Posted on 01/27/2008 1:31:31 PM PST by shrinkermd
FOR the past century, the advice to the overweight and obese has remained remarkably consistent: consume fewer calories than you expend and you will lose weight. This prescription seems eminently reasonable. The only problem is that it doesn't seem to work. Neither eating less nor moving more reverses the course of obesity in any but the rarest cases.
...There is considerable evidence that the obesity epidemic is caused by a hormonal phenomenon, specifically by the consumption of refined carbohydrates, starches and sugars, all of which prompt (sooner or later) excessive insulin secretion. Insulin is the primary regulator of fat storage. When insulin levels are elevated, fat accumulates in our body tissue; when they fall, fat is released and we use it for fuel. By stimulating insulin secretion, carbohydrates make us fat; by driving us to accumulate fat, they increase hunger and decrease the energy we expend in metabolism and physical activity. In short, obesity is caused not by overeating or sedentary behaviour, but by hormonal malfunctioning triggered by the consumption of particular types of carbohydrate-containing foods.
Obesity researchers, nutritionists and health authorities have refused to contemplate this scenario, partly because it would imply that diet-book doctors advocating carbohydrate-restricted diets - Robert Atkins et al - were right all along. Instead, these alleged experts and guardians of our health have wasted a good part of a century on research based on a high-school misconception, watching their compatriots grow ever fatter while blaming everyone but themselves. In the process, they have created a field of clinical medicine that functions more like a religion than a science. It is time to put science back in charge.
(Excerpt) Read more at newscientist.com ...
You are right...that is the basis of the Glycemic Index. I am a casual Atkins follower...I could never do induction, but I found that by cutting out white sugar, flour, empty calories (candy, sweets) and making a conscious effort to ‘think’ what am I eating (a carb, a protein, etc.) and why am I eating (am I hungry, or stressed) that Atkins theory works for me (I try to stay around 70 carbs or so per day—and I try to make them ‘good carbs’).
To a large degree I think any diet that isn’t sheer quackery (like the grapefruit diet, or the apple diet, or other shining examples in stupidity) when applied intelligently will cause you to lose weight. A large part of any diet is paying attention to what you eat, and really when you get down to it we know, sure we might not be nutritionalists but you don’t need to be to know Doritos bad salad good stop eating when you’re not hungry go get some exercise. I burned off 65 pounds in the summers of 04 and 05 (I’m not as dedicated as you) and that was really what it all boiled down to.
And then there’s the other punchline: there’s no going back. Probably the biggest source of diet failure is that people think of it as temporary. They think “I’ll do it until I hit X and then go back to normal”, that’s wrong. They need to realize that if they need to lose weight then “normal” is not their friend, after hitting the goal they go to somewhere between the diet and normal, some nice neutral ground, which can be a hard balance to find. I decided to not care for a few months, stepped on the scale again and found 17 pounds had come back, so then it’s back to burn mode.
The Sugarbusters doctors (and Atkins) are still right, with their focus on healthy carbs and moderating insulin secretion. Even Weight Watchers has its own Sugarbusters-like plan now, Core - although at last week’s meeting, some members who religiously count points said they were scared of the idea of Core - it gave them too much freedom. Give me Core/Sugarbusters any day!
I’ve found a great treat to satisfy a sweet tooth (although I don’t have a large sweet tooth) which is very low in carbs.
Lindt’s 85% cacao dark chocolate bars. A whole 3.5 oz. bar has only 12.5 net carbs (that’s 10 squares). If you only eat a couple of squarea at a time, that’s plenty as it’s very rich and it’s only about 3 net carbs. It’s bitter and takes some getting used to, but after eating that, everything else seems super sweet and not as satisfying.
If you crave ice cream, the Breyer’s Carb Smart is also very good and creamy.
No diet plan seems to be perfect — they all seem to work for some people, but not for others.
As an example, I do great on Atkins, whereas some people don’t respond well to it, but do just fine on Weight Watchers, which conversely never worked for me. Everyone should just try to find the diet that works for them.
We may have been kicking it around along with our Foodie Ping List. I, however, constantly harp on how people no longer know how to do something as simple as bake a loaf of bread in their $50K Designer Kitchens. That may be what you’re thinking of, LOL! (I’m also always b*tchin’ about the Diet Dictacrats, too.) ;)
We started a Gardening Ping List if you’re interested. Ping Gabz and she’ll add you. :)
..is the most sensible plan, IMO.
Certainly. I’ve got my seeds all set to go. Thanks.
Ping for later read.
The Paleo Diet:
Lose Weight and Get
Healthy by Eating the Food
You Were Designed to Eat
by Loren CordainNeanderThin:
Eat Like a Caveman
to Achieve a Lean,
Strong, Healthy Body
by Raymond V. Audette
with Troy Gilchrist
foreword by Michael R. EadesMetabolic Man:
Ten Thousand Years from Eden:
The Long Search for a
Personal Nutrition From
our Forest Origins to the
Supermarkets of Today
by Charles Heizer WhartonHealth Secrets of
the Stone Age
Second Edition
by Philip J. Goscienski
No, I haven’t read it and so can’t comment on it, but I think we are mixing apples and oranges here. The relationship between energy intake and energy expenditure really is irrefutable. What can vary is the ‘cost’ of extracting energy from certain foods vs. others. For example, proteins are broken down first into smaller peptides and then into individual amino acids. If not used for building new proteins, these amino acids can be metabolized via a process called gluconeogenesis to make glucose and enter the Krebs cycle to produce ATP (energy). There are energy ‘costs’ involved in processing amino acids in this way, and the amount of net energy produced by metabolizing proteins is less than the net energy derived from an equal amount of carbohydrate. So eating different foods can have different effects. However, the relationship between calorie consumption vs. calorie expenditure still holds. If the net amount of energy your body gets from what you eat is greater than the amount of energy your body expends, you will gain weight. If less, than you will lose weight. You could lose weight eating M&Ms if you burned more energy than the net amount you gained from eating the M&Ms.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
