Do you even know what an Atkins type diet is? Atkins is not a high protein diet. Excessive amount of protein will kick you out of ketosis, as the liver converts half of the protein to glucose via gluconeogenesis.
For people of moderate activity, Atkins recommends around 1.0 grams of protein per kilogram of lean body weight. That is not a high protein diet by any stretch of the imagination. I said it earlier, and repeat it again, Atkins is a high fat diet.
Now, you may have problems with that as well, but at least disagree with what it is, instead of what it isn’t.
Chronos: Go back and read my post. The whole thing.
Everybody else: Funny that Chronos makes “the argument from thermodynamics” for fat, but would never think about doing it for height.
What makes a kid grow? Is it eating? No, it’s human growth hormone. Mild calorie restriction will slow it, but only massive calorie restriction will stop growth. This never violates any law of thermodynamics. But the lesson is that thermodynamics does not tell us very much about a complicated organism.
So what makes a person grow outwards? Could it be regulation of the hormone insulin? Could overeating and lethargy be symptoms of an insulin disorder? (See the quote below.)
Now Chronos is upset that Gary Taubes is a journalist. He should alert Dr. Weil of that fact. Weil has been asking all his medical colleagues to read Taubes’ book. This is what he said on Larry King:
WEIL: I’m here to talk about Gary Taubes’ book which I read in its entirety. And very carefully.
I think this is a very important book. I have been recommending it to my medical colleagues and students. He raises big questions and I think there are some very big ideas in this book.
One of them is that there is absolutely no scientific evidence for the belief that fat is the driver of obesity.
Secondly, the idea that it’s carbohydrate that is central to this process and that obesity is mostly a hormonal disorder, genetically influenced, in which insulin is a central player.
That overeating and under-activity are not causes of obesity, but symptoms of that underlying disorder. That is, it’s not that people eat too much and don’t exercise because of some defect of will or some behavioral problem. It’s that this is behavior that is controlled by a hormonal disturbance.
*
Wait a minute, here… So on the one hand, we have claims that eating lean is an essential part of what Atkins is, and on the other hand, we have the claim that it’s a high-fat diet. Which diet are we arguing about, here?
So, wait. How did you lose that weight? Was it hormones? Or was it the fact that you were taking in less energy than you were expending?
The physical cause of your weight gain, supported by your own experience, is that you stopped your diet. You want to say it was really hard to stay on the diet, or that hormones were the cause of your difficulty, fine. You have to admit the physical cause of the weight gain was that energy input was greater than energy output. A hormone disorder doesn’t make it impossible for you to lose weight, as you proved by losing 160 pounds simply by eating less.
It was both, of course. Something caused my fat cells (and muscle cells, unfortunately) to give up energy in response to starvation. No doubt hormones were involved.
There’s actually a medical strain of rat, called the Zucker rat, that can’t do that, and will die of starvation with its fat store still intact. In fact, it will become extremely obese when fed exactly the same amount as lean rats.
Wait, wait, wait. Why wasn’t I a normal 170 man when I was at 170 pounds? Why was I a starving man who would eat enough to gain tremendous weight despite running 5 miles a day? Can you gain 20-30 pounds while running 5 miles a day? Your brain won’t let you eat that much, even if you wanted to. You’d be throwing up from overeating. (My experience with gaining all the weight back is actually the norm.)
The explanation, I think, is insulin.
True. But why do it with willpower when I can do it by curing the condition instead?
Eating fewer carbs cures the condition and allows me to lose weight without starving myself. Not starving myself is far more healthy as well as an easier way to do it – it’s not just your fat that starves. It’s your heart, your muscle, everything. They all get energy from the same place (fatty acids in your blood).
Also, calling it “a hormone disorder” is somewhat misleading. It is a hormone disorder, but one that a very large proportion of the population experience in the presence of large quantities of processed carbohydrates (especially sugar and fructose). Not surprising, given their recent introduction to our diet.
That’s a pretty easy one for Taubes. Eat above maintenance of the right food? First off, the theory would say that you wouldn’t be hungry enough to eat much over maintenance, but say you did. The fat cells don’t have the the insulin to absorb the extra energy, so the extra energy is available to your other organs, so your brain makes you less hungry and ups your metabolism. Eat below maintenance of the wrong foods, and you are just trying a starvation diet which never works - you’ll be too hungry and your metabolism will crash.
This is ridiculous. If you are burning more calories than you are eating, you aren’t going to grow. The abundance of food today is almost certainly the reason that the average height has gotten up towards 6 feet in industrialized countries from ~5 feet a few centuries back, not an increase in HGH.
Humans are omnivores and they are able to process a wide variety of food into energy and fat. There’s no reason to think that a person isn’t going to be able to convert one excess fat, protein, or carbohydrate calorie into one calorie of body fat. I don’t deny that there is body chemistry at work, but it mostly pertains to how you are eating. Someone that eats 2k calories by 3pm and then nothing for the rest of the day isn’t going to lose as much weight as the person who spreads those 2k calories over the entire day.
Atkins (and pretty much every other fad diet) works by restricting a high calorie food group. If you take your typical fat person and subtract the calories they eat from cookies, candy bars, cakes, or any other high carbohydrate food you are going to get a lot closer to healthy calorie intact. Same if you cut out the bacon, deep fried stuff, cheese etc. It’s about calories and spacing meals out over the course of the day.
900 calories is somewhere between 1/4-1/3 the daily caloric requirements of a 300+ pound person. Essentially starvation. Even at 170, you are looking at fewer than 1/2 of the daily requirements for a reasonably active person. It doesn’t take a genius to see why a person won’t be able to maintain that longterm. (Hint: it starts with a “D” and ends with “E” “A” “T” “H”).
Unfortunately people like you are a common phenomenon. They bounce from diet to diet with the associated weight swings. It probably won’t be long until you can’t stay on your current diet and fall off the wagon.
Your arguement would have been much more impressive if you had read the line that begins with “Mild calorie restriction…” before you wrote it.
Oh, there is reason. Taubes has an excellent chapter about overfeeding studies conducted on normal weight individuals. The high-carbohydrate groups tended to be very effective. The only effective protein overfeeding studies were the ones conducted on prisoners (it was impossible to get people to eat that much meat otherwise). Even then, the protein overfeeding could only cause weight gains in the single digits.
That’s a variation of a common intertube claim. Backed up by exactly zero clinical studies.
Then let me know why I’ve lost 30 pounds since Dec. 27th while eating huge quantities of meat. I know exactly how much I need to starve myself to lose 30 pounds low calorie. This wasn’t it. You are simply wrong.
Yes. That’s possibly why I was already on a maintenance diet by then.
Well treis, let me know how you lost 100 pounds and kept it off. I’m eager to learn from a morally better individual like yourself. Don’t hold back!
And yes, people like me are a common phenomenon. The number of people who can lose more than 50 pounds and keep it off for more than 5 years is vanishingly small. Almost like there is a physiological explanation instead of a psychological explanation.
Of course, NWCR has a list of people who do manage to keep off the wait for more than 5 years. In 2007 they published the first study involving low-carb members (remember it takes minimum 5 years to get in and the Atkins craze didn’t start until recently). Read the abstract. The low-carbers eat, on average, 500 calories more per day, and exercise 1000 calories a week less, but keep the weight off just as well.
Oh my, that kind of blows your calorie theory out of the water doesn’t it?
The reason for this is that they aren’t eating enough carbohydrates to efficiently process the protein and fats they are eating. There is nothing magic about this, nor is it especially good for long-term health. Excess protein consumption is linked to gall bladder and kidney dysfunction, and there is plenty of evidence of the health detriments to eating excess saturated fats.
Threads like this always end up being witnessing crusades by diet advocates of various flavors, completely divorced from the basic facts of nutritional biochemistry. This stuff is not rocket surgery. Instead of reading books by science journalists and diet promoters pick up a textbook on nutrition and learn the fundamentals of the field before thrusting ahead with epistemological arguments of dubious quality.
Did you die of starvation with your fat store in tact? No, you lost 160 pounds. Comparisons to the rat are meaningless.
Irrelevant to the fact that reducing calories will eventually result in weight loss. You have to accept that - it is borne out by your own experience.
Do whatever works for you, just so long as you accept the fact that, at some point, caloric restriction results in weight loss. As proven by you.
Again, do whatever works for you. I wouldn’t call your diet a success, though, until you’ve taken off that same 160 pounds and are able to keep it off. That’s the measure by which you called your calorie restrictive diet a failure, so be fair.
You are dramatically overestimating calories burned per mile. That’s 600 calories max.
To burn so many calories that you cannot physically eat enough to keep up, you’d need to be active, and strenuously so, for several hours per day.
In the summer months I will regularly spend 4-6 hours a day on my bike, riding 80-120 miles at a time. My grocery bill goes up dramatically during this time, yet invariably I will be 15 pounds lighter by September.
My point (and Taubes’) is that it’s unhealthy and not a long-term solution for very many people (99%+ people do not succeed at low-cal diets).
Side note: Mild calorie restriction has never been demonstrated to be efficacious clinically. It’s likely that the hypothalamus can swamp any minor calorie deficit through lethargy, etc.
What? How do you explain the vast difference in average height now vs. the past when food was much more scarce?
I have no doubt that it is more difficult to eat a lot of calories from high protein diet than it is for a high fat or high carbohydrate diet. That is what happens in the Atkins diet. You restrict yourself from a great deal of high calorie foods and as a result you eat fewer calories. It isn’t body-chemistry magic, it is simple calorie reduction.
Oh yeah, because if a lot of highly qualified people claim it on the intertubes then it must be wrong. Better to go with the one fad diet who’s existence will be forgotten in 20 years.
I’m guessing you aren’t eating pounds of bacon and steak here right? Stuff like turkey, lean beef, and chicken just doesn’t have a lot of calories in it. Why don’t you calculate the amount of calories you are eating and see if you aren’t actually on a low calorie diet.
I don’t see anyone talking about being morally better here. It’s about being right or being wrong, and you my friend are wrong.
It’s difficult for everyone to change. Unfortunately most people have a tendency to slip back into the habits that got them 50+ pounds overweight in the first place.
There are a plethora of problems with relying on this one paragraph abstract. It doesn’t give the weight loss for the two groups, doesn’t supply any demographic information, among other issues. Regardless, I don’t see any big issue here. The people that lost the weight on the low-carb diet still ate a reasonable amount of calories and exercised often. The exact recipe I’d give for weight loss.
Another glaring problem is that they list the calories from physical activity as 1,595 +/- 2,499. I gotta meet the guy doing -1000 calories of physical activity.
Yeah, let’s see what the guy who co-founded the NWCR has to say:
That’s straight from the horses mouth. His recommendations hit all of the same key points as mine. Limit calories, eat meals throughout the day, and exercise. Fad diets are really good at taking the weight off, but they aren’t a long term solution. Most people (I’m sure you noted the 10% success rate in the abstract) can’t maintain a low/no carb diet. They want chocolate, ice cream, candy, etc. and eventually they backslide.
It’s unfortunate. I watched my dad go up and down with his weight when I was growing up. I’ve picked up a lot of the bad tendencies and put on/lost my fair share of weight as well. The long term solution is moderation in eating and exercise. It’s difficult and requires a long term discipline, but it does work.
No quotes this time, Treis. The discussion flow broke down with the last couple posts. Hope you can follow me.
We’re taller now because we have enough to eat. Nothing I said ever came close to contradicting that. You’ve confused yourself somewhere. Please re-read what I wrote. Especially the sentence beginning with “Mild calorie reduction…”
You forgot to add an argument for your “simple calorie reduction” statement. I realize that’s your position. Could you support it instead of repeating it?
Your belief in internet health experts not backed up by clinical evidence is not encouraging. Do a Google for evidence-based medicine.
You claimed that I gained my weight back due to a deficit in my character. Hence the morality statement. Please re-read what I wrote.
If you can’t see the issue with the linked abstract, then you have no grasp of the subject. A 500 calorie per day difference adds up to 50 pounds a year. That’s big. The insulin hypothesis explains it, the calorie hypothesis does not.
You’re wrong about what I eat. I am eating pounds of bacon and steak. I avoid the lean stuff. Sure, I roast a chicken once a week, but other than that it’s beef and bacon. Had a nice well-marbled pot roast for dinner. And yes, as I mentioned before, I do keep track of my calories. I’m not doing low calorie. It’s in the neighborhood of 3000-4000 calories a day. Nor am I doing any marathoning to burn the extra energy. (Nor am I wrong about the calculated calories – a man who loses 160 pounds on low calorie knows how to count calories.)
Look, just read the damn Taubes book. Carbohydrates drive insulin drive fat. It’s that simple.
When you started comparing a child’s height growth with weight gain in a mature adult, and ridiculing Chronos for citing basic tenets of physics. If you’re backing off from that, fine. You made it sound like you rejected the fact that when one gains weight it is because their caloric intake is higher than their expenditure.
Cite for your 99%+ figure? Do you think your current diet is “successful” or not? How do you judge success? Does the Atkins diet (or low-carb diet in general) reduce caloric intake, or not?
Yeah, I get it. You have less energy when you eat less, and it’s hard to keep up a consistent level of physical activity that you aren’t used to. That doesn’t mean it’s impossible to change your lifestyle. It just means it’s difficult. There aren’t physical barriers here.
Algorithm, you didn’t re-read what I wrote about height. That’s too bad.
Okay, I’m going to explain this. It’s not a difficult topic. For most people. But because I have to explain this, I won’t bother continuing the discussion with you. It’s distressing to argue with people for whom everything has to be spelled out:
Children can live on a wide variety of calorie levels. Feed them a few hundred calories per day less than optimal, and their growth may be stunted, yes, but only by a few inches. They will not stay at infant size. Feed them a few hundred calories too much, and they will grow no taller than genetically allowed – in fact, at only a few hundred calories too much, it’s unlikely that they’ll wind up fat.
Of course, a few hundred calories per day amortized should add up to hundreds of pounds. It doesn’t. Kids still grow up a great deal even on that sort of calorie restriction. There isn’t even much appreciable leanness or obesity caused by restriction or overfeeding at that level. Human growth hormone causes growth. Eating more is a “symptom,” so to say, of high HGH levels. The brain asks the body to eat more (or move around less) in order to reserve more energy for growth.
In the end, energy balances. But the brain has several options for making that happen, and it generally uses them.
Now, if you can’t see how this might apply to the “carbohydrate -> insulin -> fat” theory of obestity, then there is nothing that I can do to help you understand.
Oh, and I would get that cite for you (the main study that everyone cites for the 99% figure was done during the Eisenhower era on low-calorie dieters). I have a bibliography including it right across the room, actually. But the discussion is over, so I won’t.
That’s because energy is always conserved. Energy from food either gets used for work or stored in the body, increasing mass. There is no comparable law implying that height is conserved.
Stanger, go back to this post and read the studies I posted. In a ketogenic diet done per Atkins there are no bad effects caused by eating protein or fats. Either come up with a study that proves it, and I’m not talking about an editorial opinion or some crappy secondary source, or quit saying it.