Jun 28, 07:09
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
I followed a diet very similar to this (I allowed myself cheese and nuts), added an average of 3 miles 4 times a week to my activity, and lost 85 pounds. It works!
Why is butter ok, but Milk and dairy (cheese) not. What's the difference? It's all fat.
No nuts or cheese! That's just crazy.
Exercising at a high-level is difficult with near zero carbs to draw on. You don't need many but maximum capability is noticeably diminished on extremely low carb routines.
Also, I don't believe anyone will sustain 1lb/day beyond 10-14 days. After the initial drop of 10-12 lbs the loss rate will fall much more closely in line with standard calorie deficit dieting. I personally think it is easier to go with severely restricted carbs, especially from items like bread, pasta, potatoes, sugar, etc, but over the long haul one needs to take in less calories than one burns.
Losing weight is trivial.
Keeping it off is not, unless you want to follow this diet until your miserable end.
It's not crazy. Try it for two months. As people lose the weight, they exercise more effectively.
You can lose 1/2 to 1 lb. daily for 2 months on this. Seen it many times.
Not trivial for overweight people.
Getting to where you belong is a good start. Maintenance is another issue.
I practically live on dairy --and except for that belly, am not fat at all anywhere. The belly is what 5 or 6 decades suddenly puts on a feller --i wouldn't lift a little finger to lose it --but the dang kids and baby sis ride me to 'drop 10' and/or 'drop 20' unmercifully. THEY're the weight problem. 240 at 6' ain't all that bad anyway --except my playing wt until around 50 was 200. Then 40 more jumped on suddenly, in about a year it seems like --oh well --who cares --i had my yoof and beauty, same as everyone, and got old, same as everyone.
Thank you! This is just what I was looking for. I need a quick way to lose 10 lbs. I used to do the "nothing but brown rice, vegetables and lemon water" diet. That's quick too, but if you can vouch for this one, I'll try it for variety.
The unsaid villain of weight gain: metabolic imbalance triggered by sunlight -- in this case -- a lack of it.
Bear with me: for generations Northern Europeans and Orientals endured l-o-n-g winters -- mostly as shut-ins -- living off of meagre rations. This is the REAL reason for the tradition of Lent and its variations. It transformed ordinary privation into proper conduct -- and rebuked heavy eating when most were in want.
This need to conserve calories is embedded in our DNA. It's also linked into depression: many individuals still evidence severe mood changes when the Sun is low on the horizon. Tanning rays cure the malady -- pronto.
Now comes the light bulb -- and in particular the fluorescent lamp's rays. Often commented upon ( c.f. Joe vs. the Volcano ) EVERYONE notes just how unnatural these are. And, yes, they affect mood.
Now comes the L.E.D. -- now flooding the market.
It turns out that LEDs are even WORSE mood shifters than fluorescent lamps.
Well, either way, we're now dosing ourselves with either LED or CFL ( compact fluorescent lamps ) by the million.
It is no coincidence that we're gaining weight like crazy -- since both sources dramatically affect MELATONIN levels in the body. And it's a major hormone that controls appetite.
So, to REALLY lose weight you need to get exposure to the Sun's rays. They not only stop Pellagra/ generate Vitamin D -- they lift melatonin levels.
Women are far more likely to stay indoors -- purely for domestic reasons. ( Her place is IN the home... )
So, it's no surprise that women's obesity is absolutely exploding. And it's not the food in the reefer: it's her internal appetite 'pointer' / homeostasis register that is bent. It's constantly signaling that she needs to get a snack.
As for Africans, Samoans, and other tropical humans: they've never Darwin'd for long winters. Instead, they've Darwin'd for long droughts/ hurricanes. Meaning that they've got their own DNA push to pile on the calories. It used to be a matter of life or death.
Hence, in Samoa and darkest Africa gals pack on the pounds to get married. Rubens, grab you brush! Now that food is never not available they find it's easy to bulk up -- and there's no forcing event compelling them to starve. ( Whereas, in Africa, forced starvation is part of the ordinary cycle of life. Storing food in either Africa or Polynesia is brutally difficult -- something duly noted by missionaries and Peace Corps volunteers.)
[ Sunlight deprivation connected depression is virtually unknown among Africans and Polynesians... what a surprise... not.]
The upshot is that it is this unexamined linkage that is driving the ENTIRE planet towards overeating. All it takes is the further expansion of fluorescent rays and LEDs.
You will note that the fattest societies on Earth are exactly those that have the highest utilization of artificial illumination.
The first expert to spot the astounding linkage between melatonin levels and these artificial lamps is an Israeli researcher in Haifa. (IIRC)
At some point, he's going to get a Nobel Prize in medicine.
In the meantime, we can all pork out.
( Is that kosher? )
This linkage reminds me of Pellagra and Vitamin D. Circa 1930 the ENTIRE medical community asserted that -- having studied the matter -- it was pure hokum.
Nonetheless, the flour mill industry decided that they'd inject Vitamin D ( dirt cheap, a byproduct of fish processing, etc. ) into their product -- calling it ENRICHED.
It went 'viral' in the flour world. ( Wonderbread, anyone ? )
Pellagra, a scourge of man for centuries, entirely disappeared from America in less than one year. The AMA was brought on board kicking and screaming. Think of all the careers the cure destroyed!
And, of course, who could forget the UN-linkage of ulcers to H. pylori?
Thousands of doctors have been thrown into alternate pursuits ever since it was discovered that antibiotics with acid blockers can cure most ulcers -- not treat -- CURE.
Brutal, it was.
So, instead of running, jogging, etc...
Get out in the Sun for at least two hours each day. You don't even have to strip. Your body will respond to the Sun ( almost plant-like ) and kick out melatonin. Your metabolism will pick-up -- and you'll find that you sleep better.
( Melatonin can replace most sleep aids. It's dirt cheap, too. )
And lastly: the Internet causes one and all to spend even more time in front of LED/ flat panel displays... well into the wee hour.
Is it any wonder that weight gain is parabolic?
Even Kubric realized that his astronauts would need tanning booths. ( 2001 )
So, invest in a hammock and take it easy -- and off.
I lost 21 lbs in 45 days last fall on a very similar, medically-supervised program. The primary care office I was working in promoted this, and I wanted to experience what our clients were going through (and also because I had become a little "fluffy.") It worked just fine, as long as I could do about 60 minutes of aerobic exercise 4 X/week (every day is recommended). Also, in this case, where a lot of early weight loss is from fluid losses, my electrolytes (by blood work) were monitored. I can come close to my ideal weight, about BMI 24 (target is below 25). Dr. Joy's program looks fine.
blert, you sure do write good reports --of course, that's crazy info --why else would i not've known it? --but the transmission is velvet fog, like Mel Torme singing ''cast your fate to the wind'' --
(no, seriously --i believe it --answers many questions and does not require John Holdren to be midnight-dumping estrogen in the rivers. Tho the estrogen level of select rivers IS astoundingly high, and they're catching hermaphrodite fish with all sorts of morphology malforms --)
you nailed it. In his book about curing diabetes, Dr. Richard Bernstein laid it out in similar fashion. Also there's a terrific blog by a microbiologist called coolinginflammation.com for up-to-the-minute data about the importance of avoiding vegetable fats (omega 6) which most supplements are loaded with when they claim to have omega 3. Following this kind of diet, I have ditched metformin, proton-pump inhibitors and most of my IBS symptoms are gone. You might also try probiotics (not the drugstore variety-hit amazon) and high-quality krill oil, D3 from fish source, not veggie and not calcium carbonate, if you have medical issues. They really bring down the triglycerides. My two cents. FWIW.
Are tomatoes a fruit or a vegetable?
Tomatoes are to be eaten as much as one wants.
Don't know if that answers your question.
a 'Drudge' link --
Yes, tomatoes are a fruit or a vegetable.
(They're a fruit from South America.)
It sounds like the Atkins diet. It's very good at taking wt off, but I've heard, from people who have tried it that the weight tends not to stay off.
I personally like carbs too much to try that diet. I've read comparisons of results with Atkins and Wt Watchers (a more balanced approach), and while Atkins gives faster results, over the long run there seems to be not much difference.
I like the exercise part, though.
I know. My milk always has a bunch of Apple Jacks in it. Is there any way you can get milk without the apple jacks?
1. Obesity is genetic. While it is true we all gain weight with abundant food it is not true we all get obese. You can diet but if you are genetically predisposed to be obese you will have to diet your entire life to simply not be obese.
2. No carbs! Really! While I have no doubt almost any diet works it is incorrect to assume that carbs are the single factor making us obese. You could just as easily make a fad diet with no protein or no fat but it would still be a fad diet. Your diet is unsustainable and only suitable for short periods of time, weeks to months. Wouldn't it make more sense to have a diet that provided necessary nutrients but less calories???
Thanks. I know they are technically a fruit, but was trying to clarify if tomatoes were limited or could be eaten freely. I just planted several as they are one of the family's favorite foods.
1. Obesity is not genetic. Skinniness can be somewhat genetic.
2. This is a rapid weight loss plan, not a maintenance program.
I lost 17 pounds over a 6 month period, and a year later have gained it all back. The key is that I didn't walk 2-3 miles a day, even though I intended to. From previous experience I knew that exercise was essential to keep weight off. So much for intentions. I will give this diet a try. But the key is at the beginning of the plan.
1. Our basic exercise plan is simple. Assuming you do not do physical labor 8-10 hours/day, our minimum is simply 30-50 minutes of any form of vigorous aerobics per day.
I don't know how intense the exercise can be for me at sixty-something with bad knees. "Mall walking" is about all I can do- albeit outside. Walking would be a vast improvement over what I have been doing- which is nothing. I was raised in the country, where one walked among magnificent landscapes and find walking in the urban/suburban set up where I live to be BORING to the eyes. Like eating Wonder Bread after homemade bread. Oh well.
My uncle died last year at 88. He worked as a consultant until a year and a half before he died. Until about his last two years, when the medicine he took for his leukemia started to lose its effect, he regularly went to the gym to workout. He said that he often had to force himself to go to the gym, but he always felt better afterwards. His working out definitely had something to do with his living so well and so long.
All this works.
Been following it for a week.
Have lost 8 pounds.
Looking forward to week 2.
And it's good that I like meat, meaty meat and meaty meat with meat. Fruit, not so much, so not a problem.
I have more energy, bound out of bed in the AM, mental fogginess has disappeared. Better mood.
I was on a "low carb" nutrition program before. But always tripped up, couldn't stop the cravings. Not a craving in sight when ALL the starches and dairy were discontinued.
Thank you for the post, a life-saver.
Ok. I am guessing I am 15 lbs over weight. I don't have a bathroom scale. I have had to go from a 32 to a 33 inch waist in my Lee jeans.
I started slowly gaining weight about 7 years ago.
So here is my question. If I do this diet for 3 weeks and take the weight off and then resume my old eating habits/caloric intake/lifestyle, will it take years for the weight to return or will it come back in weeks/months?
One more question.
I am told testosterone burns fat like fury. If a man was to take supplemental testosterone, would it help him lose weight and/or burn up ingested calories?
Or I can work harder and eat less.
I have been following this for a couple of weeks. Down 9 pounds today. Would be more, but I went to a birthday party on Friday and indulged in some malted beverages.
My experience is similar to Flyover's - no carb cravings - cutting them out completely seems to help.
Smoking several packs of cigarettes a day seems to help control weight.
"It sounds like the Atkins diet. It's very good at taking wt off, but I've heard, from people who have tried it that the weight tends not to stay off."
YMMV, but here's my experience:
After a childhood of intense year-round sport and hard physical work, right up to the beginning of college, I suddenly lost a place in my day-to-day routine for the Sweaty Life. Exercise just went away. But I did manage to preserve my eating habits.
So, ten years post-college, I noticed that I had gone from 150lbs (with almost no body fat) to close to 200lbs. Oops.
So, for the next ten years, I tried every diet of moderation that I could find. Lose it slowly, they said, and develop a new lifestyle. Yeah, right. I managed to stop gaining, but that's all.
Finally, at about 210lbs, and after countless unsatisfied moments of thinking "THAT'S six ounces?! THAT little piece right there?!", it occurred to me that I lived much of my life in a sort of manic-depressive fashion, and so I needed a sort of manic-depressive blitz of a weight-loss system.
I did Atkins. No carbs - zero - for the first two weeks, with daily urine test strips (ketone test strips - every pharmacy has 'em, cheap), and finally hitting that all-important point when I had flushed all carbs out of my tract and was officially burning only proteins and veggies.
And, boy, on the day I hit that stage, I went through some unbelievable changes.
I stopped feeling much hunger or food-craving at all. My energy, which had been slowing a bit as I de-carbed my body, came back up to a point slightly above normal.
And I started losing almost one full pound per day. Some days more, some days less, but each week, I dropped a reliable five pounds.
I kept at this for ten weeks. I was grilling small rib-eyes every night with some foiled veggies, I was eating a few salads here and there (not really a fan), I had this huge list of approved foods from the free Atkins website, and I never really felt hunger or deprivation or . . . that dieting sort of depression . . . during the entire time.
The key is, you have to scrupulously follow that no-carb (or very very low-carb) rule all day, every day. A few carbs would almost immediately switch your body back out of the bodyfat-consuming mode. Your next test strip after cheating would flip right back to where it was when you started, and you'd have to go through another week or so to get back into the weight-loss mode.
That's how I eventually stopped the diet. I had a big chocolate candybar - omigawd, it was heaven! - but I knew that the intense gratification of seeing the scale drop would be deferred for seven to ten days, and at that point, I was at one hundred sixty pounds (from about 210) and I was damned happy at that point.
Everyone says you just gain it back. I'm now back up to about two hundred - but that diet ended ten years ago, and I only recently gained most of the weight back. So, if I have to do that every ten years or so, it's well worth it.
Actually fasted carb low intensity exercise like a brisk walk for 30-45 minutes is the best fat burner out there.
What is 'fasted carb'? Stop taking in any starchy high glycemic carbs (potatoes, pasta, bread, sweets, fruit, juices) after mid afternoon. Dinner should be simply meat and vegatables. First thing in the morning before eating or drinking anything, outside of coffee and water, go for your walk.
Following this reasonably strictly for 6 weeks will produce a noticable difference and your knees and back will be happy as well...so will your dog if you've got one.
Obesity is genetic. Most people are not obese and of course have access to and enjoy the same diet that obese people do. Most of us could not become obese if the reward were $1 million. It is genetic and unless you have those genes your body will simply not allow you to become obese. Conversely if you are genetically predisposed to obesity then your body will fight to remain obese and diets will simply force your body to store more fat not less.
Blert, you are on to something when you talk about American's lack of sunlight. This was just posted today. Vitamin D Deficiency My doctor tested my Vitamin D and told me to take supplements. I think it is something to consider seriously.
Best advice I ever got from my doctor: Weight loss is 95% what you eat and 5% exercise. This freed me from the guilt of not being able to fit exercise into my day...if I couldn't get in at least 30 minutes of exercise 3 times a week, I'd feel defeated and think there was NO way to lose weight unless I kept up with this exercise regime.
It is totally what you eat. Exercise is a bonus, if you have the time and the inclination, but don't beat yourself up about it.
I had tried cutting calories and adding in exercise...biking and walking 3 to 4 times a week. I stayed exactly the same weight! It was frustrating. When I asked my doctor for help, thinking something was metabolically wrong with me, he gave me the
"95% what you eat" rule. I cut 200 more calories from my day, and voila! Weight loss success. I've lost 10 pounds in about 2.5 months without doing any exercise. And it is incredibly easy to do. What I realized it you need to keep a hawk's eye on your calorie intake. I use a calorie counting app on my iPhone, which makes it really easy to do.
Forget crazy diets. Forget massive exercise. As my doctor said, 'nobody in Auchwitz was fat.' He is right. EVERYONE has the ability to lose weight with cutting calories alone. You cut enough, you will lose.
I don't feel deprived, by the way, I have just readjusted my thinking as far as what foods fill me up the most with the least amount of calories. More soups, chicken, tuna...less pasta, sweets and beef.
Information is king. Know your basal metabolic rate and how much energy you take in. Weigh yourself and graph the results. Once you've dialed in the numbers you can basically do what you want. And at the end of the day, it's calories in and calories out that matters. Quick or slow...your choice. And it is much easier than you might think. Trust the numbers.
I looked up Pellegra (I'd never even heard of it) and it's a deficiency of naicin, not Vitamin D. Do you mean Rickets maybe?
I don't know. I'm presently losing quite a bit of weight cutting calories. I come in about a grand shy of my BMR everyday, which is translating to about two pounds lost a week. I graze. Instead of three meals it's like I have seven snacks a day and I'm satiated. (Even if I drop another 700 calories a day I stay pretty well satisfied).
Carbs and insulin are doing something, that's for sure, but you know, I certainly don't understand what's going on under the hood. This is working for me now and, though it seems old school, that's all I ask. If I get near my goals and there's a plateau I can't explain with arithmetic I'll turn to chemistry and burn out the last few pounds carb free.
I will say this though, if it comes down to a burger v. carbs the carbs get the boot. So a big portion of my cut calories comes from carbs, but really I'm not anywhere near "carb cutting". If this topic comes up again I'll file a report on how this is going.
Remeber almost all Bread and Flour products are full of Bromides which compete and destroy your THYROID.
Iodine/Iodine supplements help greatly in many ways.
No Milk... but you can use heavy whipping cream (no carbs) in coffee or in recipes for milk add water 50/50 to whipping cream for a milk like beverage. Some cheese is ok - check the label for carbs, for example some cheddar is very low. Download the "Atkins Carb Counter" PDF as a reference to carb contents.
Down 21 pounds today - that's 3 pounds per week. A little cheating here and there, but, overall, I have stayed on course. I am taking a brisk 45 to 60 minute walk most days.
This works better than anything else I've tried. Seeing the scale move almost every day is great motivation.
I know oranges are fruit, and you say fruit is out, but you seem to have made exceptions for some fruits. Are oranges ok?
It certainly is true that, when tasty food is cheap, people will eat a lot of it and their bodies will kindly store. But one should take care of their health and reduce weight. Thanks for these nice tips :)
Did this diet last year. Dropped 28 pounds in 3 months. Stopped the diet for a while, but did not eat a lot of carbs, even then.
Gained 15 pounds back in 4 months. Started again on a strict diet 3 weeks ago and have already lost 11 pounds without ever being hungry. The dearth of beer is the hardest part, but it is worth it, because this works so well. Headed for 175 pounds by June 30th.
I followed this diet last year for about 3 months. Lost 28 pounds down to 225. Went off it, but still avoided most carbs, and held steady at 230-235 until Christmas. Went up to 240 by New Years Day.
Started again January 8th and have lost 11 pounds in 3 weeks. This thing really works for me if I stick to it. Headed for 175 this time.
Thanks, Dr. Bliss, for posting this.
What's all this talk about being free to gain weight? I better hurry up and tell Michelle Obama. I'm quite certain she would love to correct this glaring oversight. Another executive order should do the trick. Fat people are a grease stain on the State and need to be retrained in a formal setting. I will draw up some plans to establish a variety of electricity generating bicycle gyms in every town. Slackers, lazy people and reactionaries of all stripes can be volunteered into service for six month stints. Freedom to do wrong is no freedom at all. Obesity holds on passports will improve our national reputation overseas. Only the slim and trim will be permitted to hold political office. Sorry Chris Christie. A healthy population is a healthy, happy State and the State is all.
Calories are calories. Eat anything you want up to your calorie set point and you will lose weight then maintain without giving up anything you must have to eat. This is science that is truly settled. Well there is that nutrition thing but........
If skinniness can be genetic, so can obesity. Really, I think it is the rate of your metabolism that is what you are talking about.
Knew a family with 2 girls. Same diet. One was skinny as a rail, one was chunky as long as I could remember. Noticeable difference since they were small. The larger girl was built like her father, who was also a large man.
If that is not genetics at play, then I don't know what is.
Now, you can always change your body with some sort of diet and exercise, but for those with a slower natural metabolism that will be much harder to attain. And that also means a higher failure rate for these poor people. Doesn't mean thinner isn't attainable, just that it would take more work.
As my doc said to me once, "There were no fat people in Auschwitz." All bodies are capable of losing weight. No one is immune from the effects of diet. But some must diet a lot harder to see results, so cut people some slack.
Confirmed - I tried this and had great success.
On exercise: I read something recently where Arnold Schwarzenegger said: "People are always asking me how many sit ups I do, and I really don't know. But my number is 20. I do sit ups until I'm worn out - and then I do 20."
This is the only way to stay slim for life. I have maintained the same weight for the last 50 years by eating in a careful way, but not saying no to any food category. No aches, no pains, no medications and a spouse who seriously likes the net effect.
To quote the philosopher Mark Riptoe:
'Strong people are harder to kill than weak people and more useful in general.'
Muscle burns calories. The more muscle you have the more calories you burn. You build muscle by lifting progressively heavier stuff in a safe manner.
Nothing against aerobic exercise--I do it a bit myself, swimming, riding a bicycle, martial arts etc.
But I also lift heavily two to three times a week. I recently (in my mid forties) managed to do a 300 pound deadlift (I'm on my way to 400).
As I've been lifting my shoulders have gotten a touch bigger as have my thighs (but they're squared off and hard, not pocked and wibbly) and my waist has shrunk a bit.
I'm still carrying a bit more body fat than I'd like (I'm about 25%, down from 32), but I can move stuff with less effort and my posture is more upright.
"Exercising at a high-level is difficult with near zero carbs to draw on. You don't need many but maximum capability is noticeably diminished on extremely low carb routines. "
Back when I was doing intermittent fasting I'd go for a 75 minute bicycle ride through the hills on the west side of the San Francisco Bay pulling my kid in a trailer, or do other things. You're right that you can't hit the same metrics, but it's not *difficult*, it's just a little slower.
Thing is you have to decide why you'd doing something. I don't do power lifting because want to be able to say I can lift x. I don't do it because I want to look like a chiseled greek statue. I do it because as life is not easy, and there is always the risk of it getting a LOT harder really fast. A blizzard, an F4 through the heart of town, a major earthquake, or whatever.
If you want to go long distances--running, biking, swimming, you have to go long distances. If you want to move heavy stuff you have to move heavy stuff. If you want to fit in smaller jeans you have to eat less and move more.
Get it right in your head, then get your head right and do it.
There are lots of ways to lose weight and get healthier, find one YOU enjoy and do it.
Like hiking and backpacking (as an example) check out hillfit (the guy at conditioningresearch.com). Many martial arts studios these days have conditioning and exercise programs that are (at least in theory) designed to work into the program.
There's all kinds of stuff out there.
But me? I'll be over there by the squat rack moving plates around.
As a diet, I'm sure the results speak for themselves. Why else promote it, right?
But as health? As a recommendation for health this is probably the most foolish thing I've ever read (strongly alluded to in the overt contradiction in the opening paragraphs, no less.)
What you're promoting is an abusive lifestyle offset cyclically by an abusive cure.
If your view of the body is that it's this profoundly tolerant of such cycles of abuse, at least consider this next bit as a retort to the madness of the Atkins Diet:
My daughter is in her early twenties. Average height, slender build, sedentary office lifestyle.
She needs to lose no weight, really, but for health reasons went to a 100% vegan, fruit-heavy diet with large but infrequent meals of pure carbs - pasta.
In short, enormous consumption of fruit, veg, and carbs. No animal proteins or fats. Zero processed and little cooked foods.
At 5' 6" and about 125#, she permanently lost 6 lbs.
Cutting out all meat and dairy, strongly enriching her raw fruit and veg intake, and tripling her carb intake she lost weight.
Oh, you say, she's killing herself! She's getting no essential dead animal grease and sinew and red blood - those staples for the thousands of years primitive man shopped at the local Food Emporium for chemical-addled beef, tainted pork, and hormone-injected chicken - from this horrible diet of things that grow out of the ground!
Yet, somehow, every aspect of her health and mood improved. She feels far better, is more energetic and positive, has lost all of her previous sensitive digestion, is entirely regular, and from her general appearance and demeanor, is probably doing better in all ways. Even her skin and color have improved.
From a diet as heavy in bananas - God's candy, as Bliss would have it, for crying out loud - as yours is in commercial processed bacon and sausage.
So if trading dieting anecdotes is the rationale - which seems strongly supported by the blinkered pragmatism of this post's supporting logic - then there's an anecdote that relies on bona fide nutrition and not self abuse to get the job done.
And in fact, has no cyclical binging to recommend it.
The notion that a fat-heavy, complex nutrition-free diet is just the thing to counter the pathologically-bad average American diet and lifestyle in the first place - and that fruit is God's candy - is about as illogical as anything I've read here.
I would have thought that a community of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans would have included at least some crunchy cons, homesteaders, antiestablishmentarians, and, you know, gardeners and farmers, but apparently not.
All I see are supermarket consumers who have conflated their rightful mistrust of M'chelle's hypocritical nannying with a mandate to eat steak and eggs to combat having eaten spaghetti and meatballs the previous six months.
Except that brussels sprouts are fine and fruit is corn syrup.
For the alternate, sane, researched, view, see this: http://youtu.be/30gEiweaAVQ
Regarding "http://youtu.be/30gEiweaAVQ" Dr Greger is a vegan and I noticed his talk was more about veganism and proving a"normal" diet was bad for you. I thought one example really said so much about statistics and how anyone with a bias can twist statistics to support their bias. He pointed out that 75% of those who die from heart attacks have "normal" cholesterol levels. But as a vegan this is like sunshine or a religious cross to a vampire so his response was that the "normal" cholesterol levels were too high. His logic was that clearly if you were to lower the standard for "normal" cholesterol enough then more then 50% perhaps even 75% of those who die from heart disease would then fall under the category of having too high a cholesterol level. Well duh! Sadly I think too many scientists and doctors are equally math and logic challenged and might even agree with his logic.
I realize from the other thread that you have a profoundly irrational bias against all sorts of cartoons in your head about various diet advocates and practitioners - to you questioning the American diet is "hippie-dippie" territory and above you just called Gregor ill-reasoned because of his field and expertise - but your QED pronouncements clearly lack elementary thought.
The good Doctor bases his assertion on the simple fact that heart failure is the #1 killer. This being the case, how causes should escape heavy scrutiny - especially by questioning previously normalized standards essentially in the test cohort - is beyond me.
Would you to take a more rational approach you'd note that no one has ever died from their plane going down that wasn't traveling by air. No auto death has ever not involved a car.
Or, to push what should be blatantly obvious to you a little closer to home, not one death found to have been caused by first-hand smoking has ever been suffered by a non-smoker.
Seems a little more obvious now, doesn't it?
If heart disease is the leading killer, than naturally what produces heart disease in the cohort in which the deaths occur is the first matter of research. Normalizing these deaths and then scratching your head about what's staring you in the face is kinda fallacious.
Calling the guy unscientific is really transparent - that is, biased. Reread what you just said and you may finally conclude that it's pretzel logic.
This shouldn't be hard to understand and perhaps I didn't explain it well.
Cholesterol is the cause of heart attacks in a certain percentage of people who genetically have very, very high cholesterol levels. This caused scientists to years ago conclude that cholesterol caused heart disease (and indeed it does if you are genetically predisposed to have this illness). Now, we all have cholesterol, every human on earth has cholesterol even if you consume zero cholesterol. It is an essential component of life and if you don't have sufficient cholesterol you can suffer some serious health problems. Cholesterol also plays a role (but is not the cause) of heart attacks in some people with "normal" cholesterol levels. The actual heart attack is usually triggered by something else, most commonly a blood clot but in a post mortem you would indeed find narrowing of the arteries where cholesterol has accumulated. This is not because the person has too much cholesterol but instead the result of a "genetic defect" that allows blood cholesterol to stick to the walls of arteries. As you can see it is a more or less complicated story that surrounds cholesterol and it's contribution to heart attacks. BUT normal levels of cholesterol do not cause heart attacks. This is problematic for Dr Greger's biases since he dislikes meat and dislikes that anyone consumes meat he wants to scare his audience by implyng that since animal products are the primary source of cholestereol in our diet that you would live longer if you stopped eating animal products. In his zeal to convert us all to his bias he made the classic mistake of someone who neither understands math nor statistics and claims that if we can just set the bar low enough we can implicate cholesterol as the cause of heart attacks. This would work for anything we consume; apples, carrots, nuts (one of his favorite foods) anything. But this simple logic and statistic error eluded him. In fact it is common in science to misuse statistics to "prove" one's biases. On the face of it his statement that if we lowered the standard or desired blood LDL level from the present 100-129 to 90-100 then a much larger percentage of the population would indeed have levels above the cutoff AND simultaneously a higher percentage of people with "high levels" of cholesterol would be in that cohort of people who died of a heart attack. BUT this would also be true if we were measuring carrot consumption or nut consumption or virtually anything we consume. What the good doctor failed to understand (or worse did understand and simply lied to everyone) is correlation is not causation. There absolutely is some level of blood LDL that you can set as a cutoff which 100% of those dying of heart disease would be included in. This is simply NOT the same thing as their LDL causing their heart attack or even understanding what their cause of heart attack was.
I don't think I called him unscientific but let me clear that up now; he absolutely was unscientific. He is biased, he has no intention of trying to see the trees and likes the forest he created for himself. He stated he does this little talk every year. I predict next year he will again include eating animal products in the cause of numerous diseases. This is his schtick. This is what he does. Science be damned as long as he can rail against meat.
The two most common causes of heart attacks are diabetes and old age. Not what you eat, not shovelling snow, not even being overweight. Most common cause of heart attacks for people who are not diabetic or old is being male. After these causes there are a number of genetic predispositions that increase your risk of heart attack. It's not what you eat, it's not even eating meat vs being a vegan. It almost all boils down to your genes and your age.
I am somewhat opposed to fad diets but in general do not care what someone chooses to eat or not eat. The cartoon in my head is when someone makes outrageous claims about a diet or a supplement or a vitamin. As in if you take 1000 mg of vitamin C every day you will not catch the common cold. I know it's true because a doctor said so on the internet ;>)
Science be damned as long as he can rail against meat.
In other words you either didn't watch the talk or if you did, you denied the facts in it.
It almost all boils down to your genes and your age.
Inserting 'almost' spares you the difficulty of defending the amusing notion that you can eat anything, in any quantity, for as long as you wish and not suffer the consequences.
But can you?
We know you cannot. So where is the line drawn, except in your case and the cases like you, in vague generalities?
The man you call unscientific has gone into tremendous depth proving a core position against such nonsense ... which is why you react with assertion and these defensive vagaries.
Kinda like your other post where obesity, you flatly proclaimed for the ages, was hereditary, and this one, in which you determined - because a doctor said so on the internet - that heart attacks cannot be influenced by diet.
You're pre-old school, GWTW. You're ancient school, which spawns precisely the wives tale poppycock this Doctor, as a matter of fact, is debunking. And there are scores more.
You shun knowledge, alluding yourself to be scientific.
“…the amusing notion that you can eat anything, in any quantity, for as long as you wish and not suffer the consequences. But can you? We know you cannot.”
That is the gist of the argument that foodies, health nuts, fad diets, and 100’s of authors have made over the years. Essentially it comes down to the belief that there is some magic or correct or optimal diet. It is so ingrained into our belief system that if you asked 100 people if there was in fact a “healthy diet” 99 of them would agree that there is. But then if you asked them what is the correct “healthy” diet you would have 99 different versions. The presidents wife has a “healthy” diet belief that is so good, so correct, so magic, that she wants every school kid to eat it exclusively. The government has publish a dozen or so food pyramids (and a plate) over the years and each one had the input from every special interest group. So, what, exactly is that magical healthy diet? And maybe just as important what foods will kill me and how much does it take. Will 100 big macs in my lifetime kill me 5, 10 15 years early? Will they give me cancer or a heart attack? Will not eating at McDonalds allow me to live to 90 or 100? Of course this is all silly but this is exactly what everyone with a food bias is saying.
A good example of conventional dietary wisdom and how it goes wrong is table salt. Every food nut opposes table salt in the government has stated there is a maximum salt intake that is healthy and above that number you risk death from various diseases. But more recently with more studies it seems the exact opposite is true. That is those low recommended salt intakes can kill you and for most people excess salt is not harmful. How did they go so wrong? Simple really. There is a percentage of the population that cannot tolerate and excess of salt. It gives them serious health issues and causes early deaths. But for about 80-90% of the population lowering salt intake is harmful. More recently studies have shown the same thing is true for cholesterol. That is there is a certain percentage of our population who because of their genetic predispositions should limit cholesterol consumption and in fact should take medication to lower their cholesterol levels. But for the other 80% or so of us cholesterol is not a problem and in fact artificially lowering it by diet is harmful to our health and even life threatening.
So along comes someone with a major food bias and a degree and he decides to use this confusion to push his particular bias. He does data dredges (and calls them “studies) and throws out anything that doesn’t support his theory and conflates anything that seems to support his biases. He writes a book or makes a youtube video and we who have been convinced almost from birth that there is a “one right diet” believe! It is like a revelation, a intersection of our being fed propaganda all our life and this “messiah” who is saying all the things we always were led to believe and out of faith and ignorance we buy it all hook line and sinker.
This is how the human mind processes most of what we believe to be true. This is what scientists fight everyday of their lives and indeed how some scientists go so horribly wrong in their studies and writings. It is human nature to believe that which reinforces what we have been told/fed all our lives. It is so easy and so comfortable.
So what is “the right” diet. I don’t know anymore then Dr. Gregor knows. The best information tends to support eating a wide variety of foods and not too much of any one food and avoiding those things which are unhealthy for you based on your genetic traits. Fad diets are simply someone’s biases. It is probably OK to eat the Mediterranean diet for the rest of your life or the California diet or the Slovakian diet or whatever. But it probably won’t make you healthier or live longer and it is simply wrong and a disservice to claim it will.