Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Warning: This Warning May Not Be Valid
Critics of the government's dietary advice have long questioned the focus on cutting fat--in particular, the recommendation that fat calories be kept below an arbitrary percentage of total calories. Now a controlled intervention study has shown pretty definitively that a low-fat diet does not reduce the risk of breast cancer, colorectal cancer, or cardiovascular disease.
For you Dean Ornish fans out there, I'll concede that the benefits might take longer than eight years to show up, might require more severe restrictions on fat (probably so severe that most people would not be willing to follow them), might relate to different disease risks, or might be so modest that they can't de detected even in a study with nearly 49,000 subjects. But an important lesson nevertheless can be drawn from the increasingly shaky foundation on which advice to cut fat (as opposed to certain kinds of fat, or total calories) rests. The dietary expert Jules Hirsch, physician in chief emeritus at Rockefeller University, told The New York Times this study "should put a stop to this era of thinking that we have all the information we need to change the whole national diet and make everybody healthy." And U.C.-Berkeley statistician David A. Freedman offered this warning: "We, in the scientific community, often give strong advice based on flimsy evidence."
One reason for this tendency is that "public health" doctrine says the government should deliver clear, authoritative-sounding advice, even when it's not justified by the evidence, because otherwise people might not comply. Another reason is that public health calculations give little or no weight to the inconvenience and forgone pleasure entailed by a particular recommendation. From this perspective, if cutting fat might reduce disease risks, and if it seems unlikely that it will raise them, telling everyone to do so makes sense--even if (as with salt limits) only a minority of the population stands to benefit. A more sophisticated (though still collectivist) approach would take the interests of individuals into account because people resent making sacrifices for no purpose and may therefore be less inclined to follow the next recommendation from the experts, even if that one is well-founded.
|2.9.06 @ 10:14AM|#
The real question is why would they even pursue this study? I
haven't seen any study or directive in years which said all fats
are bad for you...
There are healthy mono-unsaturated fats: fats from olives, fish,
nuts
There are innocous fats: fats from meat & dairy
Then there are the nasty trans fats which should be reduced to a
minimum intake.
That's pretty much the advise you'd get from any nutritionist, so
why look at total fats?
|2.9.06 @ 10:15AM|#
I now take extra pleasure when eating my usual breakfast of a
fried-egg sandwich on buttered salted toast.
(By the way, are eggs good for you or bad for you this week? I
don't recall.)
|2.9.06 @ 10:20AM|#
Ornish says you have to keep total fat under 10% to reverse
heart disease, under 15% or 20% to prevent it. Pritikin says about
the same. The test diet target (I'll call it low+fat) was 20%; the
first year, the group averaged 24%, at the end they were at 29%. So
what the test shows is that the Ornish recommendations were not
followed and so it should not be news that his results were not
confirmed.
I should point out that for a year I tried to follow the under 10%
fat guideline; it's very very hard. Under 15% is very hard unless
you go totally vegan. Under 20% is possible if you pay a lot of
attention.
This test, though, didn't do any of those things.
Ron Hardin|2.9.06 @ 10:20AM|#
There's a fundamental statistical error.
``Scientists'' love to do statistical trials. There's funding for
it, and you get a confidence level out, and all that good
stuff.
However, nobody accounts for all the statistical trials going on in
a year.
If you report results at a 95% confidence level, and make no
statistical mistakes, one out of every 20 things you learn is
wrong.
Say there's 10,000 trials out there in any year. Each year you
learn 500 things that are wrong from scientists, each accompanied
by a press release and lobbying for more funds, by the way.
Anecdotal evidence is of course always wrong, but I notice you
don't see many fat old people.
R C Dean|2.9.06 @ 10:21AM|#
The real question is why would they even pursue this
study?
Because the received wisdom on cutting fat lacked good scientific
support. This study shows there was good reason for the flimsiness
of the data previously relied on.
|2.9.06 @ 10:22AM|#
Just for clarity-the study mentioned only cancer. It said nothing about obesity or the effect of high-fat diets on the tendency to be fat.
|2.9.06 @ 10:30AM|#
Perhaps I could take this movement a little more seriously if
there was not such a high degree of cross enrollment between the
food nannies with their desire to legislate what I can and cannot
put in my body, and the pro-choice crowd with their "my body my
choice" mantra insisting that it is unconstitutional for the
government to legislate what they can and cannot take out of their
bodies.
If we could just force pregnant women with unwanted babies to eat
more healthily the world would be a happy place.
|2.9.06 @ 10:32AM|#
Timothy-I saw that part, but it still leaves a lot of ground to
cover. Also, it may or may not be significant that the study used
female subjects only.
Dr. T style disclaimer-Although I mentioned obesity, I do not
support goverment programs to force people to be thin, I realize
that the BMI is stupid, and I don't like food scolds.
|2.9.06 @ 10:33AM|#
I find the secret is to get involved in martial arts, caber tossing, snowboarding and excessive power lifting (with a broken foot) while in law school. You'll find you don't worry much about what you'll be like when you are 50.
|2.9.06 @ 10:36AM|#
The best advice about fat I've ever heard was simply "Try not to eat fats that turn solid when cooled". I was already pretty old when I first heard that. Olive oil tastes better than butter for the most part anyway.
|2.9.06 @ 10:37AM|#
Eryk, I wouldn't be surprised if such activities became illegal in the future. You notice that many of the same people who moan about how many kids are fat these days are the same ones who saddle playgrounds with so many safety regulations that there are basically NO fun things kids can do to burn off calories?
|2.9.06 @ 10:38AM|#
Ron Hardin, sure, a 95% confidence would mean that 5% of the time, you've reached a fallacious conclusion. But that's just the threshold. You need to look at the confidence levels of individual studies. They often have *far* higher confidence levels.
|2.9.06 @ 10:38AM|#
ack, powerlifting.
everybody knows the snatch and clean and jerk are much more elegant
than those dumb powerlifts :)
just kidding - i do both.
btw, this ties in nicely with the other thread. a hyooge proportion
of the anti-fat (and anti-red meat) brigade is based on pseudo
science promoted by vegan fanatics via their shill org's such as
PCRM (lol) and PETA.
|2.9.06 @ 10:41AM|#
News from the People's Nursery of Chicago: our aldermen have
found a new health risk to legislate!
All cans of tuna sold in Chicago will now be labeled, "May contain
dangerous levels of mercury."
"Noting that warnings exist for cigarettes and alcohol, Burke said
in a statement: 'Now that unacceptably high levels of mercury have
been found in some cans of light tuna, it is time that we expanded
these warnings to include another area of concern.'
After a City Council meeting Wednesday, Burke said there is
precedent for city regulation involving a product sold
nationally...
'The Congress diddles around and goes on year after year after
year,' Burke said. 'This body can move swiftly and establish
standards.' "
While I agree with the last paragraph in principle, I also wish
these people would get it into their heads that their job is not to
protect us from ourselves. Not to mention that no one is certain
what an "acceptable level" of mercury might be.
And in other fast-food news, "Fed up with burger wrappers, french
fry containers and paper cutps, Oakland is the first city in the
nation to force fast-food restaurants...to pay an additional tax to
help clean up litter...businesses will be assessed between $230 and
$3815 annually depending on their size."
(Chicago Tribune)
|2.9.06 @ 10:41AM|#
Hmmmm, and yet, study after study after study (see links below)
seems to confirm that it is insulin and sugar sensitivity that
causes the body to store excess fat, not actual dietary fat�not to
mention genetic predispositions to heart disease, cancer, obesity,
etc. Or the multitudinous environmental and lifestyle factors that
can affect development of one or all of these diseases.
Not that I'm about to go on a butter and steak diet or anything,
but has anyone seriously tried to live on a less than 10% diet for
long? The hunger, the brittle hair, dry skin, cracked nails, sallow
skin. I could point to multiple problems with a diet seriously
deficient in fat.
I kind of like the K.I.S.S principle of dieting (or anything else
for that matter). Keep it simple, stupid: lots of veggies, lean
protein, fruits, nuts and treats on occasion. It doesn't have to be
so hard - I mean, how the hell did humans survive for even a day on
this planet before the discovery of science and nutrition? It�s a
wonder that primitive man was able to make it beyond the caves
without government-stipulated RDAs and constructed diet charts to
keep them healthy.
Oh, yeah it helps if you get up off your ass now and then and ride
a bike or walk to the store or take the stairs. I can have my cake
and eat it too, several times a week, because I ride my bike to
work and get myself up off the couch and into the gym several days
a week.
I'm with you, Eryk Boston. I've never tried caber tossing, though.
Perhaps I will pick that up in my spare time this summer.
Cheers!
Sandy|2.9.06 @ 10:45AM|#
Sorry, I think if there'd been a measureable benefit, it would
have shown up over eight years in 49,000 women.
What it doesn't say is you can now eat ice cream
exclusively at any calorie level the rest of your life and not
expect these diseases. But if you have more of a reasonable-sized
diet coming from fat as opposed to carbohydrates, there's no
measureable risk.
Timothy|2.9.06 @ 10:47AM|#
Number 6: Perhaps the female-only thing plays a role, but heart
disease is IIRC still the #1 killer of women even if it is largely
thought of as a male disease. But you're right that it doesn't
really cover if eating fat makes you fat.
I've heard before that in order to maintain your weight you need to
eat 13*(weigh in pounds) calories per day, more than that without
burning them off will make you gain weight. I'm assuming, of
course, that's a ball park sort of figure based on average
metabolic rates and little/no exercise. My opinion, based on no
science what-so-ever, is that total caloric intake and nutrient
value are more important than where the calories come from. Also,
if people would exercise more they'd be less fat.
|2.9.06 @ 10:47AM|#
(By the way, are eggs good for you or bad for you this week?
I don't recall.)
Your best bet is to eat eggs only every other week. That way,
either they will always be good for you or you'll die before you
find out you picked the wrong week.
|2.9.06 @ 10:47AM|#
Despite the fact that doing the clean, snatch and jerk makes my
workout sound like a bad porno I do those moves and I call them
powerlifting by with I mean sets of 3-5 reps. Since I'm not a
competitive lifter (although Iam getting involved in Scottish
athletics) I don't need to concern myself with petty differences
between powerlifters and olympic lifters.
Jennifer, you have a valid point there. I'm pretty sure much of my
childhood would be against regulations today...imagine the stroke a
safety advocate would have seeing me play baseball using a pair of
nunchuku and a throwing star.
Timothy|2.9.06 @ 10:51AM|#
Eryk: Or without one of those retarded face masks they make little leaguers wear now.
|2.9.06 @ 10:54AM|#
My opinion, based on no science what-so-ever, is that total
caloric intake and nutrient value are more important than where the
calories come from.
Slightly off-topic, but this reminds me of a question I've had for
a long time: to stay healthy, you need to consume a minimum number
of calories for energy, a minimal amount of fiber to--uh--keep
things moving, and a minimal amount of certain vitamins and
minerals, right?
But you can get all of your vitamins and minerals by taking a pill
once a day. So why can't you be perfectly healthy by taking that
pill, and then not worrying about your diet beyond making sure you
get the right amount of calories and fiber? I hear people say
things like "Oh, getting Vitamin C from fresh oranges is much, much
better than getting it from a pill" but I've never heard exactly
why. What can an orange give me that a Vitamin C tablet
can't?
I eat a truly atrocious diet but I DO take a vitamin every day, and
I'm quite healthy indeed.
Timothy|2.9.06 @ 10:59AM|#
Jennifer: I was watching Good Eats the other day, and their
nutritionist as well as Alton Brown mentioned that nutrients from
food tend to be absorbed into the bloodstream better than things in
pill form. They also mentioned that there wasn't exactly a good
understanding of why that was the case.
Of course, it was a TV chef and his nutritionist friend, so grain
of salt and all that. I've found that I do feel better when I eat
better, even if I'm taking a vitimin.
|2.9.06 @ 10:59AM|#
The biggest problem with vitamins is that you get a spike in nutrition for a part of the day while food eaten over the course of the day spreads out your intake. Also, the pills are often mixed in questionable doses...assuming they are properly mixed in the first place which can be a problem with some makers.
|2.9.06 @ 11:06AM|#
"What can an orange give me that a Vitamin C tablet
can't?"
I don't know specifically about oranges, but one of the common
critiques of vitamin pills that I've seen is that they deliver such
concentrated doses so rapidly that the body isn't able to absorb
all of the vitamins before a substantial part are flushed out.
Because regular food takes longer to digest, the body has more time
to absorb vitamins from it.
|2.9.06 @ 11:07AM|#
nutrients from food tend to be absorbed into the bloodstream
better than things in pill form
Makes sense, but I still have to wonder--isn't there a point where
you have enough vitamins, and so "better" intake doesn't equal
better health? Some vitamins, like C, cannot be stored in the body;
if you have more than you need you lose it all the next time you go
to the bathroom. Other vitamins, like A, can actually be toxic if
you have too much. So provided the pills give you enough of the
vitamins you need (and I fortify my diet by drinking
Vitamin-C-enriched fruit juices, which keeps the levels more or
less constant throughout the day), I'm still not quite
understanding what it is I'm missing by not getting my vitamins the
"natural" way.
Credit Where Credit Is Due Dep|2.9.06 @ 11:08AM|#
The free market seems to have done a great job reducing the
trans-fats, at least here in Canada.
Go market!
|2.9.06 @ 11:09AM|#
OK, let's put it this way...it's like the difference between smoking a joint and taking a marinol pill.
Timothy|2.9.06 @ 11:10AM|#
Jennifer: *shrug* There's a reason I'm not a
nutritionist....because we econ geeks get all the LADIES.
Or something.
But more seriously, I think SR's point right above your last post
could be valid. But, if that's the case, wouldn't taking a vitamin
with a meal solve that problem?
Dave W.|2.9.06 @ 11:12AM|#
Hmmmm, and yet, study after study after study (see links
below) seems to confirm that it is insulin and sugar sensitivity
that causes the body to store excess fat, not actual dietary
fat�
Insulin sensitivity? Is this some kind of new condition invented by
the lib'rul meedia?
|2.9.06 @ 11:15AM|#
Jennifer, I'd say your best bet is to eat healthier food AND
take vitamins. Like Eryk said above, you get your spike of
nutrients, then you piss away all the water soluble ones. Plus the
dosage of multivitamins is suspect, as they are usually based on
the RDA, which, I am told, represents the LEAST amount of the
various substances you should be getting in one day. This is
especially true if you kill yourself in the gym a couple times a
week. To further complicate things, there are absorption conflicts
between some of the ingredients of multis, like for instance zinc
and calcium compete for the same receptors, and zinc loses. I am no
expert, as I am just a hobbyist in this, but anecdotally, I
recently dropped the extra B & C vites I usually take during
the day, and within three days I was feeling run-down and logy. I
was very surprised that happened. I suppose if I didn't lift
weights four days a week, I probably wouldn't need the extra vites,
but since I do work out so much, they seem almost necessary.
So, I would guess that if you're generally healthy, you probably
don't eat as poorly as you think you do, you get enough sleep and
exercise, you have good genetics, and you're still young enough
that the damage hasn't shown up yet. All of that in some positive
proportion.
|2.9.06 @ 11:25AM|#
you probably don't eat as poorly as you think you do, you
get enough sleep and exercise, you have good genetics, and you're
still young enough that the damage hasn't shown up yet
The answers are, in order, "possibly," "yes," "yes," and
"tragically, no."
|2.9.06 @ 11:25AM|#
Proteus-
Shocking as this sounds, on the rare occasion when I indulge, I
usually eat them plain. :D
|2.9.06 @ 11:26AM|#
It's a wonder that primitive man was able to make it beyond
the caves without government-stipulated RDAs and constructed diet
charts to keep them healthy.
Perhaps cave paintings were actually diet aids.
Hmmmm, and yet, study after study after study (see links below)
seems to confirm that it is insulin and sugar sensitivity that
causes the body to store excess fat, not actual dietary
fat
I try to eat as much fat as possible (bacon, greasy Mex food,
non-"low-fat" everything, etc) and qualify for AARP while still
looking like a college basketball player.
Wasn't there some noise a while back about low-fat diets causing
cravings for sugar and such?
|2.9.06 @ 11:28AM|#
Anecdotal evidence: from time to time I read those human-interest stories about some old person who just celebrated a three-digit birthday; these people never seem to eat the diets now called "healthy." No, it's always something like 'I smoke three cigars a day, drink whiskey, and eat bacon fried in lard.'
|2.9.06 @ 11:28AM|#
What it doesn't say is you can now eat ice cream exclusively
at any calorie level the rest of your life and not expect these
diseases.
Unfortunately, Sandy, most of the coverage I've seen on this seems
to suggest that. Headlines like "Low fat diet myth debunked" are
popping up all over the place, apparently suggesting that eating
hamburger and pulled pork six times a week has no effect on your
health.
What I don't get is how the lack of demonstrable reductions in
certain types of cancer have "debunked" the low fat diet. How about
a reduced risk of being a fatass?
On a serious note, I'm interested to see what kind of results for
heart disease, arteriosclerosis, heart attack and stroke this study
evinces. Seems like those are higher on the "killing americans"
list than colorectal cancer.
|2.9.06 @ 11:35AM|#
Hasn't common sense i.e. not smoking, not drinking too much, not
eating like a pig, getting regular sleep, brushing your teeth,
taking vitamin pills, drinking lots of water, seeing a doctor and
denstist regularly and exercise held up over time as the way to be
healthy?
All this other "diety" stuff seems kind of irrelevant to me.
|2.9.06 @ 11:35AM|#
I stand by my assertion that dieting is a matter of
thermodynamics. Burn more calories than you consume and I
absolutely guarantee that you will lose weight.
Now, that may be easier with some diets than others. Some foods may
impart a "full" feeling more quickly than others, or have a
different effect on your appetite. And some foods may have other
effects (good or bad) on your health that go beyond calories and
obesity. But in the end, weight loss or gain depends on whether
your intake exceeds your calorie usage.
If you can prove me wrong, you can book yourself a flight to Sweden
to collect your Nobel Prize in Physics, for you will have
overturned the First Law of Thermodynamics.
fyodor|2.9.06 @ 11:37AM|#
No one's brought it up yet so I will:
That creaking you hear is Dr. Atkins smiling in his grave!!
(Note: I know this doesn't prove that low-carbs is any better than
low-fat, but I still think the finding would make Dr. Atkins
smile!)
|2.9.06 @ 11:38AM|#
If you can prove me wrong, you can book yourself a flight to
Sweden to collect your Nobel Prize in Physics, for you will have
overturned the First Law of Thermodynamics.
Most of the grossly fat people I've known insisted they have
hormonal imbalances which invalidate the laws of physics, and also
force them to do things like slather a solid inch of cream cheese
on every bagel they eat.
Timothy|2.9.06 @ 11:43AM|#
Jennifer: I've known those same sorts of folks.
Tangentially, does anybody else watch that The Biggest Loser show?
I think it's a pretty good show that actually helps folks get in
shape, but I have to admit that the only thing funnier than a fat
person crying on TV is a midget on a bicycle.
|2.9.06 @ 11:48AM|#
Jennifer-
They may very well have some sort of physical condition that
produces intense appetites. Controlling your appetite is easier
when your appetite isn't all that strong.
Hell, for all I know they may even metabolize food differently.
Maybe they're absorbing calories more efficiently than the rest of
us, not letting any go to waste, while the rest of us are missing
out on some of the calories.
Any of these things are plausible. I'm fully willing to contemplate
the possibility that their bodies work differently from ours.
I'm just not willing to contemplate the possibility that they're
violating the First Law of Thermodynamics.
|2.9.06 @ 11:48AM|#
"Most of the grossly fat people I've known insisted they have
hormonal imbalances which invalidate the laws of physics, and also
force them to do things like slather a solid inch of cream cheese
on every bagel they eat."
Bingo. And to whoever mentioned the old people in the newspapers
who smoke, drink, and eat lard: Did you see that Onion article that
was titled something like "108 year old woman attributes longevity
to random chance." It was one of the funniest things I've seen in
there. Had some line like, "I'm just the outermost tentacle of this
billion legged beast hurtling blindly through eternity."
|2.9.06 @ 11:48AM|#
Back in the 90s I learned from personal experience that a good, stiff case of the flu enables you to effortlessly lose about seven percent of your body weight in one week. Though there are psychological drawbacks involved with looking in the mirror and seeing exactly what your skull looks like.
|2.9.06 @ 11:49AM|#
Maybe I should have said "Resisting your appetite is easier if
your appetite isn't all that strong." We can get all semantical
about whether or not we actually control our cravings, but we can
certainly resist them. That said, resistance is easier when
cravings are weaker.
All I know is that no amount of hormonal imbalance can invalidate
the laws of physics.
|2.9.06 @ 11:53AM|#
Maybe I should have said "Resisting your appetite is easier
if your appetite isn't all that strong." We can get all semantical
about whether or not we actually control our cravings, but we can
certainly resist them. That said, resistance is easier when
cravings are weaker.
True, and I'm more than ready to sympathize with such people; I
reserve my scorn for those who insist that their oversized bodies
have absolutely nothing to do with them. No, no, some evil bonehead
jerk hooked them up to a liquid-lard IV at gunpoint, and that's why
they weigh 400 pounds.
I wonder why impoverished African nations haven't tried to make
money by going into the medical-tourism business. "Are you
suffering from a hormonal imbalance that makes you overweight
through no fault of your own? Come to the Ethiopia Diet Spa, where
our lifestyle regimen will solve that problem mighty quick."
|2.9.06 @ 11:57AM|#
I watch the Biggest Loser on occasion, and I would like it
better if they actually tested people for body fat ratio, instead
of just using the raw number of pounds the contestants lose. I
guess it sort of plays into that whole 'I weigh 98 lbs. so I must
be healthy' kind of thing you hear people saying. Emaciated stick
people look pretty unhealthy to me. 5% bodyfat but can't lift fifty
pounds? Not good. People in that sort of shape generally get fatter
pretty easily.
I gotta say it, though, I love it when I last got weighed at the
doc's office and he was trying to convince me that I am overweight
despite clearly being around 12% bodyfat because his BMI chart said
I was too heavy. Sure, BP 115/72, resting heart rate 60 bpm, it's a
wonder I didn't fall over dead right on the spot...
|2.9.06 @ 11:58AM|#
To be clear, I'm not emphasizing the thermodynamic aspect of
weight loss because I want to blame anybody for anything. For all I
know some people have such intense cravings that it drives them
mad. It isn't for me to say.
I'm more interested in knocking down fad diets. There may very well
be some foods that produce greater health benefits than others, and
some foods may affect appetite differently than others. There may
even be some foods that are metabolized more efficiently than
others. But, at the end of the day, it's about calories, pure and
simple. If you eat less and exercise more, I guarantee that you'll
lose weight. Simple thermodynamics.
Timothy|2.9.06 @ 12:00PM|#
nostradumbass: Well, in the second season they go with percent
of total weight loss. And I'm presuming that all the exercise and
the diet change are actually making the people healthier.
Jennifer: I was going to ask if I could borrow your hungry jackals,
I have some...tasks...for them.
|2.9.06 @ 12:02PM|#
I love it when I last got weighed at the doc's office and he
was trying to convince me that I am overweight despite clearly
being around 12% bodyfat because his BMI chart said I was too
heavy.
BMI charts are useless. Not only do they not distinguish between
muscle and fat, but they no longer even distinguish between men and
women! A healthy woman will have more body fat than a healthy man
of the same size.
My question is: when they did away with the separate gender
standards, what did they do: hold women to the lower-fat standards
of men, hold men to the higher-fat standards of women, or split the
difference so that a woman needs to be too skinny while a man can
be too fat? I suspect they took the third option, but since I
haven't been able to find any BMI charts from the
gender-segregation era to compare to modern ones I have no
proof.
dhex|2.9.06 @ 12:02PM|#
cancer is more frightening than other forms of death by disease
i think in part because it's easier to personalize. like the
motherfucker is lying in wait for you. you find out, often weeks
months or years ahead of time, that you're going to die; while
we're all going to die, it's generally not that concrete a concept
until you get old or something fucked up like cancer happens.
"Though there are psychological drawbacks involved with looking in
the mirror and seeing exactly what your skull looks like."
yeah, but you can save money at halloween.
|2.9.06 @ 12:05PM|#
Timothy-
No doubt the people are healthier for their troubles, and one hopes
they keep it up for their sakes. Good on 'em.
I thought it was kind of funny when the ex-college wrestler guy
won. Who didn't see that coming? Those guys know how to get their
weight down. I bet he depleted a LOT of water on the days before
the final weigh-in. I'd have done the same thing.
|2.9.06 @ 12:06PM|#
you can save money at halloween.
Not when you see your skull in June. I was glad to gain the weight
back--I always said I wanted more visible cheekbones, but not like
THAT.
Dave W.|2.9.06 @ 12:06PM|#
I wonder whether calorie consumption has risen, over the past 20
years, in proportion with the increase in obesity. That might go a
long way toward telling us the increase in obesity is caused by
changes in calorie consumption or, alternatively, by other changes
in diet.
Maybe it is probably a bit of both, but, if so, what's the mix?
|2.9.06 @ 12:19PM|#
I vaguely recall a study from a couple of years ago where the
professor put pedometers on the Amish near his college. The Amish
diet is, apparently, cheese cooked in lard with sweetened heavy
cream for dessert, but they have a very low incidence of obesity.
What the professor discovered was that the Amish logged a lot more
steps that his control group of students. (I'd be the controls,
being college students, walked more than most adult office workers,
too.) Consequently, he concluded that one could consume the same
number of calories per day as the entire nation of Chad and still
lose weight, provided one burned up most of those calories.
Based on my own experience, I'd bet that activity level matters a
lot more than the particular type of food consumed. My sons,
despite by best efforts, live on Reese's Peanut Butter Cups, gummi
bears, and spaghetti, and are quite slim. We get a lot of exercise,
though.
This study should have a bearing on those "McDonald's made me fat"
lawsuits.
|2.9.06 @ 12:20PM|#
I wonder whether calorie consumption has risen, over the
past 20 years, in proportion with the increase in obesity. That
might go a long way toward telling us the increase in obesity is
caused by changes in calorie consumption or, alternatively, by
other changes in diet.
Also the lack of physical activity. How many kids walk or bike to
school today, compared to twenty years ago? Look at modern
playgrounds, which are boring and give kids almost no incentive to
run around and burn off energy. How many people live in
neighborhoods where, between wide roads and no sidewalks, being a
pedestrian is suicide, and so people will drive a half-mile just to
visit a neighbor?
|2.9.06 @ 12:25PM|#
DW- What has HFCS got to do with obesity? I don't get it?
Perhaps you thought I was being snide, but I wasn't. Most of those
big fellows avoid HFCS like the plague. The theory I heard is that
it jacks up your blood sugar very quickly which then drops quickly,
which increase cravings for more carbohydrate. On another note,
some of the guys shooting insulin to put on mass will drink a coke
or pepsi to keep from going into insulin shock, though probably
most use something like maltodextrin or glucose.
Dave W.|2.9.06 @ 12:26PM|#
Good points, Karen and Jennifer.
I have lost 50 pounds over the past three years. About half came
off when I was on Atkins. About half has come off due to eating
less and walking a lot more.
It still seems like you could try to scientifically estimate the
aggregate of changes in calorie consumption (if any) and the
changes in average activity level and get a good idea of the roles
T's simple thermodynamics play as compared to the role in other
dietary changes (if any).
|2.9.06 @ 12:32PM|#
When I decide to drop some fat I literally drop my caloric intake to about 2000 calories a day (hardly starvation) and combine that with 50 minutes cardio routines and hundreds of squat thrusts done on the hard ground. The funny thing is I find a drop fat faster when I make sure to eat enough to support my exercise.
|2.9.06 @ 1:01PM|#
Dave, I also have lost 48 lbs., in two years, most of it in the last 12 months, through nothing more than portion control, eliminating a lot of snacking and high-sugar foods, and working out. My wife, however, has been doing all the same things, eating all the same things, and she's only lost about 15 lbs.; and what's more, she's plateaued. (She started from a higher weight than I did.) It's a testament to how different people's bodies work differently.
Timothy|2.9.06 @ 1:02PM|#
Mediageek: I am with you on the mayonaisse hatred.
Eryk: When I was running cross country and track during high school
I easily ate 5000+ calories a day (I counted), and I weighed a
monsterous 145. Thoreau is right, simple thermodynamics.
JT Barrie|2.9.06 @ 1:03PM|#
Surprise, surprise, surprise! My book The Original Drug Manual
for Kids not only blithely ignores the dangers from "dangerous
drugs" but it also pays scant attention to diet as a major part of
health. Instead I promote a lifetime vigorous physical fitness
regimen - the leading factor in health risks according to this
study. I only castigate one drug which is smoked nicotine - the
second major factor in health risks. The study mentions overall
food intake as a significant factor. I mention this only to readers
as a problem for maintaining fitness regimens: too much food
impedes fitness. Take that Oprah!
I don't even mention genetic factors. Instead I mention
environmental factors out of readers' control: indoor and outdoor
pollution in particular including second hand smoke. And personal
abuse is a HUGE factor. I take the approach of not dealing with it
as much as disowning it. If you recognize abusive people their
impact is minimized - after you've eliminated your role in the
abuse, of course.
That keeps my record intact: whenever my views clash with
conventional wisdom I'm always right. I make a lot of mistakes but
most of them happen when I agree with "everyone else".
Dave W.|2.9.06 @ 1:10PM|#
My wife wasn't losing as much as I was (we went on Atkins at same time) until she got rid of her driver's license and car. Now she's getting pretty hot, if I do say so myself.
|2.9.06 @ 1:12PM|#
It makes sense to me, though, that some guys here find it easier to lose weight than their wives. Women are supposed to have proportionately more body fat and less muscle than men anyway, so, all other things being equal, why shouldn't it be harder for a woman to lose weight?
|2.9.06 @ 1:21PM|#
Do I need to point that a little (read: a little) fat looks
sexy on a woman?
I agree, to the extent that a woman should not have the same low
body-fat percentage that is called "healthy" on a man. What's
healthy for a man is unattractively, and even dangerously, skinny
on a woman.
I'm not skinny; I'm small-boned.
|2.9.06 @ 1:28PM|#
I like large hungry jackals on women. Does that contribute to
their higher body fat ratio?
Sorry, Jennifer, I couldn't help it :)
|2.9.06 @ 1:30PM|#
Jennifer:
You're right. Nothing beats serious illness for rapid weight loss.
A few years ago I spent about six weeks with pneumonia and
bronchitis and lost 40 lbs., about 25% of my total beginning body
weight. Cheekbones are nice, but it's no fun being able to watch
each individual muscle fiber in your jaw work.
Maybe the Ethiopians running that spa could also use "microbial
therapy" -- infecting their customers with nasty bugs. A few days
of coughing their lungs up will make the hungry jackal treatment
seem easy.
|2.9.06 @ 1:32PM|#
Karen,
No, microbial therapy has already been patented by Mexican diet
spas--one tablespoon of tap water per day, and then eat whatever
the hell you want.
|2.9.06 @ 1:32PM|#
I should point out that thermodynamics is "just a theory", and it could be that the real key to weight loss is "intelligent metabolism." This would also explain weight gain: You gain weight because of a conscious decision by the spirits controlling your mitochondria.
|2.9.06 @ 1:34PM|#
bodyfat on a woman is correctly referred to as "ballast" to be
politically correct.
iow, some men like womyns with lots of ballast.
:)
there are few fields of science more infected with politically
motivated tripe than nutrition and medicine. there are so many
competing agendas at play it is absurd
the whole "ephedrine scare" thing was the most blatant example.
this is an incredibly safe and effective compound that was vilified
out of fear for "the children" and in the process, congress tried
to completely gut DSHEA but failed based on later appeals court
decision
the primary reason congress went after ephedrine is that big pharma
companies would rather it was not on the market, so that thye can
sell less safe, more expensive, prescription alternatives.
|2.9.06 @ 1:37PM|#
Dangerously overweight baby boomers, by which I mean anyone over the age of 55 or sixty, should also consider taking up smoking. I'm serious. By that age you're not likely to live long enough to develop lung cancer anyway, but you're in more immediate danger from the extra one or two or three hundred pounds you're lugging around.
|2.9.06 @ 1:41PM|#
it's kind of ironic you say that because nicotine is also an
effective agent to use in weightloss. i know of several
bodybuilders who use nicotine patches during their dieting
phases.
seriously
and they have never smoked in their life. they simply take
advantage of some of the positive properties of the nicotine drug
(smoking otoh has far more negatives associated with it than
positives of course.)
|2.9.06 @ 1:43PM|#
Funny, I thought the motive for banning ephedra was to give the
FDA a pretext for regulating supplements since a federal regulatory
agency just can't stand that anything might be sold with their
regulations.
BTW, they didn't ban ephedra..they only made some stupid rules
about how it could be packaged.
|2.9.06 @ 1:46PM|#
Does smoking help you to lose weight? Certainly, I've
seen firsthand evidence that smokers often gain weight when they
quit (my brother, for instance), but the inverse isn't necessarily
true. Not that I really know.
I'm in pretty good shape at 39, and I do it by having a reasonable
diet (not "diet", just not eating a bucket of fried chicken and
fudge every night) and, most importantly, by regular
exercise. I use my elliptical machine pretty much daily, and I work
out with weights (at home--I'm free of Bally's at last, free at
last) every other day. Incidentally, I'm not surprised that low-fat
isn't the key to health--my Deep-South grandparents and great
uncles and aunts ALL ate fried everything, with sausage gravy, and
almost all of them lived into their 80s or better. Why? In my book,
because they were all quite active. And yes, some of that is
genetic, but not all of it.
|2.9.06 @ 1:48PM|#
Does smoking help you to lose weight? Certainly, I've seen
firsthand evidence that smokers often gain weight when they quit
(my brother, for instance), but the inverse isn't necessarily true.
Not that I really know.
Nicotine does seem to have some appetite-suppressant properties,
and as a stimulant it speeds up your metabolism a bit. Also, I
suspect that the majority of fat people are fat not because they
eat three healthy but too-large meals per day, but because of too
much snacking; cigarettes will replace some of that.
|2.9.06 @ 1:49PM|#
I think I'm on JT Barrie's diet. I eat fairly well and work out
quite vigorously (tons of cardio, running stairs, distance running,
sprinting, skiing, getting up mountains, etc.) about 6 days a
week.
But I can jack a half gallon of bourbon in about 7 days. With
copious amounts of water throughout the day, of course. I'm five
pounds heavier than I was 15 years ago (at 5'11" 165), but that's
muscle because I'm quite thin and I didn't and couldn't run more
than a half block 15 years ago. I also never get sick.
I suspect one or more of my organs will crap out eventually, but
I've kept an eye on my forebears, who also abused themselves
similarly without much consequence. All hail good genes.
Just, you know, sharing with the group.
And thumbs up to well-placed weight on women. Some women are
naturally petite, but the starving twelve-year-old boy look just
isn't appealing. Some day Madison Avenue will figure this out.
|2.9.06 @ 1:50PM|#
to clarify- they banned the sale , manufacture or marketing of
ephedra AS a dietary supplement. it was still legal to buy, possess
and use , and was readily available via primatene tablets,
etc.
of course, that has now been overturned and it is again available
to be sold as a dietary supplement. as it should be. DSHEA is a
great piece of legislation
in response to the last post, the drug nicotine DOES have some
properties that help one lose fat. it is not smoking itself, but
the fact that smokers inhale nicotine.
the fact that many smokers gain weight upon ceasing smoking though
is more likely mostly attributable to finding a "substitute" for
their previous addiction, and their use of food to help promote
endorphin release, etc., oral fixation, etc.
but both factors are probably relevant.
|2.9.06 @ 1:57PM|#
Eryk Boston, maybe I would be if I really ate that. I
exaggerated for effect. Not much fried chicken in my diet, though I
do use bacon fat judiciously (green beans without bacon is Satan's
work). And fudge would simply be gone if I kept it in the house.
Ditto ice cream. Yum.
No, my heritage is mostly Tennessean, though I was born in Alabama
and raised in Florida. Which means that I'm partial to BBQ and
whiskey, I suppose. And pasta. You know, from southern Italy.
|2.9.06 @ 2:03PM|#
Dr. Atkins accurately pointed out that the "epidemic of obesity" in America correlated perfectly, timewise, with the introduction of the low fat diet. This does not prove causation, I realize, but it certainly suggests that American's concern with dietary fat is wrong-headed.
|2.9.06 @ 2:04PM|#
Women "should" have a bodyfat percentage about 5 higher than men
(whose "should" be between 12% and 18%) so between 17% and 23%.
Chasing those numbers is maybe a little better than chasing pounds
or BMI.
Jennifer, we don't know enough about human nutrition to make the
pills (you'd need several.) Eat your veggies, whole grains, fruits,
and lean meats, avoid excessive fats and sugars. Shun
trans-fats.
Probably the most readable book about human nutrition I've read
lately is Dr. Andrew Weil's Eating Well for Optimum
Health. Harder to read, and deeper, is Dr. Roy Walford's
Beyond the 120 Year Diet. Easier and not as deep is Dr.
Kenneth Cooper's The Anti-Oxidant Revolution. I should
mention Bradley, Willcox, and Suzuki's The Okinawa
Program, too, between Weil and Walford in depth.
All have websites, I know that Walford, Cooper, and BWS have
conducted and published peer-reviewed research on diet or fitness
or both.
Timothy|2.9.06 @ 2:08PM|#
PL: Whiskey, bacon fat, pasta, barbeque, sounds like a party. Who's bringing Salma Hayek?
|2.9.06 @ 2:16PM|#
Jennifer, we don't know enough about human nutrition to make
the pills (you'd need several.) Eat your veggies, whole grains,
fruits, and lean meats, avoid excessive fats and sugars. Shun
trans-fats.
Bleah. That wouldn't make me live longer; it would just make it
SEEM longer.
I eat children's chewable vitamins, a minimum of one fruit-ish or
vegetable-like substance per month, fatty well-marbled beef, lots
of cran-grape juice, and fried-egg sandwiches on white-bread toast.
I also love baby-back ribs.
Pasta and olive oil is good too. So are TGI Friday's frozen
Southwestern Egg Rolls.
And I'll bet I outlive the fat-free people who won't eat a thing
without weighing it on a dietary scale first. I will not dance on
their graves, however; I'll picnic on their graves and
enjoy a big-ass bucket of Kentucky Fried Chicken. And I'll chew
with my mouth open, too, just to torment their dead-but-healthy
spirits.
|2.9.06 @ 2:25PM|#
I moved into a mixed-use neighborhood in a large metropolitan
area about 4 months ago, and I'm finally back to the weight/size I
was in college. It must be the walking, because it sure as hell
wasn't the slices of white pizza or the Korean BBQ.
And "The Biggest Loser" is great TV. I still can't believe they get
teenage girls to weigh themselves on national TV. Most of the
teenagers I know would self-immolate rather than take that kind of
humiliation...
|2.9.06 @ 2:29PM|#
Yeah, screw the DIET IS ALL cult. I haven't eaten one bite less of pasta since the anti-carbohydrate hysteria started, 'cause I knew you were all incredibly wrong. Carbs and fats are our friends. So long as you get at least some exercise, I hasten to add. And by exercise, I'm not saying that you should join me on my NordicTrack or in lifting weights (excepting of course, Ms. Hayek)--just, like, move and stuff.
|2.9.06 @ 2:51PM|#
But Pro how are the couch potatoes going to keep up with "The Biggest Loser" if they are out moving around? ;)
|2.9.06 @ 3:09PM|#
I'm going with the thermodynamics theory on this one. I quit
doing speed about ten years ago and promptly put on close to 100
pounds because I was EATING A LOT. Then I said to myself "hang on,
I need to eat less" Well what do you know? My weight dropped back
down to 140 and it's been there for years now. I walk 30 or 40
miles a week and eat really well. I just don't need to eat huge
portions. When I eat out in this country I'm always disgusted by
the sheer volume of food put in front of me. American portion sizes
are just too damn big. You eat like that you will get fat unless
you're an exercise freak.
You want to know the very best diet in the world? Open your own
restaurant, seriously. You'll be working there 100+ hours per week
and after a few weeks nothing on the menu will have any appeal. My
wife and I opened a restaurant and she dropped down to 95lbs and I
dropped to 130lbs. People thought we were back on speed. Thank god
I'm out of that business now.
Timothy|2.9.06 @ 3:11PM|#
Zero: Duh, excersise before 8/7c!
PL: Yeah, my department is moving back into the bank tower soon. My
plan is to stop using the elevator, it's only nine flights of
stairs, but a few times a day will help. Not that my still
monsterous 145 is fat, but I missing being in slightly better
shape. My girlfriend and I are moving in together in December
(she's still in school in OR), so I think more frequent sex will be
good for my cardiovascular health as well.
|2.9.06 @ 3:23PM|#
Timothy has nobody had "the talk" with you yet about the
relationship between moving in together and frequency of sexual
intercourse?
But it's a nice dream, I suppose.
Timothy|2.9.06 @ 3:27PM|#
Almost Loser: I am ever the optimist, plus it's hard to be less frequent than a few times every other month or so when we can afford to travel.
|2.9.06 @ 3:36PM|#
Oh, and it's hard to burn many calories when you exercise with a very limited range of motion.
Sandy|2.9.06 @ 4:25PM|#
Rafuzo:
The study compared the content of diets at the same calorie level,
so there was zero risk of becoming a fatass. It strictly tested
where your calories came from--fat or non-fat. You could as easily
abuse fat-free sugars as burgers and die as fast or faster. Thoreau
has it right: calories in - calories burned = how fat.
You might be interested to know that people on low-fat diets have a
harder time staying on them than fat-containing reduced-calorie
diets. Fat triggers the "fullness" feeling in people faster than,
say, wheat germ.
Jadagul|2.9.06 @ 5:20PM|#
Bob Mologna: re "American restaurants serve too-big portions," I've had the exact opposite experience. I tend to have an obnoxious metabolism (although some of my friends do even better; I know a girl who's trying to put on weight and can't manage not to lose any). For years I thought that restaurants served portions that were way too small to actually leave you feeling full.
|2.9.06 @ 5:28PM|#
Women "should" have a bodyfat percentage about 5 higher than
men (whose "should" be between 12% and 18%) so between 17% and
23%.
What about the wide variability of breast size? That must affect
body fat measurements.
|2.9.06 @ 5:32PM|#
What about the wide variability of breast size? That must
affect body fat measurements.
I read that breasts are actually more glandular tissue than fat, so
I don't think that would affect matters too much.
|2.9.06 @ 5:53PM|#
Jennifer, Jennifer, Jennifer. You fell prey to the classic Hit & Run "Let's Talk about Breasts with the Women Ploy". This thread will now discuss nothing else.
|2.9.06 @ 6:02PM|#
"About 5"; some are going to be only 2 or 3 more (anorexic or
body builders) others maybe 7 or 8, out to 25% total. You can have
a higher percentage of body fat than those I listed, but odds are
that you're then carrying fat around that you don't need and that
eventually will not be healthy for you. As you age (after 25 ...
35, depending on genes), your body will naturally lose muscle
tissue unless you get a lot of exercise (both cardio and weight
lifting), and if your weight remains the same, it means in general
that you're gaining even more fat.
Yes, the human body is a machine. Calories in - calories used -
calories stored - calories excreted = 0 over a long term. A good
discussion of this, and a helpful weightloss spreadsheet, at John
Walker's Hacker's Diet www dot fourmilab dot ch slash hackdiet
slash e4 slash
|2.9.06 @ 6:45PM|#
um, no.
breasts (well at least the big'uns) are far more (on a volume
basis) composed of fat than of glandular tissue.
it doesn't take rocket scientist to figger this out.
i've seen women diet down to sub 10% bodyfat for contests and what
do they lose (besides their periods) - ? - their breast. they don't
lose glandular tissue, but the fat cells shrink down to much
smaller size, and they can lose a couple of cup sizes EASY.
that's because breasts are mostly fat.
unless they are silicone or saline of course :)
|2.9.06 @ 7:30PM|#
Jennifer, science has proven that everyone likes breasts--men, women, it doesn't matter. Of course, if I some, I'd never leave the house :)
|2.9.06 @ 8:48PM|#
Am still a chick here, last I looked. Just asking for
information's sake, not out of provocativeness or prurient
interest, though I realize it does provide an entr�e for that. ;-)
(How many fun things can you men really think of to do with one's
boobs, anyway?)
So what's a reliable way to measure body fat -- calipers? I hear
those Brookstone/Sharper Image scale thingies aren't too
accurate.
|2.9.06 @ 9:22PM|#
the most accurate method of bf testing is autopsy. but rather
inconvenient.
seriously though...
calipers are good IF you know how to use them. otherwise, they are
wildly inaccurate.
some of the scales that measure via electrical current (they don't
hurt, i swear) are pretty good as a relative measure.
the only really accurate way for living people is hydro
(underwater) although i have heard some of the air compression
chambers are good, i can't attest to that
|2.9.06 @ 9:33PM|#
(How many fun things can you men really think of to do with
one's boobs, anyway?)
You are joking, right?
|2.9.06 @ 11:34PM|#
Jennifer, Jennifer, Jennifer. You fell prey to the classic
Hit & Run "Let's Talk about Breasts with the Women Ploy". This
thread will now discuss nothing else.
Looks like I stopped by at the right time.
the most accurate method of bf testing is autopsy.
My brain stuttered for a second there -- I'm used to seeing "bf" as
standing for "boyfriend."
|2.10.06 @ 12:09AM|#
>Anecdotal evidence: from time to time I read those
human-interest
>stories about some old person who just celebrated a three-digit
birthday;
>these people never seem to eat the diets now called
"healthy."
>No, it's always something like 'I smoke three cigars a day,
drink
>whiskey, and eat bacon fried in lard.'
Some people have great genetics, and will live long healthy lives
no matter how they abuse their bodies. We should all be so lucky.
That doesn't imply that such abuse is not generally causative of
poor health.
|2.10.06 @ 4:07AM|#
this is a good point. it is usually bad logic to extrapolate
generalities from statistical outliers.
it's like looking at spud webb and concluding that short people are
likely to play professional basketball.
um, no... :)
i think it was the CDC which says that over 60% of chronic disease
is specifically diet/lifestyle related.
all this talk of socialized medicine entitlements tends to ignore
that the largest health problem among the poor in the USA is (for
the first time in recorded history) OBESITY.
i could cut the irony with a ladle.
|2.10.06 @ 10:42AM|#
i think it was the CDC which says that over 60% of chronic
disease is specifically diet/lifestyle related.
What was the other 40%, I wonder? How much is genetic, how much
environmental?
"How many fun things can you men really think of to do with
one's boobs, anyway?"
You are joking, right?
Heh. I knew someone would say that. And no, I'm not. I guess I just
lack imagination. (Puppetry of the Mammaries?)
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245