98 replies to this topic

[Stone]

Article in today's NYTimes in which a researcher at Rockefeller University claims that it really is all about calories in v. calories out. He explains why a recent study, which purported to show that high-fat/high-protein diets help people maintain weightloss better than high-carb diets, was flawed. And he says, as I read it, that a person's "metabolism" (I'm probably using the term incorrectly) is established early on in life, due to factors we don't understand. (Thus explaining why it's easier for some people to maintain a lower weight.

Contrast with the book Catching Fire (not the Hunger Games sequel) in which the author (Harvard professor) argues that different diets result in different weight gains because of how the body digests food. That is, if an otherwise stable diet is increased by 500 calories of carbs compared with a diet that is increased by 500 calories of fat, the latter diet will result in a greater weight gain. This is because the body actually burns more energy in the process of digesting carbs than it does in digesting fats. While this doesn't necessarily contradict Mr. Rockefeller's claim (it's still c-in v c-out), I think it's a pretty important distinction. (Catching Fire also claims that our bodies are adapted to digest cooked/processed food and, therefore, will get more calories by eating ground, cooked foods v. raw foods.)

[Lippy]

The science of weight loss is a very new field and is poorly understood and what has been learned is even more poorly explained to the public. What works in the lab does not necessarily work in real life and certainly not on every person. I strongly suspect that our genetics play a very large part in determining weight, weight gain and loss and which diet method would work best. In other words, even if there were no humongous sugary drinks, packaged processed food-like substances, and fast food readily available, there would still be some people fatter than others (although not as fat as they are now.)

[Orik]

That's exactly right. There are strong genetic components, not just ones that determine body weight based on given caloric intake, but also ones that determine response to high fat diets, to the mediterranean diet, and to exercise (some poor folks actually do not lose any weight with moderate exercise)

A good book at this point in time should suggest to the reader to get this genetic data so that they can not only determine what's likely to work for them, but also how much risk they're taking of developing type 2 diabetes and other inflammatory conditions later in life.

[Nathan]

Article in today's NYTimes in which a researcher at Rockefeller University claims that it really is all about calories in v. calories out. He explains why a recent study, which purported to show that high-fat/high-protein diets help people maintain weightloss better than high-carb diets, was flawed. And he says, as I read it, that a person's "metabolism" (I'm probably using the term incorrectly) is established early on in life, due to factors we don't understand. (Thus explaining why it's easier for some people to maintain a lower weight.

Contrast with the book Catching Fire (not the Hunger Games sequel) in which the author (Harvard professor) argues that different diets result in different weight gains because of how the body digests food. That is, if an otherwise stable diet is increased by 500 calories of carbs compared with a diet that is increased by 500 calories of fat, the latter diet will result in a greater weight gain. This is because the body actually burns more energy in the process of digesting carbs than it does in digesting fats. While this doesn't necessarily contradict Mr. Rockefeller's claim (it's still c-in v c-out), I think it's a pretty important distinction. (Catching Fire also claims that our bodies are adapted to digest cooked/processed food and, therefore, will get more calories by eating ground, cooked foods v. raw foods.)

as to the last question in the link, the reason why new diets are constantly being promoted is because diet books are one of the primary ways book publishers are staying afloat (diet books are about the only reliable profit center...even many celeb books that sell millions of copies end up being losers due to the large advances paid)...if you want to make it as an author, come up with a diet.

[Orik]

Yes, it's a great market to be in, a constant supply of new victims.

[SLBunge]

Certainly genetics plays a role in how a specific person stores fat or responds to exercise. But I think that the doctor is correct that it is all an energy balance.

[Orik]

Of course he's correct, and of course the headline message should be to eat less and worry about composition later.

That doesn't help anyone, though.

[Wilfrid]

The motivation governing the whole diet industry is to lose weight without being hungry and/or feeling deprived.

Good luck with that.

[Lex]

That doesn't help anyone, though.

People aren't helped because they don't like the message - "Eat less and you'll lose weight." What they really want to hear is "Eat these magic organic cookies and wear this magnetic bracelet and the pounds will start dropping off." They love voodoo diets because they're not willing to make sacrifices.

The other thing is that people want to diet, lose weight, and then go back to the way they were eating before. The idea of a permanent lifestyle change is unacceptable to them. And then they're surprised when the weight comes back.

[Nathan]

The motivation governing the whole diet industry is to lose weight without being hungry and/or feeling deprived.

Good luck with that.

well, people can take up running....nothing (except for serious swimming) burns calories more efficiently (yes, if you were doing hyper-intense, cf style workouts you'd burn more per minute, but you can't keep up that calorie burn for a longer period of time the way runners can (or serious swimmers).

[Wilfrid]

I have often thought of taking up weight-lifting and dramatically increasing my calorie intake.

[Nathan]

I have often thought of taking up weight-lifting and dramatically increasing my calorie intake.

you'll gain considerable muscle that way of course...and your bf% will probably change somewhat....but definitely not a weight loss method per se...

[Stone]

Yeah, and then Lex will get all on his ass claiming that Wilfrid's posts are juiced.

[Orik]

That doesn't help anyone, though.

People aren't helped because they don't like the message - "Eat less and you'll lose weight." What they really want to hear is "Eat these magic organic cookies and wear this magnetic bracelet and the pounds will start dropping off." They love voodoo diets because they're not willing to make sacrifices.

The other thing is that people want to diet, lose weight, and then go back to the way they were eating before. The idea of a permanent lifestyle change is unacceptable to them. And then they're surprised when the weight comes back.

I have a different theory. I think many of these fad diets are intentionally disruptive. Like, a diet that doesn't allow you to eat almost any restaurant dish (Atkins), a diet that involves spending your day counting*, a diet that wants you to eat 17,547 small meals a day. It's the same theory as running a successful cult - people aren't in your cult for the promised well-being and enlightenment, they're in it for the disruption.

Additionally, the government sanctioned recommended lifestyle (three meals a day, 2000+ calories, etc.) already puts people so close to obesity that it's no wonder they get there even if they don't do anything particularly vulgar.




* obviously this wouldn't be disruptive for someone in my line of business, but it is very much so for WW victims.

[Nathan]

That doesn't help anyone, though.

People aren't helped because they don't like the message - "Eat less and you'll lose weight." What they really want to hear is "Eat these magic organic cookies and wear this magnetic bracelet and the pounds will start dropping off." They love voodoo diets because they're not willing to make sacrifices.

The other thing is that people want to diet, lose weight, and then go back to the way they were eating before. The idea of a permanent lifestyle change is unacceptable to them. And then they're surprised when the weight comes back.

I have a different theory. I think many of these fad diets are intentionally disruptive. Like, a diet that doesn't allow you to eat almost any restaurant dish (Atkins), a diet that involves spending your day counting*, a diet that wants you to eat 17,547 small meals a day. It's the same theory as running a successful cult - people aren't in your cult for the promised well-being and enlightenment, they're in it for the disruption.

Additionally, the government sanctioned recommended lifestyle (three meals a day, 2000+ calories, etc.) already puts people so close to obesity that it's no wonder they get there even if they don't do anything particularly vulgar.




* obviously this wouldn't be disruptive for someone in my line of business, but it is very much so for WW victims.

well, even Atkins works for a period of time...cause you're cutting out so many food groups that you end up eating fewer calories in the aggregate....