Author Topic: LCHF and healthy eating  (Read 162353 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline lonely moa

  • A rather tough old bird.
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5095
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #420 on: January 29, 2017, 12:11:38 PM »
An interesting meta analysis revealing the increased risk of cancer mortality with people with elevated serum glucose.  Another good reason to not have diabetes.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4320469/pdf/12885_2014_Article_5167.pdf
"Pull the goalie", Malcolm Gladwell.

Offline CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 13119
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #421 on: February 01, 2017, 01:33:29 PM »
Oh, sugar.


xkcd
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Offline Billzbub

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4483
  • I know you know I know
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #422 on: February 01, 2017, 01:49:16 PM »
See, I drink diet soda so that I can eat all that stuff on the right without feeling guilty!   :dance:
Quote from: Steven Novella
gleefully altering one’s beliefs to accommodate new information should be a badge of honor

Offline CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 13119
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #423 on: February 01, 2017, 03:37:17 PM »
See, I drink diet soda so that I can eat all that stuff on the right without feeling guilty!   :dance:

well...

and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Offline lonely moa

  • A rather tough old bird.
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5095
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #424 on: February 02, 2017, 12:17:05 AM »
Taubes' "Case Against Sugar" is a compelling read.  That man is thorough.
"Pull the goalie", Malcolm Gladwell.

Offline PB67

  • Not Enough Spare Time
  • **
  • Posts: 117
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #425 on: February 02, 2017, 10:19:13 AM »
Science is imperfect, and scientists are as well. Pioneers such as John Ioannidis, Brian Nosek, Vinayak Prasad, Adam Cifu, and Chris Chambers are making a good faith effort to identify flaws in the scientific process and address them. Journalists have an important role to play here as well, by helping to identify problems and raising awareness about how to fix them. Taubes also views science as flawed, but primarily where it disagrees with his personal beliefs. Rather than contribute to the solution, Taubes adds to the problem by promoting an unscientific thought process that systematically excludes opposing evidence.

To answer the question posed in the title, refined sugar is bad, although not the singular cause of all humankind’s ills. A core principle of journalism is the accurate, objective, and complete transmission of pertinent facts to the reader. The Case Against Sugar is a journey through sugar history and science that is heavily distorted through the lens of Taubes’s personal beliefs. By this metric, it is not journalism, but advocacy. To a general audience that has little basis for evaluating its claims, the book will be misleading. Yet for readers who are willing to take The Case Against Sugar with a case full of salt, it does contain some interesting history.

http://www.stephanguyenet.com/bad-sugar-or-bad-journalism-an-expert-review-of-the-case-against-sugar/

Sent from my SM-N910T3 using Tapatalk


Offline CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 13119
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #426 on: February 02, 2017, 10:43:49 AM »
Quote
Science is imperfect, and scientists are as well. Pioneers such as John Ioannidis, Brian Nosek, Vinayak Prasad, Adam Cifu, and Chris Chambers are making a good faith effort to identify flaws in the scientific process and address them. Journalists have an important role to play here as well, by helping to identify problems and raising awareness about how to fix them. Taubes also views science as flawed, but primarily where it disagrees with his personal beliefs. Rather than contribute to the solution, Taubes adds to the problem by promoting an unscientific thought process that systematically excludes opposing evidence.

To answer the question posed in the title, refined sugar is bad, although not the singular cause of all humankind’s ills. A core principle of journalism is the accurate, objective, and complete transmission of pertinent facts to the reader. The Case Against Sugar is a journey through sugar history and science that is heavily distorted through the lens of Taubes’s personal beliefs. By this metric, it is not journalism, but advocacy. To a general audience that has little basis for evaluating its claims, the book will be misleading. Yet for readers who are willing to take The Case Against Sugar with a case full of salt, it does contain some interesting history.

http://www.stephanguyenet.com/bad-sugar-or-bad-journalism-an-expert-review-of-the-case-against-sugar/


I saw this. First, Guyenet has had a thing for Taubes for a few years, ever since Taubes spoke after him at a conference, and pretty much obliterated him.

Second, did you read this? From top to bottom it's filled with mischaracterizations and exaggerations and outright falsehoods.

My favorite is when he claims Taubes should have disclosed his own conflict of interest in the book. What is the undisclosed conflict? According to Guyenet: Writing the book.

What a tool.
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Offline lonely moa

  • A rather tough old bird.
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5095
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #427 on: February 02, 2017, 12:23:35 PM »
You sort of have to actually read the book, rather than just a review from a hostile reviewer.  Guyenet is (was) credible obesity researcher, but his views on what causes obesity are different from Taubes' and he really seems to have a personal antagonism to Taubes.

I think GT builds a good case that sugar itself is the prime suspect in the steep rise in "Western" diseases.

"Pull the goalie", Malcolm Gladwell.

Offline lonely moa

  • A rather tough old bird.
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5095
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #428 on: February 14, 2017, 12:41:57 AM »
"Pull the goalie", Malcolm Gladwell.

Offline Crash

  • Keeps Priorities Straight
  • ***
  • Posts: 406
  • Dogspeed John Glenn.
    • What I do for fun
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #429 on: February 15, 2017, 03:06:47 PM »
Taubes' "Case Against Sugar" is a compelling read.  That man is thorough.

 Harriet Hall does a pretty good take down of Gary Taubes at Science Based Medicine.
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/gary-taubes-and-the-cause-of-obesity/
  Taubes is the one that seems to think that the human body does not conform to the laws of thermodynamics.  Exercise according to Taubes has negligible effect on weight loss.  Both those tropes are pretty hard to swallow for a skeptic.  Calories in must equal calories out because the body is a closed system.   We do not photosynthesize or have any other energy source but food.  His denial of physics is enough to reject his shit.
  I have no argument that sugar is not good for you in large amounts.  Rotting teeth and the threat of diabetes are enough to dampen my fervor for sugar. Everything in moderation. 
  I have avoided this thread for a long time but it's disappointing to see the LCHF diet given so much credibility on this boards.  It's a fad diet and nothing else.  Just eat less. 

Offline CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 13119
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #430 on: February 15, 2017, 04:20:01 PM »
  Taubes is the one that seems to think that the human body does not conform to the laws of thermodynamics. 

That is flat out false. Tubes studied physics and knows full well the laws of thermodynamics and the complexities of human metabolism.

Quote
Exercise according to Taubes has negligible effect on weight loss. 

There is a significant amount of studies to support that including some very recent ones. There is little or no science to support exercise having more than a negligible effect on weight loss.

Quote
Both those tropes are pretty hard to swallow for a skeptic. 

Maybe a little research would help.

Quote
Calories in must equal calories out because the body is a closed system.   

You're forgetting calories stored.


Quote
We do not photosynthesize or have any other energy source but food.  His denial of physics is enough to reject his shit.

No where does he suggest that or anything that remotely violates the laws of physics.


Quote
  I have no argument that sugar is not good for you in large amounts.  Rotting teeth and the threat of diabetes are enough to dampen my fervor for sugar. Everything in moderation. 
 

That's just the tip of the iceberg.

Quote
I have avoided this thread for a long time but it's disappointing to see the LCHF diet given so much credibility on this boards.  It's a fad diet and nothing else.  Just eat less.

The first LCHF weight loss diets were promoted over 150 years ago. Atkins diet has been going strong more than 40 years. That's some fad.
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Offline Johnny Slick

  • "Goddammit, Slick."
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 12767
  • Fake Ass Skeptic
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #431 on: February 15, 2017, 05:22:27 PM »
Taubes' "Case Against Sugar" is a compelling read.  That man is thorough.

 Harriet Hall does a pretty good take down of Gary Taubes at Science Based Medicine.
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/gary-taubes-and-the-cause-of-obesity/
  Taubes is the one that seems to think that the human body does not conform to the laws of thermodynamics.  Exercise according to Taubes has negligible effect on weight loss.  Both those tropes are pretty hard to swallow for a skeptic.  Calories in must equal calories out because the body is a closed system.   We do not photosynthesize or have any other energy source but food.  His denial of physics is enough to reject his shit.
  I have no argument that sugar is not good for you in large amounts.  Rotting teeth and the threat of diabetes are enough to dampen my fervor for sugar. Everything in moderation. 
  I have avoided this thread for a long time but it's disappointing to see the LCHF diet given so much credibility on this boards.  It's a fad diet and nothing else.  Just eat less.
So to ignore the LCHF fanatics here, there are a couple of issues here I think (and I am both far from an expert and also not a particularly thin person here - although I am a person who has gone from being straight-up faaaat to only kind of fat - so take this with a grain of... salt?):

1. Whatever "too much sugar" is, we are kind of inundated with sugar compared to historical human consumption. Sugar as we know it - a thing you can add to pastries, etc., and which is available in large quantities - wasn't really available to the public at large until the 1800s.

2. It's *definitely* true that exercise can cause weight loss just as much as consuming fewer calories can. I mean, that's, like, not even hard to understand; like you said, it's basic thermodynamics. That being said... your body consumes a pretty large number of calories per day just operating and by you performing normal amounts of exercise every day. If you could get into a situation where you burn an additional 1000-1500 kCals a day, yes, you could absolutely eat a lot of food and still be thin. My brother and his partner will often do vacation-y things that involve biking like 100 miles in a day and then eating a whole crap ton of pizza and beer. That said, it is *really* hard to burn that much on a daily basis, and in fact it is really, really common for athletes who get injured or just stop doing athletics at a high level to suddenly gain a lot of weight because it's so, so much easier to consume calories than it is to burn them.

Conversely, it's a lot, lot easier to eat less - although I agree that it feels horrible when you do - than it is to exercise more, especially if you already have a body that has had lots of food and not a lot of exercise in it. If you're morbidly obese, just walking a couple miles a day can use up pretty much all of your energy (source: this applied to me at one point in time) and the thing is, you won't actually be able to burn all that many calories that way. On top of that, that extra fat that you're carrying might be causing a heart condition that prevents you from exercising as much as a pro athlete does, even if you did have the time to do so, which many of us don't, so for many people who are trying to lose fat, making up the intake/output deficit only by exercising more might just kill them.

3. I will say that in fairness to the LCHF crowd it is not easy to eat a lot of calories when you're also avoiding carbohydrates. Speaking as a diabetic, I can tell you that the Venn diagram between foods that are high in "empty" calories and foods that have a high carbohydrate content looks like, um, two circles that are really close together. Pasta (especially pasta with marinara sauce), bread, cake, candy, fruit juice, potato chips, pizza, pancakes with syrup, breakfast cereal, jelly (as in a PB&J sandwich), hash browns, Coke, Pepsi... It is downright hard to find food that you can consume 3,000 calories of a day that isn't mostly carbs and won't make you sick doing so.

So just eliminating high-carb foods from your diet or at least controlling them will, right there, usually cause you to cut way back on your calorie consumption. It's also really hard because carbs are kind of addictive.

Yeah, the direct claims that the fact of the low carbs and high fat creates magical ketosis monsters that eat away all those calories is pretty well bullshit, I agree, but as a dieting strategy it's actually not a terrible one: normally, cutting back from 2500-3000 kCals a day to 1500 or whatever will just make you hungry and miserable whereas doing an Atkins-type diet will make you a bit less so, and even if it still makes you feel like crap for a while, you also quickly learn that, unlike binging on sweets or pizza, binging on bacon and sausages just makes you feel sick and, by and large, worse than you felt before. So there is that!

4. I do think that there's something to be said, too, about the people who push the paleo diets, not because they're actually "naturally better" or whatever BS they push. I also don't want to sit here and tell you that just because food is refined and processed now, that makes it bad. In fact, by a lot of metrics that makes it really, really good: for the vast majority of human existence, food was in such short supply that some kind of high-calorie substance like fruit juice would be considered, in most epochs, a kind of amazing food: here is something that, if you drink a couple liters of it a day, has so many macronutrients in it that you can practically live on it and nothing else. Hell, not only did bread just plain not exist for most of humanity, it's probably the creation/discovery of bread and bread-like products like beer that kicked off civilization. The problem is, we don't live in a calorie-restricted world anymore and so the fact that, for example, plain, non-juiced-up fruits have their carb calories locked up inside of a lot of fiber that our body doesn't process makes them "better" for us than juice precisely *because* the macronutrients are harder to come by.

5. That being said, fad diets pop in and out all the time and the reason they do linger is that, well, changing your eating habits, watching what you eat, giving yourself weird restrictions... all that stuff actually does work. It, like, stops working the second you stop doing all of that stuff (and that applies to LCHF / paleo as much as anything else, maybe moreso because if you go without cake for 5 years and then suddenly get into cake, man are you going to want cake) and that more than anything else is why these fad diets generally do not work. But there's nothing that says you can't use one of these diets to kick-start a move into a more healthy lifestyle.

6. Okay, so all of this being said, here is my personal philosophy about this kind of thing: being height-weight proportionate should not be the end goal here. Weighing X amount should not be the end goal either. If you're goal-oriented, go ahead and do that, but for many of us, myself included, looking at a scale several times a week just leads to feeling worse about ourselves about something that is not and should not be all that important anyway. This is especially tough because, let's face it, thin people are more attractive than fat people are, and I am not saying this to say that thin people should feel guilty about this. I'm just saying, society tells us that we are not worth as much if we aren't in that proper zone, and I'm sorry but it's just not the case. Even if you are overweight and will never be HWP, you can get yourself more fit than you currently are, and there are lots and lots of benefits to doing so.

To take myself as an example: I'll just say this straight out: I've got some weight that I could stand to lose. I've lost a bit in the past 2 months, but there's still lots more to go should I care to do so (I also have a bit of a body dysmorphia issue where I kind of can't help but think of myself as fatter than I actually am, but a. that's on me, not what I'm talking about, and b. it *is* one of those things that fat and "recovering fat" people have to worry about). I also bike probably 30-40 miles a week (less in the winter, although I try to keep up as much as I can) and hope to move out to a place this summer that affords me the opportunity to push that up to 60-70M. So here's the thing: I can do stuff that I want to do that I just could not do when I weighed more than 300 pounds. If I want to take a stroll (or more often, go for a ride) around the city, it's not going to destroy me for the rest of the day. When I go on trips, I don't feel completely dead after walking through museums several days in a row. I do a thing that is sort of similar to acting every week and I know that I can be physical in there without turning into a sweaty mess or having to sit out half of it because I'm winded or something. If I go out to meet up with friends and something happens that makes me have to walk an extra mile or whatever, I'm not automatically tired and irritable. All this stuff used to happen to me but it doesn't anymore, and a big result of this is that I get to have *so* much more fun now than I used to in the early 2000s.

And *that* I feel ought to be the end goal of getting fit. Get fit enough to... be fit. Yes, I know that it's circular but that's just the thing: as you get into better shape you're going to find yourself wanting to do more things that, before, you just didn't feel up to doing. At least that's what happened for me. In the process, if you move from being, for example, morbidly obese to just plain obese, it's going to open up all kinds of exciting doors. Or even if you only ever go from, say, 320 to 300, you are statistically a *lot* better off with even that 20 pounds off your body. And sure, nobody will ever know that you are secretly thinner than you would otherwise be if you weren't working at it, but fitness is about *you*. In that respect, IMO physical activity is, like, orders of magnitude more important than watching what you eat, even if the end result is that you're not actually losing weight in the process.

So what I guess I'm saying is... if LCHF or paleo is what motivates you to get out there and improve your fitness, get started on it. Like I said, these methods *do* work, and just because the science indicates that fad diets are not sustainable does not mean that *you* can't find a way to sustain your new, more active lifestyle. If a more measured, science-based approach is what you prefer, use that. What I think we should not do is sit on the sidelines and declaim these things and do this as an excuse not to try to get better. I feel like we as skeptics tend to do this a lot, especially when we're presented with bullshitty-sounding things (and I am not saying for one second that LCHF and paleo don't have massive quantities of bullshit associated with them). We need to push past this and do stuff other than just talk about it.
Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day.

- Ralph Waldo Emerson

Offline lonely moa

  • A rather tough old bird.
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5095
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #432 on: February 15, 2017, 05:24:05 PM »

Quote
I have avoided this thread for a long time but it's disappointing to see the LCHF diet given so much credibility on this boards.  It's a fad diet and nothing else.  Just eat less.

The first LCHF weight loss diets were promoted over 150 years ago. Atkins diet has been going strong more than 40 years. That's some fad.

Actually, there have been millions, if not billions of healthy humans that have eaten diets that were nearly devoid of carbohydrates.  Carbohydrates are not actually a necessary component of a healthy diet.   LCHF diets are certainly not a fad diet if one considers what humans have eaten since the year dot.
"Pull the goalie", Malcolm Gladwell.

Offline CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 13119
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #433 on: February 15, 2017, 06:15:16 PM »

Quote
I have avoided this thread for a long time but it's disappointing to see the LCHF diet given so much credibility on this boards.  It's a fad diet and nothing else.  Just eat less.

The first LCHF weight loss diets were promoted over 150 years ago. Atkins diet has been going strong more than 40 years. That's some fad.

Actually, there have been millions, if not billions of healthy humans that have eaten diets that were nearly devoid of carbohydrates.  Carbohydrates are not actually a necessary component of a healthy diet.   LCHF diets are certainly not a fad diet if one considers what humans have eaten since the year dot.

Of course, but it wasn't until about 150 years ago that LCHF was promoted as a weight loss diet.

 Very few people eating a the kind of healthy diet you're describing would ever see the need or desire for a weight loss diet.
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Offline CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 13119
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #434 on: February 15, 2017, 06:28:53 PM »
So to ignore the LCHF fanatics here, there are a couple of issues here I think (and I am both far from an expert and also not a particularly thin person here - although I am a person who has gone from being straight-up faaaat to only kind of fat - so take this with a grain of... salt?):

You have to ignore a lot of science too.

Quote
1. Whatever "too much sugar" is, we are kind of inundated with sugar compared to historical human consumption. Sugar as we know it - a thing you can add to pastries, etc., and which is available in large quantities - wasn't really available to the public at large until the 1800s.

Yes, along with other simple and fast carbs.

Quote
2. It's *definitely* true that exercise can cause weight loss just as much as consuming fewer calories can. I mean, that's, like, not even hard to understand; like you said, it's basic thermodynamics.

So, in science you would want to test that in actual human subjects, rather than just assume it's true because: Thermodynamics.

And it has been tested, and tested repeatedly. And what they have found was that a weight loss diet and exercise can lead to weight loss. A weight loss diet with no exercise can lead to about the same amount of weight loss. Exercise without a weight loss diet does not lead to weight loss.






Quote
your body consumes a pretty large number of calories per day just operating and by you performing normal amounts of exercise every day. If you could get into a situation where you burn an additional 1000-1500 kCals a day, yes, you could absolutely eat a lot of food and still be thin. My brother and his partner will often do vacation-y things that involve biking like 100 miles in a day and then eating a whole crap ton of pizza and beer. That said, it is *really* hard to burn that much on a daily basis, and in fact it is really, really common for athletes who get injured or just stop doing athletics at a high level to suddenly gain a lot of weight because it's so, so much easier to consume calories than it is to burn them.

That's one way of looking at it. Here's another. Insulin regulates fat storage. If you're eating a diet that results in chronically high insulin levels, some of the calories you're consuming will be stored as fat. In order to maintain your energy levels your body will want (hunger) more calories.


Quote
Conversely, it's a lot, lot easier to eat less - although I agree that it feels horrible when you do - than it is to exercise more, especially if you already have a body that has had lots of food and not a lot of exercise in it. If you're morbidly obese, just walking a couple miles a day can use up pretty much all of your energy (source: this applied to me at one point in time) and the thing is, you won't actually be able to burn all that many calories that way. On top of that, that extra fat that you're carrying might be causing a heart condition that prevents you from exercising as much as a pro athlete does, even if you did have the time to do so, which many of us don't, so for many people who are trying to lose fat, making up the intake/output deficit only by exercising more might just kill them.

It's easier for some to eat less than others. Plus, if you're addicted to sugar, you'll have the same kinds of cravings that smokers, alcoholics and drug addicts battle with.

On a LCHF diet, you don't have that the chronically high insulin level, so your not automatically storing fat. Instead you're releasing more fat from stores all the time.

Quote
3. I will say that in fairness to the LCHF crowd it is not easy to eat a lot of calories when you're also avoiding carbohydrates. Speaking as a diabetic, I can tell you that the Venn diagram between foods that are high in "empty" calories and foods that have a high carbohydrate content looks like, um, two circles that are really close together. Pasta (especially pasta with marinara sauce), bread, cake, candy, fruit juice, potato chips, pizza, pancakes with syrup, breakfast cereal, jelly (as in a PB&J sandwich), hash browns, Coke, Pepsi... It is downright hard to find food that you can consume 3,000 calories of a day that isn't mostly carbs and won't make you sick doing so.

It's not just that. On a LCHF diet you are less hungry. I've posted links to dozens of studies where the LCHF wings were allowed to eat ad lib; as much as they want. And they still ate fewer calories and lost more weight than the calorie restricted dieters.

Quote
Yeah, the direct claims that the fact of the low carbs and high fat creates magical ketosis monsters that eat away all those calories is pretty well bullshit, I agree, but as a dieting strategy it's actually not a terrible one: normally, cutting back from 2500-3000 kCals a day to 1500 or whatever will just make you hungry and miserable whereas doing an Atkins-type diet will make you a bit less so, and even if it still makes you feel like crap for a while, you also quickly learn that, unlike binging on sweets or pizza, binging on bacon and sausages just makes you feel sick and, by and large, worse than you felt before. So there is that!

What's bullshit is your characterization of the claims made by LCHF dieters and the studies that show they are as effective if not more effective and healthy than any other diet.
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.