Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why the Campaign to Stop America's Obesity Crisis Keeps Failing
the daily beast ^ | May 7, 2012 | Gary Taubes

Posted on 06/08/2012 9:07:28 AM PDT by re_tail20

Most of my favorite factoids about obesity are historical ones, and they don’t make it into the new, four-part HBO documentary on the subject, The Weight of the Nation. Absent, for instance, is the fact that the very first childhood-obesity clinic in the United States was founded in the late 1930s at Columbia University by a young German physician, Hilde Bruch. As Bruch later told it, her inspiration was simple: she arrived in New York in 1934 and was “startled” by the number of fat kids she saw—“really fat ones, not only in clinics, but on the streets and subways, and in schools.”

What makes Bruch’s story relevant to the obesity problem today is that this was New York in the worst year of the Great Depression, an era of bread lines and soup kitchens, when 6 in 10 Americans were living in poverty. The conventional wisdom these days—promoted by government, obesity researchers, physicians, and probably your personal trainer as well—is that we get fat because we have too much to eat and not enough reasons to be physically active. But then why were the PC- and Big Mac–-deprived Depression-era kids fat? How can we blame the obesity epidemic on gluttony and sloth if we easily find epidemics of obesity throughout the past century in populations that barely had food to survive and had to work hard to earn it?

These seem like obvious questions to ask, but you won’t get the answers from the anti-obesity establishment, which this month has come together to unfold a major anti-fat effort, including The Weight of the Nation, which begins airing May 14 and “a nationwide community-based outreach campaign.” The project was created by a coalition among HBO and three key public-health institutions: the nonprofit Institute of Medicine, and two federal agencies...

(Excerpt) Read more at thedailybeast.com ...


TOPICS: Food
KEYWORDS: garytaubes
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-98 last
To: wideawake; lawdave
I find jumping rope and fartlek training to be extremely effective for cardio. Doesn't take much time, doesn't require much space. Also bodyweight exercises (pushups, pullups, muscleups, dips, pistols) are just as good as weight training (unless you're very advanced and need to lift more than you weigh to advance) and require less equipment.

Yes, great info... also HIT training(High Intensity Training) for 20 minutes burns more calories than a hour of regular cardio but make sure your heart can handle it.

51 posted on 06/08/2012 12:58:28 PM PDT by trailhkr1 (All you need to know about Zimmerman, innocent = riots, manslaughter = riots, guilty = riots)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Theoria; reformedliberal
Thanks for the info. I don’t live near a community like that and my perception of them of course is distorted thru the media and other venues. My idea of some austere lifestyle with sprinkles of luddism is clearly wrong.

Something else about the Amish..they are just like you and I. There are honest ones and dishonest ones, some who are great craftsman and some whose work just plain sucks and I would not have them build me a doghouse.

In our area that was some sexual abuse with young Amish kids 5-6 years back that was hushed up for a while but got so bad (repeat offenders) even the elders finally called in the police and hauled off the perps. There is physical domestic violence abuse you also don't normally hear about as well. The Elders/Church tries to take care of this stuff in house so you don't hear about it. The perps either change their ways, get shunned or they move to a different Amish community in another state.

All in all great people though.

52 posted on 06/08/2012 1:11:59 PM PDT by trailhkr1 (All you need to know about Zimmerman, innocent = riots, manslaughter = riots, guilty = riots)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: trailhkr1

Yodertoter!! LOL! Driving the Amish is a retirement job, out here. Never heard that word!!


53 posted on 06/08/2012 1:15:10 PM PDT by reformedliberal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: reformedliberal
Yodertoter!! LOL! Driving the Amish is a retirement job, out here. Never heard that word!!

I did it in HS and college. Mostly construction crews.

54 posted on 06/08/2012 1:20:52 PM PDT by trailhkr1 (All you need to know about Zimmerman, innocent = riots, manslaughter = riots, guilty = riots)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: re_tail20

See the “Pure Food and Drug Act”- 1906....

Grants the USDA the power to regulate the food industry as well as the CONTENT of the American Diet.


55 posted on 06/08/2012 1:25:36 PM PDT by mo (If you understand, no explanation is needed. If you don't understand, no explanation is possible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Theoria

Well, no cars, but some really spiffy buggies. Propane refrigerators. Flush toilets with holding tanks instead of septics. The tanks need pumping, of course. The businesses can have phones and faxes, but no computers. They ship UPS because UPS will give them a dedicated unit that doesn’t need to go online.

It isn’t Luddism, IMO. The car thing is about staying in touch with family, although they travel a lot by bus or train and one couple we know rented an RV and hired an English driver to go on vacation to a Amish resort in Sarasota. No phones, but one farmer will have one in a booth in a field. I have heard stories of Amish men w/cell phones in the sales barns. No vacuum cleaners, but they love Swiffers.

They complain of digestive problems and most of the women will admit their diet is low in fruits and vegetables, which I do not see them buying when I see them in the store, although they will buy canned ones.

They have their own mail order catalogs and are really big consumers of herbal and *patent* medications.

I’d say they are legalistic and if they can find a way around an Elder’s injunction, they will. Most of their machinery runs on diesel and uses belts and pulleys instead of electricity.

I gather it all varies by community and depends on individual Bishops. Our local Amish are Old Order, aka:Barefoot Amish, but that is only the kids and younger women, from what I see and they are barefoot Memorial Day to Labor Day, regardless of temperature.


56 posted on 06/08/2012 1:27:49 PM PDT by reformedliberal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: reformedliberal; Theoria
Yes, the Amish are a ingenious lot to get around the rules don't they? Lot of strange stuff though as you mentioned.

My Dad had some work done on his house last year and the Amish crew had every modern air/electric power tool known to man. Funny thing though..they would not plug into the electric wall outlets in the house-not allowed in their particular faith but had no problem plugging in the gas powered generator they brought with them running out in the yard.

Funny story. I hauled 12-14 of them to a construction trade show which had many "booth babes" ..scantily clad women who was giving away signed posters of themselves in a bikini etc representing a particular tool or construction item,..i.e Ridgid Tool.

All the younger guys grabbed up these posters and as we were nearing their homes they folded them up and was hiding them in their bags so their parents would not see them. It was their version of internet porn..lol.

I would see stuff like this all the time.

57 posted on 06/08/2012 1:45:00 PM PDT by trailhkr1 (All you need to know about Zimmerman, innocent = riots, manslaughter = riots, guilty = riots)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: trailhkr1

Absolutely could not agree with you more.

We had sexual abuse here, as well. While I never saw physical bruises on my Amish clients, there was a young girl, very pretty, who had just stopped talking. There was not a thing wrong with her that the docs could find and we found no soft tissue issues that would affect her larynx. I always had suspicions, though.

Lots of stories from the 60s by the then-younger English men: being paid to impregnate Amish women though a hole in a sheet with the men standing guard so there was no other contact, was the most bizarre. This was their way of avoiding birth defects because they are so interrelated. Men who are now Elders were known drunks and more than few were known to have smoked pot. There are still young girls who have not yet joined the church who meet young English guys at the local restaurant, where they go into the restrooms and change into regular clothing. Rumspringa, I suppose.

The women have a hard life. It is common to see someone barely 28 with 5 kids. Like anyone else, they love pretty things and will admire my antique glass collection. Their own homes are plain, but the more affluent ones are very elegant, with antique furniture and lovely rag rags, all kept spotless.

Somehow, they have become enshrined in people’s minds as these saints, when, as you said, they are just people and some are great, while others are not.


58 posted on 06/08/2012 2:58:52 PM PDT by reformedliberal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Theoria; re_tail20
Here's an interesting (and long) review of Taubes' Why We Get Fat, by Yoni Freedhoff at Weighty Matters.



It's rare that I've had the occasion to read a book whose premises I agree with (that we eat way too many carbs, that they in turn impact on our weights, and that weight-wise exercise isn't much to write home about), but whose arguments make me cringe. Gary Taubes' Why We Get Fat met that billing.

Let me start out by stating that I'm quite low-carb friendly and that I readily agree that science has proven that saturated fat has been wrongly demonized by the medical establishment for decades, including somewhat by me when I co-wrote my book in 2006/7 (a guy's allowed to learn, and it was in this spirit that I approached reading Taubes' book). Furthermore, I also agree that carbohydrates, more specifically the refined highly processed ones, contribute dramatically to both obesity and chronic disease and their reduction may well have a role to play in most folks' weight management efforts, and that a myopic view of dietary fat as causal to chronic disease and obesity has likely in and of itself, by means of a consequent dietary shift to carbohydrates, contributed dramatically to the rise in the societal prevalence of chronic disease and obesity.

All that said, I found Why We Get Fat to be an extremely difficult read. Not because the writing wasn't engaging. On the contrary, Taubes is an excellent writer. I found the book difficult to read because for reasons I can't understand, Taubes seems to have decided to abandon journalistic and scientific integrity in place of observational data, straw men and logical fallacy.

Taubes' manifesto is straight forward. Carbohydrates make us fat and they do so independently of the first law of thermodynamics. Forget about calories, you can eat as many or as few of those as you'd like, ultimately weight is purely about carbohydrates.

Continue reading... BUMP

59 posted on 06/08/2012 4:26:49 PM PDT by caveat emptor (Zippity Do Dah)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Theoria

Amish ...

If you have ever been behind an Amish mom at the grocery, as I have, you would know how much junk food they enjoy. And sweets of all sorts.

But, it’s true, they are a little more active than some of us.


60 posted on 06/08/2012 6:30:54 PM PDT by Cloverfarm (This too shall pass ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: lawdave; trailhkr1
the brain needs at least 130 grams of carbohydrates per day in order to function properly.

I am not trying to be a smart ass (for once); I am interested in the facts.

trailhkr1: Specifically, which nutrients or effects on the body are characteristic of carbohydrates which are not characteristic of fats and would account for this?

*************************************************************

lawdave: Have you been consuming fewer than 130 grams of carbohydrates per day and for how long? Does your brain function properly? (Okay, that last one was a little smart ass, but I'm truly interested in your story.)

61 posted on 06/11/2012 2:03:54 PM PDT by Jeff Chandler (Tagline: (optional, printed after your name on post):)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Chandler
Have you been consuming fewer than 130 grams of carbohydrates per day and for how long? Does your brain function properly?

LOL. I have no idea how many carbs I am consuming. I was wondering about the claim that I need to eat at least 130 grams of carbs for proper brain function also. None of the books I have read have suggested this is a issue. I eat leafy green vegatables every day but no bread or wheat products. I think my brain is functioning okay. I tried a one week jury trial last month and won.

62 posted on 06/11/2012 2:43:37 PM PDT by lawdave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: lawdave

How closely are you following Taubes’ suggestions?


63 posted on 06/11/2012 3:06:51 PM PDT by Jeff Chandler (Tagline: (optional, printed after your name on post):)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Chandler

As closely as I can. I read his book and am following his proposed diet.


64 posted on 06/12/2012 9:28:01 AM PDT by lawdave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: lawdave
I cut out carbs on January 3, 2012 and have lost 33 pounds

That's very encouraging. The real test will be what your diet, weight, and health is like two or three years from now. That's my beef with semi-starvation diets. Everybody gains the weight back.

65 posted on 06/12/2012 12:26:21 PM PDT by Jeff Chandler (Tagline: (optional, printed after your name on post):)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: lawdave
For those interested: No Sugar No Starch
66 posted on 06/12/2012 12:38:28 PM PDT by Jeff Chandler (Tagline: (optional, printed after your name on post):)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: lawdave; Jeff Chandler
Regarding carbs for brain power..

Why the Brain Needs Carbohydrates While the brain's primary source of fuel is glucose, the brain cannot store it. So once carbs are broken down into glucose by the body, the glucose is then carried to the brain by the bloodstream where it is used immediately as energy by nerve cells. The brain uses glucose to perform many functions including thinking, short-term and long-term memory, and communication with other parts of the body. It stands to reason that when carbohydrates in the diet are restricted, the glucose that's available for the brain to use as energy is reduced. Read more at Suite101: How Low-Carb Diets Can Affect the Brain: The Effects of Carbohydrate Restriction on Memory and Learning | Suite101.com http://suite101.com/article/how-lowcarb-diets-can-affect-the-brain-a86847#ixzz1xbrY28u0

67 posted on 06/12/2012 12:40:36 PM PDT by trailhkr1 (All you need to know about Zimmerman, innocent = riots, manslaughter = riots, guilty = riots)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Chandler
The real test will be what your diet, weight, and health is like two or three years from now. That's my beef with semi-starvation diets. Everybody gains the weight back.

Excellent point. That is why I hate fad diets including Atkins. Atkins is ok for a short time but should never bee along term diet. Your body needs good carbs. People who want to lose weight(and keep it off) need to make a lifestyle choice and eat right and exercise nearly every day.

Not any different than AA-one day at a time and keep going.I see so many people at the gym they lose a significant amount of weight through a low cal diet and 8-10 months later they are back to their old weight because they can't keep the diet they are on.

68 posted on 06/12/2012 12:47:42 PM PDT by trailhkr1 (All you need to know about Zimmerman, innocent = riots, manslaughter = riots, guilty = riots)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Chandler
The real test will be what your diet, weight, and health is like two or three years from now. That's my beef with semi-starvation diets. Everybody gains the weight back.

Excellent point. That is why I hate fad diets including Atkins. Atkins is ok for a short time but should never bee along term diet. Your body needs good carbs. People who want to lose weight(and keep it off) need to make a lifestyle choice and eat right and exercise nearly every day.

Not any different than AA-one day at a time and keep going.I see so many people at the gym they lose a significant amount of weight through a low cal diet and 8-10 months later they are back to their old weight because they can't keep the diet they are on.

.The RIGHT way to lose weight is 1.0-2 lbs per week max with a 400-500 day calories deficit from your maintence calories-that is the calories you consume every day where you neither gain nor lose weight.

69 posted on 06/12/2012 12:48:12 PM PDT by trailhkr1 (All you need to know about Zimmerman, innocent = riots, manslaughter = riots, guilty = riots)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Chandler
That's my beef with semi-starvation diets. Everybody gains the weight back.

I agree. This diet does not require starvation. In fact it says to eat as much non- carb food as you need to not be hungry. Taubes actually discusses the after diet weight gain, citing to the fact that most diets restrict all calories proportionally but after the diet ends we go back to ingesting a lot of carbs.

So, once I hit my goal weight(somewhere between 190 and 200), I intend to slowly incorporate carbs back into my diet to see how much I can tolerate without gaining.

BTW, the Taubes diet is in the previous post at the link titled "No Sugar, No Starch."

70 posted on 06/12/2012 12:51:39 PM PDT by lawdave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: lawdave

oops. I didn’t notice that you posted the diet.


71 posted on 06/12/2012 1:07:50 PM PDT by lawdave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: trailhkr1
Atkins is ok for a short time but should never bee along term diet. Your body needs good carbs.

I read Atkins' book not long ago. Atkins is not a no-carb diet; it is a low-carb diet. And the low carb part of it is exactly that -- good carbs, from vegetables and fruits (provided your body processes fructose well).

72 posted on 06/12/2012 1:21:41 PM PDT by kevao
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: trailhkr1; lawdave

I’ve seen that assertion about carbs being necessary for the brain in many places, often verbatum. What I have not seen are primary sources of this assertion. I have also seen assertions that the brain can be fueled without carbs.

Where are the long term studies on the effects of low carb diets? And what about the Inuits? Their diets are almost completely devoid of anything other than animal products. Do their brains not function properly? Then there is lawdave. Has his five months of carbohydrate deprivation rendered him stupid? (He seems coherent to me, but who knows, maybe his caretaker is typing for him.)

Again, I’m not trying be a controversial. I would like to nail this stuff down.


73 posted on 06/12/2012 2:00:57 PM PDT by Jeff Chandler (Tagline: (optional, printed after your name on post):)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: re_tail20

I’ve seen a number of photos from that time and the vast majority of the people in them were very thin.


74 posted on 06/12/2012 2:06:44 PM PDT by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: trailhkr1
The RIGHT way to lose weight is 1.0-2 lbs per week max with a 400-500 day calories deficit from your maintence calories-that is the calories you consume every day where you neither gain nor lose weight.

That sounds reasonable. I would be interested in seeing the results of the scientific studies demonstrating the long-term efficacy of such a regimen, say, a follow-up study of subjects after a period of five years, ten years, twenty years, etc.

75 posted on 06/12/2012 2:07:13 PM PDT by Jeff Chandler (Tagline: (optional, printed after your name on post):)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Chandler
That sounds reasonable. I would be interested in seeing the results of the scientific studies demonstrating the long-term efficacy of such a regimen, say, a follow-up study of subjects after a period of five years, ten years, twenty years, etc.

Once you lose the weight you go back to your maintenance calories. I know some people who have made a lifestyle change and kept the weight off but TBH most people gain it back within 1-2 years... at least that has been my experience on people I have dealt with. I would say 5% or less keep the weight off. Sad isn't it? Old habits die hard I guess.

76 posted on 06/12/2012 2:13:23 PM PDT by trailhkr1 (All you need to know about Zimmerman, innocent = riots, manslaughter = riots, guilty = riots)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Chandler
Then there is lawdave. Has his five months of carbohydrate deprivation rendered him stupid? (He seems coherent to me, but who knows, maybe his caretaker is typing for him.)

Of course not.. it is long term. Most nutritionist agree good carbs are very important in overall long term health.

77 posted on 06/12/2012 2:16:48 PM PDT by trailhkr1 (All you need to know about Zimmerman, innocent = riots, manslaughter = riots, guilty = riots)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: trailhkr1
I would say 5% or less keep the weight off.

Then there is no point in taking the weight off, unless it is a life-and-death situation, such as dropping enough lard to be eligible for a vital surgical procedure, or getting in respectable shape for that 25th graduation reunion.

It would be useful to see a comparison of the long-term success rates of various diet regimens.

78 posted on 06/12/2012 2:20:32 PM PDT by Jeff Chandler (Tagline: (optional, printed after your name on post):)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Chandler
Then there is no point in taking the weight off, unless it is a life-and-death situation, such as dropping enough lard to be eligible for a vital surgical procedure, or getting in respectable shape for that 25th graduation reunion.

How about quality of life? Those extra 25-30-50 lbs or more creates havoc on knees, mobility, breathing etc. Those extra lbs might not kill you but can make life more less enjoyable.

People make a choice when they gain the weight back. They give up quality of life to eating their favorite foods in quantity.

79 posted on 06/12/2012 2:28:51 PM PDT by trailhkr1 (All you need to know about Zimmerman, innocent = riots, manslaughter = riots, guilty = riots)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: trailhkr1
Most nutritionist agree good carbs are very important in overall long term health.

And most scientists agree that cow farts and SUVs were causing a catastrophic anteObama rise in sea levels.

Coffee Bad/Coffee Good
Saccharine Bad/Saccharin Fine
Red Wine Good/Oops-Fake Study
Eggs Bad/Eggs Fine (but just in case only eat a few)

You can see why I would like to see real long-term studies on these issues before I buy into any "consensus".

80 posted on 06/12/2012 2:29:36 PM PDT by Jeff Chandler (Tagline: (optional, printed after your name on post):)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Chandler

The big problem that people run into is when they hit their target weight they “go back to normal” forgetting that “normal” is how they got fat in the first place. They see diets as temporary, it needs to be permanent. Part of my key to having kept weight off is approaching it like a religious conversion, there’s how I used to be and how I am now, I had to spawn a new “normal” that involved less eating and more exercise than the old “normal”.

Which regimen people use won’t really change the long term success since the problem is they tend to leave the regimen the moment they hit target.


81 posted on 06/12/2012 2:33:17 PM PDT by discostu (Listen, do you smell something?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: trailhkr1
People make a choice when they gain the weight back. They give up quality of life to eating their favorite foods in quantity.

How do you know that? Is it not possible that the semi-starvation that they endured in order to lose weight has caused their bodies' natural defenses to push for more intake? That their increasingly intense hunger and cravings are a natural response to the low calorie diets, which the body interprets as a time of famine, such as late winter in prehistoric times? That would be a mighty powerful survival strategy for a successful species. But in our unprecedented times of plenty, it turns us into teletubbies.

That's one theory, anyway.

82 posted on 06/12/2012 2:38:43 PM PDT by Jeff Chandler (Tagline: (optional, printed after your name on post):)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: discostu

How long has it been since you saw the light?


83 posted on 06/12/2012 2:40:23 PM PDT by Jeff Chandler (Tagline: (optional, printed after your name on post):)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Chandler
Is it not possible that the semi-starvation that they endured in order to lose weight has caused their bodies' natural defenses to push for more intake? That their increasingly intense hunger and cravings are a natural response to the low calorie diets, which the body interprets as a time of famine, such as late winter in prehistoric times? That would be a mighty powerful survival strategy for a successful species. But in our unprecedented times of plenty, it turns us into teletubbies.
84 posted on 06/12/2012 2:44:38 PM PDT by trailhkr1 (All you need to know about Zimmerman, innocent = riots, manslaughter = riots, guilty = riots)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Chandler
Is it not possible that the semi-starvation that they endured in order to lose weight has caused their bodies' natural defenses to push for more intake? That their increasingly intense hunger and cravings are a natural response to the low calorie diets, which the body interprets as a time of famine, such as late winter in prehistoric times? That would be a mighty powerful survival strategy for a successful species. But in our unprecedented times of plenty, it turns us into teletubbies.

. No, after the diet people should go back to their maintenance calories so your point is moot. Maintenance calories are the calories you consume every day where you neither gain nor lose weight. The body recovers/adapts extremely quick. The basic premise is still calories in, calories out.but that is the simple answer but most accurate

85 posted on 06/12/2012 2:44:57 PM PDT by trailhkr1 (All you need to know about Zimmerman, innocent = riots, manslaughter = riots, guilty = riots)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: trailhkr1
The basic premise is still calories in, calories out.

Like a machine?

86 posted on 06/12/2012 2:47:11 PM PDT by Jeff Chandler (Tagline: (optional, printed after your name on post):)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Chandler

8 years I think, maybe 7 and change. I actually have co-workers that don’t remember me fat. Took about 18 month to burn down to target (70 pounds down, I did not put myself on the strictest regimen because I knew I couldn’t stick to it), and the worst I’ve bounced away is about 15 pounds before knuckling back down to work. And of course there’d been plenty of attempts before, it takes a lot of commitment to really hit it to drive through the hunger and exercise. One of the big things was finding out how few of my “naturally thin” friends actually were, turns out most of them have strong exercise and diet regimens, the biggest difference was they didn’t get fat first.


87 posted on 06/12/2012 2:47:58 PM PDT by discostu (Listen, do you smell something?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: discostu
Which regimen people use won’t really change the long term success since the problem is they tend to leave the regimen the moment they hit target.

Exactly !!! Its not losing the weight it's keeping it off long term that detracts 95% of the people. Look at Oprah and Kirstie Alley how many times they have yo yo'd in weight up and down.

88 posted on 06/12/2012 2:48:03 PM PDT by trailhkr1 (All you need to know about Zimmerman, innocent = riots, manslaughter = riots, guilty = riots)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: trailhkr1
Maintenance calories are the calories you consume every day where you neither gain nor lose weight.

But if your body thinks it has just gone though a famine, wouldn't your hunger go into overdrive to the point that what was once your "maintenance" amount of fuel seems to your body to be inadequate for the purpose of replacing the fuel lost during the previous famine and storing up fuel in preparation for the next?

Your experience is that 95% of the people who attain their ideal weight on low calorie/increased exercise diets actually CHOSE to become blimps over simple moderation. Either the human race is almost entirely screwed up, or there is something going on here.

89 posted on 06/12/2012 2:53:22 PM PDT by Jeff Chandler (Tagline: (optional, printed after your name on post):)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: discostu

How old are you? How hungry do you get? Is it a difficult challenge to maintain your exercise regimen?


90 posted on 06/12/2012 2:56:11 PM PDT by Jeff Chandler (Tagline: (optional, printed after your name on post):)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: trailhkr1

That’s the problem with humans being so goal and reward oriented. People tend to grab onto a mind set of “I’ll do this until the desired thing happens then I get this reward”, in dieting that generally becomes diet and exercise until target weight hit and then “I can eat ice cream again”. Their celebration dinner puts them on the path back to the old weight. That’s part of why my regimen revolved around “reduce everything eliminate nothing”, it gets rid of that temptation.


91 posted on 06/12/2012 2:56:47 PM PDT by discostu (Listen, do you smell something?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Chandler

I turn 43 in a month. I get pretty hungry but I’ve learned it’s good, food tastes better when you’re hungry. I’ve put my exercise regimen in a place where it’s “easy” to maintain because it’s part of my life rhythm, a lot of my exercise is at lunch time, gives me an opportunity to get away from work like “regular” going out to lunch, and it’s cheaper; then there’s the saturday morning trainer appointment and the sunday morning bike ride. The bike ride is probably my favorite exercise, I ride a lot when I’m on vacation. Once you manage to lock into a habit for a couple of years they tend to be pretty self maintaining, they’re my schedule it’s just what I do now.


92 posted on 06/12/2012 3:06:32 PM PDT by discostu (Listen, do you smell something?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Chandler

Your hunger goes into overdrive when your stomach shrinks. Worst week of a diet is shrink week, vicious hunger pains, the body does NOT like the stomach to shrink. BUT if you make it out the other side the diet then becomes much more self sustaining because you’ve now shrunk your appetite, your stomach now only WANTS as much food as you’ve been feeding it. Depending on the diet you’re on shrink week is usually in the second month, maybe third. That’s the week a lot of people bail. If you survive til the “end” when you go into maintenance you’ll actually re-expand a bit for the new extra food.


93 posted on 06/12/2012 3:13:55 PM PDT by discostu (Listen, do you smell something?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: trailhkr1

Watch out for Special high Intensity Training, however... ;-P


94 posted on 06/12/2012 3:47:48 PM PDT by MortMan (Americans are a people increasingly separated by our connectivity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: lawdave

Thanks for recommending this book. I hope that I’m as successful with it as you have been.


95 posted on 06/17/2012 4:34:04 PM PDT by Stegall Tx (Living off your tax dollars can be kinda fun, but not terribly profitable.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: caveat emptor

“Taubes’ manifesto is straight forward. Carbohydrates make us fat and they do so independently of the first law of thermodynamics. Forget about calories, you can eat as many or as few of those as you’d like, ultimately weight is purely about carbohydrates.”

Sorry, but Yoni is full of crap. Taubes DID NOT say an individual can eat infinite calories. What he does say, however, is that one can eat the same amount of carbohydrate and gain weight, while an equal amount of fat and protein will not cause the body to store fat. This is because eating large amounts of carbohydrate causes the body to over-secrete insulin from the resulting spike in blood sugar, which in turn causes the liver to store those carbohydrate calories as fat.

Fat and protein, when eaten in those same amounts, do not cause a spike in blood sugar, and thus cause no over secretion of insulin, no triggering of the liver to store calories as fat. Therefore, an equal amount of fat and protein do not make a person as fat as a person eating a similar amount of high carbohydrate food.


96 posted on 06/17/2012 7:04:27 PM PDT by Darnright ("I don't trust liberals, I trust conservatives." - Lucius Annaeus Seneca)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Chandler

For a pretty decent explanation of brain function in a low carb, high fat diet, try Dr Eades at proteinpower.com.

http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/ketones-and-ketosis/metabolism-and-ketosis/


97 posted on 06/17/2012 7:31:16 PM PDT by Darnright ("I don't trust liberals, I trust conservatives." - Lucius Annaeus Seneca)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Darnright
Sorry, but Yoni is full of crap. Taubes DID NOT say an individual can eat infinite calories

Neither did Freedhoff. But that's peanuts compared to the loathsome behavior of the brilliant Taubes.

He declined to notify potential dieters of the extreme nutritional inbalance and future health hazards of the diet he was pushing. That diet is low in essential B vitamins and high in heme-iron, which is an easily absorbable form of iron, the buildup of which is potentially hazardous to one's health. There is no iron-homeostasis, and the buildup of iron continues inexorably, unabated if you continue to eat excess animal protein.

That inbalance can be easily corrected with a decent multivitamin and reduced eating of animal protein. About an ounce per day is all the protein one needs.
98 posted on 06/18/2012 10:51:12 PM PDT by caveat emptor (Zippity Do Dah)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-98 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson