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
Tuesday, November 10. 2015
There are two ways to get rid of ugly, burdensome, hip-and-knee-damaging, heart-damaging fat.
The easiest way is carb restriction, or zero-carb diet. Fat will melt away just to fuel normal life. Remember, all carbs = sugar, and excess carb/sugar gets long-term storaged as fat in case of starvation conditions.
The hard way is to combine that with exercise. This basic physiology explains why it is so hard to reach down into your fat stores.
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
Did you read the study about marathon runners?
Women have an especially hard time losing weight with heavy exercise.
All about the food you're eating. And you are right! Hard to restrict calorie or types of food when you are exercising a lot. Not that exercise is not important for health, eating is by far more important for weight loss!
I don't think there is a one size fits all solution to this problem. A lot of our weight is genetic. People who are obese tend to have obese children. People who are thin tend to have thin children. There is of course an environmental component i.e. that with our Western first world abundant food supply people are able to eat as much and whatever they want to eat. If this environmental factor made everyone fat then the conclusion that it is 100% the food may be more believable. But it doesn't! We all know people who eat whatever they want and are thin; people who eat junk food everyday and are thin and healthy too.
So the problem is multifaceted and doesn't seem to lend itself to a single solution. Simple calorie restriction will work for most people who want to lose some weight. The many fad diets too seem to work (although most results seem to be temporary) and this could be the result of lower total calorie intake or genetic tendencies of the individual. But in general these diets don't work for someone who is 'obese'.
Obesity seems to be very different and not so greatly affected by environmental factors (readily available food, junk food or high carb food). The obese are truly different, their body responds differently, their body holds onto fat. The solution for an obese person is different too than it would be for someone who is merely overweight.
I understand that for anyone who is overweight that they struggle to achieve a 'good' weight and they grasp at straws when nothing else works. But these choices are not the same as science or proven methods that apply to everyone. If limiting or eliminating carbs works for someone I'm happy for them. But don't assume it works for everyone or that it is even a healthy choice for everyone.
I like my carbs. I like potatoes and rice and bread (still warm from the oven) and corn, etc. I like protein, usually meat but having grown up in Boston I love beans. I like most vegetables (actually I like them all but some canned veggies just taste blah). I pretty much like fats too, bacon, bacon grease, butter, marbled beef, etc. I can't imagine making or eating meals without all of these things. I was raised on meat and potatoes and believe that is a 'normal' diet. If I were unlucky to be overweight I would choose limiting calories over limiting carbs or meat or fat.
Bliss is wrong on carbs vs fat. Wind typically follows up with a windy opinion also irrelevant to how all this works (although from time to time bumps right against how it really does work but keeps on going on the wrong direction.)
The upshot is Bliss is spouting that the Farm's old rightist myth - call it a food fad, which it is - that expects that fat is never stored as fat but sugar is always stored as fat. Obsessively repeated and probably based on one primary source, this is the mantra.
There's a clue in all this - the one Wind eventually always misses - but fads and myths die hard so it's probably also the last real clue too. The sad thing is that health is naturally tied to the topic so what this prevalent myth amounts to is bad health advice, for some odd reason delivered obsessively and with disregard to the facts.
I'm grateful that I don't have the genes to be overweight or obese. I do love junk food and candy/chocolate. I fell to my knees and thanked god when McDonald's decided to serve breakfast all day long. I have, when traveling, eaten breakfast three times a day. When I was in the Air Force I was lucky enough to eat breakfast twice a day (and had lunch and dinner too). Carbs don't get turned into fat in my body for some reason. Fat and cholesterol don't clog my arteries for some reason. There is no food I can't eat and virtually no food I don't eat. I eat about 4-8 ounces of chocolate/candy each night and sometimes complement that with chips or cookies. I've eaten like this for 72 years. It is likely that my 'bad' habits won't kill me any sooner then someone else's 'good' habits will kill them. By the same token it is unlikely that I will live longer because of my diet just as it is unlikely that someone else will live longer because of their diet. For most of us our life expectancy and health is genetic and with the exception of genetic diet related diseases our diet does not decide our health. The key is to get your MDR's get exercise and the rest of the advice around diet is either pure BS or applies only if you have a specific genetic disease. So eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we may die.
Debunking the food faddist's "fruit is just flavored sugar" myth.
Pure rationalization caused by demonization of sugar in general and fructose in particular. Fructose is fructose, it isn't better for you because it formed inside a strawberry. When you eat carbs it is all turned into glucose. It doesn't matter if it came from good carbs or bad carbs or from organic fruit or factory farm raised fruit. It all gets turned into glucose and is used as fuel for your body. Without glucose you die.
Scientific evidence is pure rationalization, says you. (And in your prior sermon you illustrated how since genetics are the Alpha and Omega, your unique genetics speak for the genetics of all mankind - translated: diet only factors for those for whom diet factors. I'm sure that unintentional pure rationalization wasn't pure rationalization.)
And here I thought you you were given to outright projection instead of the careful analysis I've come to count on you for.
Exploding food faddist's fat myth using science. Medical research, studies, findings, data, and stuff. You know, rationalization.
The point of "my genetics" is it is in fact the genetics of the majority. The fad diet people claim that diet is the cause of every problem and ignore the simple fact that whatever the problem it is a minority of people who have it. Most people are not obese, most people are in a normal range of weight. Virtually everyone in this country eats the same things and yet the fad diet advocates claim it is carbs or fat or meat that causes the problem (whatever problem de jour is being discussed). It should be obvious even to someone without a degree in a scientific field that it is NOT diet.
You seem to allow that only genetics respond to problem diets, which both then cause health problems (ignoring the science that's proved and continues to prove otherwise, but we'll leave that aside for a moment). When they occur, they do in fact occur, but it's just genetic predisposition, say you. What's left is only to determine the what and why, for which there'll be another line of defense as we'll see in a moment.
You acknowledge that disease and dysfunction exist within the biology. You acknowledge that, for example, 4,000 calorie days of heavy carbohydrate consumption (within the usual Western omnivorous diet) blow you up like a balloon. You just quibble that because we can arbitrarily limit this to "genetics" these effects or conditions cannot be dietary (the facts notwithstanding, but we're leaving that aside). To this you attach your personal anecdotes. etc.
Of course, this is utterly faulty on its face. Scores of cohorts do indeed react badly to new, abnormal, unbalanced, immoderate intake other cohorts will not react as badly to, which is your personal premise (and a proud one at that). Then, at its extreme, your premise fails completely: A diet of pure corn syrup is indefensible at any level, and among any school of medical thought. (Interestingly we cannot prove this in a human lab because the experiment would be considered too cruel to consider. Hmmm.)
But against extremes you simply precondition facts another way - including against real data you do not know and/or will not allow - such that "moderation" is the (arbitrary) new, anecdotal precondition that naturally makes all subsequent disease both acceptable and not atypical for the cohort that practice it. With exceptions for exceptional persons not unlike yourself, of course, they having the superior genetic makeup.
In other words, all sorts of problems occur - obesity, disease - but by your demand they may not be connected to diet unless within the narrow, anti-carbohydrate, meat-faddist's mantra. Basically, if it goes wrong, it's genetics because genetics simply must be the precursor. If it's not genetics, it's either overweight-by-spaghetti or it isn't really an abnormal abnormality. There if it goes wrong it's already been normalized as a standing proof of arbitrary concept, which is to say, to fulfill confirmation bias (but still against the real data).
Basically, you've arbitrarily ruled out anything that challenges your personal bias, Wind. Disease and obesity exist but cannot attribute to anything but genetics (or pizza) because you've redefined genetics and because if it falls outside this definition, it's a normal abnormality. The Western diet has been normalized and all medical issues are thereby normalized with it or arbitrarily sent to the genetics room for settlement.
From there we'll never get into the actual, real science, science either ignored or dismissed as somehow being as "rationalized" (as I believe you called it) as your own position actually happens to be. That's ironic.
But diet is culture. Culture affects the human animal as to quite obviously influence genetics. From data we also know that disease is highly culturalized and trended, therefore disease is tightly tied to diet, albeit within another variable, which to be generous we actually can call genetics using your arbitrary definition of the word: There is always that statistical variability within the overall trajectory, just nowhere near as universally applied as you'd like. Not even close, really.
The catalog of health sciences is exploding and the effects of diet are increasingly known to tie directly to health, or to its absence. 21st century animal food faddists can construct any number of subjective assertions, exclusionary rules, and anecdotes and cultural stereotypes - both pro and con - but the underlying data - long tied to other anecdotal, cultural tradition not found in the modern West - simply overrules them and it'll continue to do so.
Does this vindicate vegan hysterics? Food nanny-statists? Granola Marxist Maolings? Psuedo-scientists and voodooists? Of course not. But of them I think you'll find there are exponentially fewer than you imagine and exponentially more smart, informed, conscientious food reformers who know exactly what they're doing.
Of course, advocates of sound nutrition don't claim that "diet is the cause of every problem" nor do they "ignore the simple fact that whatever the problem it is a minority of people who have it" because it's not a simple fact except when you normalize dysfunction, as you have to make your faulty point. "Most people are not obese" is an obvious leading fallacy, and "virtually everyone in this country eats the same things" is not only false, it's contradicted by your own biases against cohorts you don't care for, having reinterpreted their ways and means as you have.
I tend to track a lot more favorably with that data I mentioned - including it's clear, unmistakable trajectory away from the western convention of low real nutritional value, high animal intake, and low plant consumption - than I do windy assertions and outright logical contradictions.
You put so many words in my mouth that I now need to go on a diet.
I did not acknowledge much of what you claim I acknowledged.
If you are fat/overweight/obese blame your parents not your carbs/fat/protein consumption. If you think carbs are magic you are simply wrong and the evidence is there for anyone to see. The U.S. and virtually the entire Western world has all the food they could ever want and freedom to eat as much or as little as they like. If carbs made you fat/obese we would all be fat/obese. The very fact that the majority are NOT fat/obese should give you pause in your wild claim that it is the carbs that cause obesity/overweight. Let that sink in for a moment... We all eat the same thing and most of us are NOT fat/obese. Since it cannot be carbs or our Western diet it must be something else. Coincidently observation of people shows us that fat/obese people tend to have fat obese children. Conversely thin people tend to have thin children. There is certainly some variation in this but in most cases this simple fact tends to hold true.
Diets do work. You can simply limit total calorie consumption or you can choose one of the many fad diets and most people will lose some weight. Typically not as much weight as they want to lose and typically not for the rest of their life. WHY??? Simple; their genes determine their weight range and to fight this genetic predisposition requires a big commitment and will power. The more weight you desire to lose the bigger the effort to lose it and keep it off. So naturally being human we look for the 'magic'. After all commitment and will power in dieting is no fun so look for the magic. Some people think the carbs are the magic; negative magic in that the carbs all gather around your waist of butt and make you look fat so cut the magic carbs out and you will lose weight. Some think that becoming a vegetarian is magic or cutting fat is magic. But in general any diet works a little and reinforces this belief in magic.
The problem is that when someone refutes your magic and shows you real life examples that refute your magic you fall back on rationalization. I can only say that if you or anyone has a weight problem and some particular diet works for you I'm happy for you. However if you jump to the conclusion that you have discovered a magic diet and start prescribing it then you should expect some push back. I don't believe in magic and when it comes to dieting the formula is as simple as calories in vs calories out will determine if you gain or lose weight. It doesn't matter if you eat carbs or don't eat carbs. It doesn't matter if you eat fat or don't eat fat. All that matters is that you use more calories then you consume if you want to lose weight. AND if you are genetically obese/fat/overweight you can expect your body to fight your efforts. Period!
You're one of the more shifty folks I've met online, Wind. I suppose if I were that way I'd be tempted to paper it over like you do too.
"Shifty"? That's a stretch. Arguementative, arrogant, opinionated, stubborn, a pain in the ass... I will cop to all of those less than kind descriptions but I am far from shifty. I believe what I believe until I see evidence to the contrary sufficient to change my mind and then I believe in that. I would be overjoyed to discover that it is true that there are good carbs and bad carbs and we could all live longer and healthier lives knowing this. Or that going vegan will prevent illness and extend health. If there were only some magic food that would save us from all of humanities health problems. But there isn't. Most of it is pure superstition and bias and some of it is outright fraud and quackery. I simply seek the truth and try to keep an open mind.
It's well past time to discuss this in good faith; you've seen to that. I'll just say that you refuse the science but self-identify as open-minded - ergo, open to fact, which is science. You ignore rational questions but appeal to your own contradictions. You back assertion with other assertion. You create strawmen and beg questions.
Not that any of this is all that atypical. It's certainly not surprising for the mindset.
But apparently you're mightily self-impressed with these methods and views, or so it certainly seems from here. I just fail to see the point wasting the time pig-wrestling anymore. If you're who you claim to be, do the work yourself. Or, as seems to be your wont and preference, go on making these flowery odes to your own subjective opinion. I'm not here to appeal to your lack of reason, hoping to turn it.