But calories don’t count, right? It’s the composition of the calories, which you have been arguing all along.
Bullshit.
Just finished10 days on Atkins induction, 1 day off, 10 on, 1 off, 7 on, 4 off (Mardi Gras). Started at 207 and as of yesterday (after 4 days of being bad, though not much worse than I used to eat), water weight returned and all, I was at 192. And here I am, after 4 days of fun, on my second day of induction, not falling off the deep end, ready to lose the next 15lbs with a similar method (no 4 day stretch, though). That someone on a diet can’t cheat, so long as they are disciplined, is absurd.
I had a lot more than a slice, but my first cheat after the 10th day gave me the same results. Pigged out during a late night movie, went to bed, and woke up an hour later with my heart trying to escape from my chest. The next two times where I had my first carbs after 10 days went smoothly, though.
Yes. As a fat person, I can assure you that we’re fat, not stupid. The excess weight doesn’t cause us to forget math.
By jove I think you’ve got it!
Makes me wonder all of a sudden… what does the slang term “fathead” mean? Is that big ego?
I think this is a point that a lot of people are having a hard time understanding. Are truly claiming that, all other things being equal, the amount of calories one consumes has no bearing on whether or not they gain/lose weight? That a person can eat 10,000 calories a day and not gain weight, provided they eat certain foods/types of foods? Are there caveats/assumptions in there that I missed, e.g. we’re assuming the person stops eating as soon as they feel full?
Apologies if you’ve covered this earlier in the thread – I’ll confess to having skimmed in several places.
Drain Bead, if you don’t mind me asking, how much do you need to lose in terms of weight or inches? I need to lose 3.5-4 inches off my waist (roughly corresponding to about 50 lbs for me but I don’t keep track of weight v. much) and am just wondering what kind of progress I can expect.
I need to lose about 60 more pounds to get to a “normal” BMI. I’m down approximately 30 from my absolute high. The first 15 I lost while I was half-assing Primal (I would eat following my diet for breakfast and dinner, and mostly on weekends, but not always at lunch, and I would sometimes snack). The second 15 is the one I talk about, that I’ve lost since January when I really started cracking down, and started really paying attention not only to what I eat, but to my measurements and scale weight.
But that weight means nothing, really. I’m 5’11" and have a pretty good waist-hip ratio. It takes me about 25 pounds to lose a size, whereas shorter women would lose several sizes in 25 pounds.
Srsly
What do you think of that recipe review?
No problem… (honesty and asking nicely go a long way with me)
Essentially, yes. (although my god, 10,000 calories is a horrifying amount of food.)
It is a hard notion to wrap one’s head around, I absolutely agree. It’s like…wait…what??? How can that possibly be?
Couple things: I claim nothing when it comes to Taubes’ book, contrary to many persons’ misstatements. I am conveying his ideas, which happen to make an enormous amount of sense to me, now that I have, thanks to Taubes, a much better understanding of how the whole calories-nutrients-sugars-insulin-fats-fatty-acids-etc chemistry works.
Secondly, the theory is yes, no amount of calories matter to a correctly functioning fat regulation system, because a correctly functioning fat regulation system will do whatever is necessary to make sure that the correct amount of fat is in the cells, no more, no less, and it will rev up as needed to burn off anything extra.
As startling as the idea seems when viewed from this perspective, it’s actually very familiar to most of us in the form of very lean people who have big appetites and never gain weight. Since you skimmed you may have missed this post from earlier today (which remains unanswered):
And of course, given this, why so much resistance to the idea at all when we’ve all seen it in action?
We all know people who can stuff themselves with impunity. It’s harder to imagine someone who has already demonstrated their tendency to gain being able to do the same, but the theory applies to everyone: if the fat regulation system (post 484, which is a direct lift from the book: The First Law of Adiposity, body fat is carefully regulated, if not exquisitely so.) is functioning normally, it will prevent obesity. That’s its job.
What it will also do, of course, is make it far less likely that you’d have the slightest desire to eat 10,000 calories to begin with-as part of the system’s process, it will tell you that you are satisfied and shut down your appetite.
But it is not because it tells you not to eat 10Kcals that you wouldn’t gain: That is a misstatement and misunderstanding that has been pushed around, that somehow everything all the low carb advocates are saying boils down to nothing more complicated than using carb restriction as an appetite suppressant which will result in eating fewer calories and therefore weight loss. This is how the people who actually recognize that carb restriction works reconcile that reality with their rigid conviction that the only issue in weight regulation is energy balance (calories in/out).
The problem with that, of course, is that it’s not at all what Taubes says or means, and it willfully ignores his clear and consistent rejection of the idea that energy balance is the key. Post 407 is from the book, and this is from the introduction, wherein he tells us what he’s going to tell us:
So while some will argue that it’s just that the appetite is reduced and that’s why it works, anyone who asserts, as some have done, that this is what Taubes’ intends us to understand from the book, they are clearly mistaken.
I think I’d go ahead and try the recipe s it was written. (if it appealed to me, of course.)
As one of the those lean people who doesn’t gain weight I’m far from an expert on weight loss. (Although this is less true as I’ve gotten older, plus I exercise and eat fairly well by conventional definitions: minimal processed foods, whole grains as much as possible, lean proteins, etc. so it’s hard to say what my weight would be if I ate a lot of junk and didn’t exercise.)
So I can’t really intelligently argue against what you’ve put forth, although it does seem that it only explains why people with efficient metabolisms don’t gain weight, not why people with slower metabolisms can completely ignore calories as a relevant variable in trying to achieve weight loss. Not the only variable, to be sure, but a relevant one.
As an outside observer to the obesity epidemic, the CDC data showing the universally soaring obesity rates over the last 30 years would seem to indicate that there is clearly non-genetic component that has changed. My personal theory is that processed foods and soda are primarily to blame, with lower exercise rates and larger average portion sizes being factors as well, but that’s just my personal gut feeling.
OK, but I was asking about the recipe review itself. Do you find any problem with someone taking what’s been a fairly successful recipe for everyone else, mixing up the instructions and throwing in the mix whatever the cook feels like, and then blaming the recipe when it doesn’t actually work?
There’s also another reasonable theory that shows where high subsidies to corn farmers lowered the price of corn so dramatically, it became cost effective to start placing high fructose corn syrup into just about everything on the market as an alternative to less empty caloried alternatives.
See, she said, “if it appealed to [her].” Obviously, a strict diet that requires self denial and dedication didn’t appeal to her, so like in your (Enderw24) example, she would just do what she wants, then blame the recipe. She’s finally found something that allows her to stuff her face, which appeals to her. (Although she still isn’t following the instructions, what-with the whole cornbread thing.)
They can’t, unless they lower their carbs sufficiently to correct their system.
It is genetic (largely - that’s how we’re all made, after all, is via the genetic blueprint). But until the last 30 years of (Fat is bad! Eat more “heart healthy” carbs! Avoid meat! Stock up on cereal and grain! Fat? Well, for god’s sake don’t eat fat or meat! Just keep going with the carbs and someday it will work!" it wasn’t aggravated so frequently. Our consumption of carbohydrates, both good (whole grains, high fiber) and bad (soda soda soda…) has soared. Then, when our regulatory mechanism has collapsed under the onslaught and take to turning everything into fat, the “cure” we’re handed is…more of the same thing that got us in this fix, until we are the fattest nation on earth.
If you’d encountered the Pima indians in the 1850s, you would have noted, as a particular Army battalion did at the time, that they were “sprightly” and “in fine health”. You would also have noted, as he did, that they had “The greatest abundance of food”-storehouses full of it, so much that at the request of the governement they shared it with tens of thousands of travelers passing through during the next decade of the gold rush.
If you’d gone back in first few years of the 20th century, you would have found, as two different anthropologists did, that the formerly fit Pima “exhibit a degree of obesity that is in striking contrast with the ‘tall and sinewy’ Indian conventionalized in popular thought.”
What changed?
Well, in the 1850s, they were eating fish & clams, hunting, raising cattle and chickens, and growing melons, figs, beans and corn.
In the by 1900, they were living on government rations that were made up of…wait for it…white flour and sugar.
The point being that the diet brought out the genetic predisposition then, in the Pima, and it has today, in millions of Americans who, if they were eating more like we did 50 years ago, would not be obese.
What are you talking about, Ender? Because you seem confused. First, what “successful recipe” for “everyone” could you possibly be referring to? Rising tide of obese people need to know as soon as possible, cuz not much is working for them, and they are certainly part of “everyone”. Obesity researchers want to know, too, because they are about at the end of their own ropes.
Second, what instructions are getting mixed up? What recipe is being blamed for not working? By me, anyway. The only thing I said wasn’t working was starving. And I did it for about six weeks, stuck with it like glue and lost a pound or two. I was extremely uncomfortable on several fronts. In this, I am not at all unusual.
I’ve been eating low carb (almost accidentally, since I had planned to sort of finish up my carby groceries, just found I’d rather let the bread go moldy.) for 9 days. I’ve lost 6 pounds. On one of those days I treated myself to cornbread. I’m ok with that, not complaining about a thing.
So please abandon the hypothetical examples and be clear.
Of water. Not fat.
A whole six weeks you say? That’s nearly a month and a half! And it didn’t work? No wonder you’re condemning normal dieting.
You guys are cracking me up. What is the dog you have in this hunt, anyway? Have you stopped to think about it? Are you personal trainers and diet coaches who need to crush any idea that threatens your livelihood?
Actually, I’ve always condemned normal dieting, that’s not really new. I just thought I’d try it again, since so many people seem so convinced it’s the big answer, and also convinced that fat people are all delusional about their intake. Hey, could be…let’s see.
Turns out not so much.
But I’m very glad I brought it up to discuss, because Angel sent me Taubes’ book. So it’s all good and life moves forward in a much happier way than before!
Yay!