Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A Diet Manifesto: Drop the Apple and Walk Away
NY Times ^ | December 27, 2010 | ABIGAIL ZUGER, M.D.

Posted on 01/02/2011 3:16:05 PM PST by neverdem

Another year ends, and still the war drags on. In the final salvo of 2010, the combatants are lobbing fruit.

Not literally, of course, though they might like to: The long war of the weight-loss diets has aroused passions just about as overheated as those of any military conflict.

How is a person best advised to lose extra weight and retreat from diabetes and heart disease? Count calories, cut fat and fill up on fruits and vegetables? Or turn instead to a high-protein, high-fat...

--snip--

In the opposite corner we have Gary Taubes, the science journalist who has thrown in his lot with the high-fat, high-protein crowd, arguing in his new book that the overweight should just put down their apples and walk away: “If we’re predisposed to put on fat, it’s a good bet that most fruit will make the problem worse, not better.”

But those who are curious about the science behind it all could do worse than to pick up Mr. Taubes’s book “Why We Get Fat: And What to Do About It.”

--snip--

And the only one of these hormones under even a smidgen of voluntary control is insulin. At this point Mr. Taubes merges onto the narrative highway traveled by all low-carb advocates: The body’s insulin levels are largely determined by ingested carbohydrates, and for some people the high-carb foods that stimulate insulin secretion and cravings for more high-carb foods are, in this worldview, just so much poison.

So that apple — a filling package of fiber and vitamins to the Weight Watchers folks — is just a serving of fructose to Mr. Taubes. Fructose is the problematic sugar our bodies turn to fat the most readily, and if you are programmed to be fat, an apple will make you that much fatter...

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


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: cad; chd; diabetes; diets; fructose; health; heartdisease; obesity
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-167 next last
To: Grizzled Bear

“Most kids”

Even if we stipulate everything you say, that still doesn’t account for adults.

“they didn’t offer “super size” or “jumbo.”

The first MacDonald’s in my area sold burgers by the bag, five to a bag.


101 posted on 01/02/2011 8:26:25 PM PST by dsc (Any attempt to move a government to the left is a crime against humanity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: dsc
LOL.

I thought you were being serious with that absurd claim.

If you were being serious, be sure to ping me when you're able to prove that you can, in fact, get something from nothing. In the meantime, whatever you do, don't put your money where your mouth is. You'll lose whatever you have.

102 posted on 01/02/2011 8:34:08 PM PST by Mase (Save me from the people who would save me from myself!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: dsc

Dude. If you want to stuff your face, sit on your butt and get fatter, it’s your own business.

You don’t have to justify it to the rest of us. We don’t even know you.


103 posted on 01/02/2011 8:36:34 PM PST by Grizzled Bear ("Does not play well with others.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: dsc

>I was skinny as a rail until I was 20 or 21, then bam! Something changed. I couldn’t reduce my intake enough to lose weight. I had to run at least 18 to 24 miles per week, ***and*** reduce my intake of food to preposterous levels to lose weight at keep it off. Neither reduction of intake nor exercise alone sufficed—and there’s something fundamentally wrong with that. There has to be a third—or third, fourth, and fifth—element at work there.<

When you’re young, your pancreas can take care of the carbohydrate-laden food you eat. But at adulthood, many people develop a condition called insulin resistance. This condition causes your body to turn the starchy stuff you eat into fat instead of into energy.

In a large percentage of the population, insulin resistance leads to type 2 diabetes in later life.

Read Gary Taubes’ “Good Calories, Bad Calories for a more thorough explanation.


104 posted on 01/02/2011 8:56:47 PM PST by Darnright (There can never be a complete confidence in a power which is excessive. - Tacitus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Darnright; dsc
How many American POWs returned home overweight? Weren't they all extremely thin? How about it, dsc; would you lose weight at the Hanoi Hilton?

How many fat quadriplegics have you seen? Weight loss results are often astounding when you can't sneak extra calories.

I could put away the food with no problems up until the age of forty. I think the biggest problem is, due to wear and tear, I can't really exercise as intensly as I had in the past.

105 posted on 01/02/2011 9:22:02 PM PST by Grizzled Bear ("Does not play well with others.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: brytlea
I also don’t feed my dogs grain based foods. They seem to do much better.

Definitely! Our cats too. "Kibble" is not a normal food for a cat!

106 posted on 01/02/2011 9:44:25 PM PST by Yaelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: petitfour

Bread is only sooooooo good while you are in the throes of it, and feel the cravings. Go off grains for a week and you will be able to forgo bread. It no longer interests me, and I used to adore it.

Oh, and cheesecake? Just don’t eat the bottom crust, and you can enjoy a few bites now and then = it’s full rich fat (though of course there is sugar in it too). I had a piece of cheesecake last week because it doesn’t have any grains - as long as you avoid the crust at the bottom!


107 posted on 01/02/2011 9:47:28 PM PST by Yaelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: warsaw44
Why not heated Olive oil? I use olive oil for cooking - not a good idea?

I used to cook with it too. I love olive oil. But it becomes toxic when heated. So save your really good olive oils for salads, or for drizzling over foods AFTER cooking is done.

For heating up, the best oil is coconut. It can take the heat. Get extra-virgin.

108 posted on 01/02/2011 9:52:26 PM PST by Yaelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: dsc
My point is that we ate a lot and exercised but little in the 1950s and 1960s, but obesity was still rare.

But wasn't the eating constrained to mealtimes? When I lived in France in the early 80s, I noticed that the French were simply NOT FAT, although they are a lot for lunch and dinner. (Breakfast was often just coffee and a cigarette for them...)

I remember hanging out with a French friend and she would say "Oh, I am STARVING to death!" While in her home with a kitchen full of food. She would not consider going to get something to eat, like we Americans would, because it was NOT YET MEALTIME! She waited! Who does that here??

109 posted on 01/02/2011 10:00:17 PM PST by Yaelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Yaelle

toxic? I had no idea.

Quick question: I usually brush olive oil on both sides of a thick steak, salt and pepper and then into the broiler the steak goes. The results are first rate but would the Olive oil be toxic in this instance as well?


110 posted on 01/02/2011 10:39:29 PM PST by warsaw44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: sauropod

mark


111 posted on 01/03/2011 4:35:28 AM PST by sauropod (The truth shall make you free but first it will make you miserable.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Fructose is the problematic sugar our bodies turn to fat the most readily, and if you are programmed to be fat, an apple will make you that much fatter.

I've been having a problem with Acid Reflux, and I just read that apples are very good for that problem.

112 posted on 01/03/2011 4:36:36 AM PST by Dr. Scarpetta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: skookum55; SamAdams76

Imposing politics on science is as bad or worse than imposing religion on science

The solution was correctly stated. Eat less and exercise more. Too much eating and too little activity over a prolonged period causes health problems


113 posted on 01/03/2011 4:41:34 AM PST by bert (K.E. N.P. N.C. D.E. +12 .....( History is a process, not an event ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Scarpetta; neverdem
Fructose is the problematic sugar our bodies turn to fat the most readily, and if you are programmed to be fat, an apple will make you that much fatter.

If your caloric intake is not exceeding your caloric expenditures, an apple will have no effect on your fat. Besides, there is very little de novo lipogenesis in the human body. We're not like pigs and cattle. Fat gain is due almost entirely to dietary fats. Here is the order of storage capacity of the three macronutrients: fats > glucose > proteins. They range from comparatively unlimited storage for fats to no storage form for proteins. If your dietary intake exceeds your kilocalorie expenditure, the excess is stored. Since there is only about 3 days of storage for glucose in the form of glycogen, the so-called animal starch, and since there is no storage for proteins, the burn order for macronutrients is protein > glucose > fats. That is, proteins are preferentially metabolized over glucose (including all the other dietary sugars that are eventually converted to glucose unless, like fructose, they are used in DNA synthesis or they're metabolized in the glucose pathway). Glucose is preferentially metabolized over fats. When someone's energy intake consistently exceeds his energy output, the substrate oxidation shifts away from fats (the primary energy source your body runs on--even muscles, especially the heart) and toward carbohydrates. This is simply a matter of protection against too high a level of serum glucose. If your proteins get glycosylated, you get screwed up faster and worse than if you just put on weight. If you really pack in a huge amount of excess calories with a high percentage of carbohydrates, you may produce some fat via de novo lipogenesis, but it'll be a tiny fraction compared to stored dietary fat.

With respect to acid reflux, eat only very lightly in the evening. Going to bed with a mostly empty stomach will have a greater positive impact on acid reflux than almost anything else.

And, yes, I am an expert (Ph.D. Human Nutrition/Nutritional Biology, University of Chicago).
114 posted on 01/03/2011 4:54:51 AM PST by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: aruanan

Thank you...


115 posted on 01/03/2011 8:21:28 AM PST by Dr. Scarpetta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: aruanan
"...the burn order for macronutrients is protein > glucose > fats."

I'm a little confused about this statement. Doesn't the burn order depend on the ratio of the nutrients in the your blood serum at a given time? I also thought it was glucose, protein, then fat. If no glucose, then your body starts to cannibalize it's muscles for protein, while converting fat also.

And where does the glycemic valuation of a given carb fit into your burn order - if at all? Weight lifters are told to eat more carbs then protein after workouts because of glycogen depletion and that certain carbs will restore the ATP quicker than protein. Of course, they need additional protein to repair the muscle fiber breakdown. Maybe I'm mixing up the terms or relying on old info.

116 posted on 01/03/2011 8:43:02 AM PST by A Navy Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: Battle Axe

I may have to be porky forever. There is no way in hell that I will ever be a vegetarian. The mental results would be drastic.


117 posted on 01/03/2011 8:53:47 AM PST by HungarianGypsy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
A Diet Manifesto: Drop the Apple and Walk Away

More Microsoft FUD, oh wait, wrong Apple, nevermind.

118 posted on 01/03/2011 8:55:09 AM PST by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Scarpetta
"Fructose is the problematic sugar our bodies turn to fat the most readily, and if you are programmed to be fat, an apple will make you that much fatter."

I've been having a problem with Acid Reflux, and I just read that apples are very good for that problem.

Try it. Maybe it's only a placebo effect, but if it helps, so what? But that's not the first reference linking fructose to fat that I've read. Fructose metabolism produces glycerol with one less enzyme required than than glucose metabolism. Glycerol is the "spine" of triglycerides. This biochemistry and physiology isn't for everybody.

Table sugar, sucrose, is composed of equal parts of glucose and fructose, but the ratio of fructose to glucose in the high fructose corn syrup used in soft drinks is almost 4 to 3. The high fructose corn syrup used in baked goods is different from the high fructose corn syrup, HFCS, used in soft drinks. You can check the keyword, hfcs, threads by me if you're curious.

119 posted on 01/03/2011 10:14:01 AM PST by neverdem (Xin loi minh oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: A Navy Vet
"...the burn order for macronutrients is protein > glucose > fats."

I'm a little confused about this statement. Doesn't the burn order depend on the ratio of the nutrients in the your blood serum at a given time? I also thought it was glucose, protein, then fat. If no glucose, then your body starts to cannibalize it's muscles for protein, while converting fat also.


When you eat protein (and almost all Americans eat protein far in excess of amino acid needs for protein synthesis), the body uses what it needs for protein synthesis and metabolizes the rest for energy since there is no storage form for protein. The body is constantly recycling proteins to amino acids and synthesizing them back to proteins anyway. If your protein needs exceed the amount available in this recycled pool plus dietary protein, then your body will start using the protein in skeletal muscle to get what it needs. Some call skeletal muscles amino acid stores, but they're really not a storage form any more than a frame house is a lumber warehouse. This kind of wasting doesn't occur until you get into starvation territory (look at the Minnesota Starvation Experiment for some interesting reading). Protein metabolism involves both the glycolytic and lipolytic pathways since different amino acids can be oxidized in different ways. Because a typical American diet has excess protein, the portion in excess of amino acid needs is burned in the fuel cycle. Glucose can be stored via glycogen and doesn't necessarily have to be used immediately.

If you are consistently taking in more energy than you expend, the substrate usage shifts toward glucose use and away from fat use: you can store hundreds of pounds of fat; you can't store much glucose before starting to screw up your liver (think force-feeding of geese to make the special kind of liver used in pate).

If you entirely excluded glucose from your diet (or any other sugar that could be converted into glucose or an intermediate in the glycolytic pathway), you'd have to start using skeletal muscle to get the amino acids that can be burned in glycolytic pathway (so your brain can stay alive).

And where does the glycemic valuation of a given carb fit into your burn order - if at all? Weight lifters are told to eat more carbs then protein after workouts because of glycogen depletion and that certain carbs will restore the ATP quicker than protein. Of course, they need additional protein to repair the muscle fiber breakdown. Maybe I'm mixing up the terms or relying on old info.

The glycemic value of carbs is how quickly they are available as glucose. Saltine crackers have a really high glycemic index. Others, like grains of wheat, have lower glycemic index. This quickness of availability is in the gut during digestion. Starches are broken down into mono and disaccharides. Once monosaccharides are transported across the intestinal lumen, it's irrelevant where they originally came from. The only time it would make any real difference is if a diabetic is crashing from low blood sugar. You'd want to give something that required as few digestive enzyme steps as possible to get it into the bloodstream, so you wouldn't say, "Here's a baked potato." A glass of orange juice with some table sugar takes someone nearly passed out on the ground to up on his feet and bitching about how sweet it is in a matter of minutes because the fructose can be absorbed as soon as it reaches the brush border of the small intestine and sucrose (glucose + fructose) is almost as fast (I know this from experience with a friend who is a type 1 diabetic).

If someone is doing a workout to build muscles, he's using mostly aerobic, fat oxidation. The basic metabolism of muscles is fat oxidation. When you consider that long distance runners and cyclists expend far more energy over far longer periods of time than body builders without depleting their ATP (if they did, they'd die--think of why you die from cyanide), body builders are in no danger from this. And why would they think they have to quickly replenish ATP after a workout? Or else their muscles that they're trying to build will get catabolized to get the fuel to make the ATP? As long as they have any kind of nutrients in their last meal, it's going to be used to make ATP. This ATP synthesis is going on all the time. If you suddenly interrupt the process (think cyanide poisoning), you have enough ATP available for a few minutes of (unconscious) life. So their recently-exercised muscles aren't going to get eaten up to provide substrate for ATP synthesis. Of course, the necessary muscle tissue damage that ensues from the workout that triggers the synthesis of more muscle provides some amino acids that are used both for fuel and for amino acid synthesis.
120 posted on 01/03/2011 10:19:37 AM PST by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Thank you


121 posted on 01/03/2011 10:21:56 AM PST by Dr. Scarpetta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: aruanan; Dr. Scarpetta
Besides, there is very little de novo lipogenesis in the human body.

This paper argues otherwise. Do you have any more up to date references than this?

Fructose, insulin resistance, and metabolic dyslipidemia

A high flux of fructose to the liver, the main organ capable of metabolizing this simple carbohydrate, perturbs glucose metabolism and glucose uptake pathways, and leads to a significantly enhanced rate of de novo lipogenesis and triglyceride (TG) synthesis, driven by the high flux of glycerol and acyl portions of TG molecules from fructose catabolism.

122 posted on 01/03/2011 10:32:18 AM PST by neverdem (Xin loi minh oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: neverdem; Dr. Scarpetta
Besides, there is very little de novo lipogenesis in the human body.

This paper argues otherwise. Do you have any more up to date references than this?

Fructose, insulin resistance, and metabolic dyslipidemia

A high flux of fructose to the liver, the main organ capable of metabolizing this simple carbohydrate, perturbs glucose metabolism and glucose uptake pathways, and leads to a significantly enhanced rate of de novo lipogenesis and triglyceride (TG) synthesis, driven by the high flux of glycerol and acyl portions of TG molecules from fructose catabolism.


The paper is a 2005 review paper. The study they cite for enhanced de novo lipogenesis is a 1993 paper (Am J Clin Nutr November 1993 vol. 58 no. 5 754S-765S). Not exactly recent.

At any rate, the amount of de novo lipogenesis in humans is very small. You could significantly enhance it and still have a relatively small contribution to total body fat. And all this would still be in the context of total kilocalorie intake. If your intake does not exceed your output, it wouldn't make any difference at all if some fructose led to de novo lipogenesis. You cannot store more energy than you take in. It would only make a difference if intake exceeded output. And you'd still wind up with the same problem. Your fat increase will be to the degree that your energy intake exceeds your energy output. Regardless of where the fat comes from (dietary intake versus de novo lipogenesis--which requires energy), it will not increase your body weight unless your energy expenditure falls below your energy intake.

Think of the de novo lipogenesis as an additional step that energy intake has to go through on its way to storage. That costs energy. So, in the end, if excess energy in the form of dietary fat goes directly to fat stores while carbohydrates are preferentially oxidized or if some of those carbohydrates trigger the genesis of new fat, the total amount of energy available for fat deposition can never be more than the amount energy intake in excess of energy expenditure. One could argue that an additional energy-intensive process, fat synthesis, or an increase in this process, would, for the same amount of excess energy intake, result in decreased fat deposition due to the higher energy costs in maintaining the synthesis.
123 posted on 01/03/2011 11:28:03 AM PST by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: aruanan
Okay, sorta got it. I was using the old fallacy that skeletal muscles were consider as "stores". Plus, I confused the discussion with the mention of ATP.

What I still don't understand is at what point does the body start the cannibalization of skeletal muscle. Is that what body-building "over-training" is about - simple lack of protein vs exercise? Using the amino acids in other muscle groups to repair the damage of the muscles just exhausted? Sort of a self-defeating Peter paying Paul cycle? So more protein will correct this cycle? Right? At what point with additional protein are you adding fat plus muscle? That's the tough one for us amateur weight lifters.

I also don't get why nutritionists suggested 5 or more small meals (Weight Watchers) rather than 2 or 3 meals of comparable calories and macro-nutrient ratios. Although with your burn formula, I do now better understand why Atkins works so well. Thanks for the feedback. What a complex system our bodies are and no wonder there has always been so much contradicting info out there to us laymen.

124 posted on 01/03/2011 11:34:26 AM PST by A Navy Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: A Navy Vet
What I still don't understand is at what point does the body start the cannibalization of skeletal muscle. Is that what body-building "over-training" is about - simple lack of protein vs exercise? Using the amino acids in other muscle groups to repair the damage of the muscles just exhausted? Sort of a self-defeating Peter paying Paul cycle? So more protein will correct this cycle? Right? At what point with additional protein are you adding fat plus muscle? That's the tough one for us amateur weight lifters.

If you've radically increased your lean body mass in the form of skeletal muscles, you'll increase the required energy intake to fuel that muscle and stay at an energy balance where you won't gain fat. If you decrease your energy intake and maintain the same level of energy expenditure (not only resting metabolic rate, but large muscle activity), you'll make up the difference required from stored body fat. After that, the energy deficit will have to be made up from skeletal muscle. Also, if you've built up your muscles and increased muscle tone to a high degree and just stop the physical activities that led to that state, you'll lose both muscle tone and muscle mass. I don't know what the signaling pathways are for that, but it's not desirable from a survival standpoint to continue to expend large amounts of energy to maintain a level of musculature that is not being used. If you continue energy intake at the level needed by that level of muscular development, then you're going to be in energy surplus and will 1. lose muscle mass and 2. gain fat mass. That's probably where the idea came from that not using your muscles leads them to turn into fat. It's known for certain that moderate physical activity, an hour or so several times a week, even as light as brisk walking, is very helpful in maintaining weight loss. As far as the supply of amino acids for muscle repair goes, with a typical American diet you'll almost never be at a loss for adequate amino acids for muscle building and repair. You have more proteins in your diet than you need for protein synthesis plus your body is continuously breaking down proteins of all kinds and providing a pool of amino acids for continuous protein synthesis. Look at an 80 lb 13-year-old growing to a heavily muscled 160 lb 17-year-old. In four years he doubles his body weight and it's just by what he's getting in his everyday diet. You, on the other hand, are not anywhere near those kinds of demands for energy and growth. Your main problem as an adult is avoiding eating too much and getting an increase in fat mass.

I also don't get why nutritionists suggested 5 or more small meals (Weight Watchers) rather than 2 or 3 meals of comparable calories and macro-nutrient ratios. Although with your burn formula, I do now better understand why Atkins works so well.

If the kilocalorie content is the same, you could eat 1 meal or 15 small meals over the course of a day and it won't make any difference at all. There will be no difference in weight gain or loss except to the extent you over or undersupply your energy requirements. The larger number of smaller meals has the benefit of assuaging your hunger. People who eat only a couple of meals a day or who go for a long time between meals are more likely to overeat because they get so hungry. Once you start eating something, it takes a while for satiety to kick in. It's very easy to exceed what you need just by eating a whole lot very quickly. But regardless, your body is so efficient that it will absorb almost the entire nutrient content of what you eat whether you need it or not (unless, of course, you've had part of your small intestine resected). I remember discovering this when I was a teenager in Brazil when I was invited to eat at a missionary's house. I was so nervous and ate so slowly (that is, at the rate the others were eating, not my typical teenage jet intake) that after about 20 or 25 minutes I was amazed that I was no longer hungry in spite of having eaten so little. I had eaten at a rate at which my satiety signals weren't outrun by my rate of eating. This also calls to mind my nephew who, when he was little, was pretty hefty. I asked him once, "How do you know when you've eaten enough?" He replied, "When it hurts."

Thanks for the feedback. What a complex system our bodies are and no wonder there has always been so much contradicting info out there to us laymen.

Sure! The body really is fearfully and wonderfully made.
125 posted on 01/03/2011 12:19:36 PM PST by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: A Navy Vet

BTW, I should have used a plate of pasta as a contrast with saltine crackers for differences in glycemic index. A baked potato is about the same as a cracker, ~100.


126 posted on 01/03/2011 12:21:10 PM PST by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Yaelle

“But wasn’t the eating constrained to mealtimes?”

When I was a young enlisted man, I ate only when the chow hall or mess decks were open. Got lots of exercise, too. Put on weight.

Heck, I put on fat in boot camp.


127 posted on 01/03/2011 12:29:21 PM PST by dsc (Any attempt to move a government to the left is a crime against humanity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Grizzled Bear

“How about it, dsc; would you lose weight at the Hanoi Hilton?”

Is it your assertion that a person should have to reduce intake to Hanoi Hilton levels to maintain a normal weight? Surely not.

I am not saying that a person cannot starve to death. I am saying that it is *not*normal* when a person must both reduce intake to a preposterous level *and* exercise like an elite athlete to avoid obesity.

I am saying that those conditions indicate that there are other factors at work.


128 posted on 01/03/2011 12:36:16 PM PST by dsc (Any attempt to move a government to the left is a crime against humanity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Mase

“whatever you do, don’t put your money where your mouth is. You’ll lose whatever you have”

If I expected to live long enough to collect, I’d ask if *you* were open to a wager.


129 posted on 01/03/2011 12:39:08 PM PST by dsc (Any attempt to move a government to the left is a crime against humanity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Grizzled Bear

“If you want to stuff your face, sit on your butt and get fatter, it’s your own business.”

Arrrgh, the sumg...it’s choking me.

I used to be an elite athlete—if you call a silver medal at a US national championship elite—and an avid camper and backpacker.

In June of 1978 I walked out of the rockies at 160 pounds after two weeks without hearing another voice or a man-made sound.

I kept my weight at reasonable levels for as long as my health allowed me to exercise like an elite athlete. When I no long could do so, weight gain set in, despite extraordinary efforts to control my weight through diet. (Staying up until 2am preparing and freezing measured portions of low-glycemic-index foods, et cetera.)

My wife, at 5’5” and 120 lbs, ate more than I did. (I am—or was—right at 6’, with a large frame.)

You might want to read the post that immediately followed the one I am responding to. And another twenty or thirty articles on the latest research into the causes of fattitude.

Or continue to pat yourself on the back for accidents of birth and the vicissitudes of life.


130 posted on 01/03/2011 12:53:07 PM PST by dsc (Any attempt to move a government to the left is a crime against humanity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: dsc
I am not saying that a person cannot starve to death. I am saying that it is *not*normal* when a person must both reduce intake to a preposterous level *and* exercise like an elite athlete to avoid obesity.

Yes, it is NOT NORMAL. Earlier, you claimed that MOST of obesity is not related to intake/output. The fact is, when you need to starve yourself to lose weight, something is wrong.

A few years ago, I managed a Group level Air Force Fitness program. The base exercise physiologist gave the program managers an excellent explanation concerning calorie intake. He asked us to consider the number of fat paraplegics vs the number of fat quadriplegics. He said you rarely see a fat quadriplegic because they can only eat their prescribed diet. A paraplegic can feed them self and overeat.

We, the Program Managers, learned a lot of interesting stuff. For instance, drinking a lot of orange juice is NOT good for weight loss. You're still taking in a lot of sugar. Your body will convert the sugar into fat and store it. It's the same with soda and sugary "juice boxes."

131 posted on 01/03/2011 1:01:10 PM PST by Grizzled Bear ("Does not play well with others.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: Darnright

“But at adulthood, many people develop a condition called insulin resistance. This condition causes your body to turn the starchy stuff you eat into fat instead of into energy. In a large percentage of the population, insulin resistance leads to type 2 diabetes in later life.”

I am very grateful for that information.

I am furious, but not at you, because this is the first time I have encountered that information. I have to wonder why the legions of people who should have told me about that never did.

“Read Gary Taubes’ “Good Calories, Bad Calories for a more thorough explanation.”

What a coincidence! I was clicking around yesterday from one article on nutrition to another, and ran across references to that in several places. It seems he has another book out, “Why We Get Fat: And What to Do About It.”

Some people said it was a shorter, more accessible version of “Good Calories, Bad Calories,” but I don’t know, not having read either book.

I am definitely going to read “Good Calories, Bad Calories,” and soon.

Thank you for contributing to a discussion rather than exacerbating a quarrel.


132 posted on 01/03/2011 1:09:33 PM PST by dsc (Any attempt to move a government to the left is a crime against humanity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Eagle Eye

The only gratuitous insult I see is you labelling my response as a gratuitous insult. I can only assume you to be an illiterate jerk. If you were literate I’d suggest that you, too, read the article.


133 posted on 01/03/2011 2:21:17 PM PST by skookum55 ("We can give up on America or we can give up on this president ...." D. D'Souza)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: HungarianGypsy

I cut out meat for three days. On the third night I dreamed I was a big cat eating out the gut of a fresh killed water buffalo. Went out for steak ASAP.


134 posted on 01/03/2011 2:26:48 PM PST by Lady Jag (Double your income... Fire the government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Don’t listen to strangers who get paid by the word.

Exercise more.


135 posted on 01/03/2011 2:28:41 PM PST by Lady Jag (Double your income... Fire the government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: skookum55; Eagle Eye
I can only assume you to be an illiterate jerk

That's quite a claim when the original post (The root cause of most obesity is an overabundance of food and lack of physical activity) reflects established scientific fact.

Some people work hard to complicate the issue to support a political agenda. Some are motivated by a desire to say Oh, it isn't my fault I'm fat -- my obesity is caused by genetics.. The former is understandable. There are people who stand to gain politically from such a misunderstanding. The latter is caused by illiteracy, plain and simple.

Photobucket

.

If you were literate I’d suggest that you, too, read the article.

I've read the article and you can choose to believe Taubes if you'd like. But Taubes is a fraud who learned how to sell books a long time ago. Taubes is a proponent of the Atkins diet – a dubious dietary strategy not based on scientific evidence, which seems to have been designed to sell diet books – by telling people that they can eat as much as they like of some foods and still go on a weight-loss diet.

Demonizing one macronutrient or another is a common trait of diet fads. We've learned from recent history that you can sell diet advice more easily if you claim that fats or carbs are the problem – while the (obvious) idea that calories are the problem seems to be something that few people are willing to pay for.

Equating long time FReepers with the Obamas, because they adhere to established science, is not a formula for winning friends on the forum. But, if Kamikaze is your style, then, by all means, carry on.

136 posted on 01/03/2011 4:36:53 PM PST by Mase (Save me from the people who would save me from myself!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: dsc

Your alternate reality is very entertaining.

Since I have personal memories of JFK’s funeral I am certainly qualified to stand by statements.

Shakey’s was a treat, as was Henry’s and McDonald’s.

People then didn’t spend the time in front of the tube like they do today, nor did they gorge on fast foods like today.

Supersized hadn’t been invented yet.


137 posted on 01/03/2011 5:58:21 PM PST by Eagle Eye (A blind clock finds a nut at least twice a day.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: skookum55

So I can compare you to Hillary or Michelle and you’ll enjoy the compliment?

And that laughter you hear...we’re not laughing *with* you.


138 posted on 01/03/2011 6:00:27 PM PST by Eagle Eye (A blind clock finds a nut at least twice a day.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Eagle Eye

“Since I have personal memories of JFK’s funeral I am certainly qualified to stand by statements.”

Oh, I don’t know. That was 1963. If you were, say, three at that time, you wouldn’t have become aware enough to develop useful opinions until about 1970. Since we’re talking about the ‘50s and ‘60s, that would pretty much time you out.

Doesn’t matter. Until something dissipates that cloud of smug, there’s no point in even trying to talk with you.


139 posted on 01/03/2011 6:06:19 PM PST by dsc (Any attempt to move a government to the left is a crime against humanity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: aruanan; Dr. Scarpetta
The paper is a 2005 review paper. The study they cite for enhanced de novo lipogenesis is a 1993 paper (Am J Clin Nutr November 1993 vol. 58 no. 5 754S-765S). Not exactly recent.

It appears that you're refering to:

Intermediary metabolism of fructose.

Most of the metabolic effects of fructose are due to its rapid utilization by the liver and it by-passing the phosphofructokinase regulatory step in glycolysis, leading to far reaching consequences to carbohydrate and lipid metabolism. These consequences include immediate hepatic increases in pyruvate and lactate production, activation of pyruvate dehydrogenase, and a shift in balance from oxidation to esterification of nonesterified fatty acids, resulting in increased secretion of very-low-density-lipoprotein (VLDL). These effects are augmented by long-term absorption of fructose, which causes enzyme adaptations that increase lipogenesis and VLDL secretion, leading to triglyceridemia, decreased glucose tolerance, and hyperinsulinemia. Acute loading of the liver with fructose causes sequestration of inorganic phosphate in fructose-1-phosphate and diminished ATP synthesis. Consequently, the inhibition by ATP of the enzymes of adenine nucleotide degradation is removed and uric acid formation accelerates with consequent hyperuricemia. These effects are of particular significance to potentially hypertriglyceridemic or hyperuricemic individuals.

Do you have anything more recent that refutes it? I'd be happy to read it. Here a more recent citation:

Fructose induced lipogenesis: from sugar to fat to insulin resistance.

Abstract
Increasing consumption of sugars is one of the contributing factors to the obesity epidemic. Both cane sugar and high-fructose corn syrup(HFCS) contain glucose and fructose. Fructose, in contrast to glucose, is known to potently stimulate lipogenesis, but the mechanisms responsible are not yet fully known. This paper reviews several possible pathways that might be involved, such as activation of pyruvate dehydrogenase, and transcriptional activation of sterol regulatory element binding protein 1c by key regulators such as peroxisome proliferator activated receptor-γ co-activator 1β and the splice variant of X-box binding protein 1. Together, these pathways might establish a feed forward cycle that can rapidly increase hepatic lipogenesis. As a result, dietary fructose might promote the development of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, which in and of itself, can result in hepatic insulin resistance, a key feature of type 2 diabetes mellitus.

I never heard of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease when I was in medical school two decades ago, but I can find stories about it in Family Practice News now. I used to think that a six carbon monosaccharide wouldn't have any different effects from another six carbon monosaccharide, but fructose makes me question that assumption. The HFCS used in soft drinks is 55 % fructose and 42 % glucose. Couldn't the excess fructose shift the equilibrium from oxidation to esterification of nonesterified fatty acids?

Using fructose and (nafld or nonalcoholic fatty liver disease or non-alcoholic fatty liver disease) at PubMed gets 40 citations.

140 posted on 01/03/2011 6:14:55 PM PST by neverdem (Xin loi minh oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Mase

“reflects established scientific fact”

Yes, like global warming does.

If you want a fact, try this one: research into other causes of obesity is underway in many different places. And they’ve found some.

Perhaps what you say is true for you. There are millions for whom it is not.

I wouldn’t wish it on you, but if you were suddenly to discover that the amount of food and exercise that had been allowing you to maintain normal weight now caused you to gain weight, as did less food and more exercise, and even less food and more exercise, and still less food and more exercise than that...if that were to happen, then perhaps it would occur to you that there are differences among people, that what is true of you might not be true of everyone.

Unless and until something like that happens, just enjoy the smug.


141 posted on 01/03/2011 6:28:02 PM PST by dsc (Any attempt to move a government to the left is a crime against humanity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog
Blood type A- here. Had no problems with Atkins. But "intermittent fasting" works better, faster, and healthier.

Late to the thread as usual, sorry.

What is this "intermittent fasting?" I've heard of a diet program where one does near-total-fast one day, and eats to satiety the next, (modified caloric restriction) and the pounds just drop off...

Is this something similar?

Cheers!

142 posted on 01/03/2011 6:59:32 PM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Netizen
I’ve seen recipes for adding a habanero pepper to vodka for a little heat.

You might enjoy Cave Creek Chili Beer.

Cheers!

143 posted on 01/03/2011 7:06:13 PM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Mase; aruanan
"Demonizing one macronutrient or another is a common trait of diet fads."

Point taken and that is why I'm so interested in what a professional nutrition doctorate has to say.

However, as "aruanan" posted and has been long proven there is a difference in how the body uses those macro-nutrients. There is a difference in carbs (simple vs complex); there is a difference in fats (healthy vs unhealthy - think olive oil compared to lard); smaller difference in protein (amino acids) unless they have a bad protein to fat ratio. Think lean meats.

I agree with him that lean protein is the best for our ancient metabolism and that processed carbs are not so good. "Clean" fats are good; bad fats contribute to our triclyceride counts.

C'mon, apples bad? Really? Twinkies good, really?

Let me end my input by stating the mediterranean and Alaskan Intuit diets produce the longest living people. Why? Because of fish diets that include pure protein and healthy fats (Omega 3 acids). If you want to argue that med peoples eat lots of pasta (carbs), remember they also drink lots of red wine, which has resveratrol that is now known to be one of the best anti-oxidants ever.

Thinking I will have another glass of red wine...haha! Or better yet, some vodka to thin my blood...and kill more brain cells so I will make even less since next time around - har! Best.

144 posted on 01/03/2011 7:06:18 PM PST by A Navy Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: dsc

You were a self confessed beer swilling, pizza eating orca, right?

When you look at Raymond Burr, Alan Hale, Ed McMahon, Jackie Gleason, etc nowadays they don’t seem worthy of all the fat man jokes they endured back in that day.

Not considering the number of 300 pounders in high schools.

And fwiw, only inferior humans find me smug or arrogant or condescending.

It truly is my humility that keeps me so great!


145 posted on 01/03/2011 7:28:59 PM PST by Eagle Eye (A blind clock finds a nut at least twice a day.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Arthur Wildfire! March; Berosus; bigheadfred; ColdOne; ...

Thanks neverdem.


146 posted on 01/03/2011 7:39:18 PM PST by SunkenCiv (The 2nd Amendment follows right behind the 1st because some people are hard of hearing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Mase
>you can choose to believe Taubes if you'd like. But Taubes is a fraud who learned how to sell books a long time ago. Taubes is a proponent of the Atkins diet – a dubious dietary strategy not based on scientific evidence<

If what you wrote above is absolute fact, how do you explain the following? Notice that this 3rd edition is dated 1864

Letter on Corpulence by William Banting

My grandfather was a doctor. We had some of his papers and one of them was a diet for diabetics, which stressed avoiding sugar, bread, noodles and other starchy foods, while eating meat and lots of green vegetables. That, in a nutshell, is the Atkins, or low carb diet. So, the information is not new at all.

Gary Taubes' book is one of the most well researched books I've read. He has page after page of references. He is absolutely no fraud and I defy you to prove he is. Prove it, not just bleat that "he follows Atkins".

147 posted on 01/03/2011 7:42:40 PM PST by Darnright (There can never be a complete confidence in a power which is excessive. - Tacitus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: aruanan; decimon
One could argue that an additional energy-intensive process, fat synthesis, or an increase in this process, would, for the same amount of excess energy intake, result in decreased fat deposition due to the higher energy costs in maintaining the synthesis.

Hast hit it, friend wiggle.

Next couple o'questions...

1) Is it possible that the body keeps track of its amount of brown vs. white fat, exercise levels, and both TOTAL caloric intake and % of protein / carbs / fat, and then decides how much food to absorb, or to process for energy once absorbed, instead of excreting it unused? I.e. is the number of calories your body "sees" when deciding to become overweight, necessarily the number of kcal which would be released by oxidizing the food in a bomb calorimeter?

2) How well quantified are the various metabolic energy pathways? Can the body "deliberately" change to more or less efficient was of burning up your food depending on the amount of white / brown fat and your diet? Can one reset these markers over the short or long term by tweaking the *composition* of the diet rather than total calories?

Cheers!

148 posted on 01/03/2011 7:45:42 PM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: dsc
I am definitely going to read “Good Calories, Bad Calories,” and soon.

Worth a read -- I read it about 12 months ago.

The thing is, in keeping with your earlier post about "the sumg is choking me" -- this book is definitely a refutation of the smarmy public service "The More You Know" ads. Acquiring the knowledge in the book does not give you the willpower to put it into practice.

My personal take is that the book is a good step forward but is not yet an accurate portrayal of weight gain -- I think there are still a number of what Rumsfeld called "unknown unknowns" lurking about.

Your mileage may vary.

Cheers!

149 posted on 01/03/2011 7:54:28 PM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers
1) Is it possible that the body keeps track of its amount of brown vs. white fat, exercise levels, and both TOTAL caloric intake and % of protein / carbs / fat, and then decides how much food to absorb, or to process for energy once absorbed, instead of excreting it unused? I.e. is the number of calories your body "sees" when deciding to become overweight, necessarily the number of kcal which would be released by oxidizing the food in a bomb calorimeter?

The amount of brown fat in adults is very small. It serves a purpose in infants and small mammals by allowing a futile cycle in which heat versus ATP (etc.) is generated in order to keep the small body warm. It does this by uncoupling the mitochondrial electron chain from oxidative phosphorylation. The reason the fat is brown is because of a high number of mitochondria. The body does count calories and there is a lot of spontaneous adjustment between intake and expenditure in younger adults. The older you get, the less robust this coordination. In one study younger men who were either overfed or underfed for a relatively long period of time spontaneously adjusted their intake to gain or to lose weight to get back to their original long term weight. Elderly men either stayed underweight or overweight after the period of under or overfeeding. Once you ingest something, you're stuck with over 98% of its nutritive value unless you increase your energy expenditure or decrease your subsequent food intake. You can't excrete absorbed macronutrients you "don't need."

2) How well quantified are the various metabolic energy pathways? Can the body "deliberately" change to more or less efficient was of burning up your food depending on the amount of white / brown fat and your diet? Can one reset these markers over the short or long term by tweaking the *composition* of the diet rather than total calories?

The different metabolic pathways are about as well characterized as anything in science. As I said before, outside of mice, voles, shrews, and infants, there isn't a whole lot of brown fat activity going on. It may be that those folks who can eat anything without gaining weight have a higher percentage of brown fat. But it would be a really, really bad thing to be able to increase people's quantity of brown fat. It sounds good, but what it really means is that it would take a much larger food budget to do exactly the same thing. The rest of the food is getting burned up in a futile cycle to produce heat. Increase everyone's energy expenditure by 20% and you've essentially increased the world's population by 20 percent. Can the world's farms take such a hit? The point of shifting substrate oxidation appears to be an automatic way the body has of dealing with greater or lesser relative amounts of macronutrients in such a way as to protect the body's health. Sure, increasing obesity may be a bad thing, but it's not as bad over the same length of time as glycosylated proteins from too high a blood serum glucose level.
150 posted on 01/03/2011 8:15:09 PM PST by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-167 next 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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