Author Topic: LCHF and healthy eating  (Read 111217 times)

0 Members and 16 Guests are viewing this topic.

Online bachfiend

  • Seasoned Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 767
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #1080 on: November 11, 2018, 01:22:52 AM »
It’s one thing to not read the links I post, but it’s another to not read the articles you yourself  link to.

And still another thing  to continue insulting others while it’s you that don’t know what they’re talking about. And once again when you question someone else’s reading comprehension it is you that doesn’t understand.

Go back and actually read the paper you linked to. The lump all diets with less than 40g per day into the LC category and report the average.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No, they reported the results from trials with the Atkin’s diet which is designed to be a very low carbohydrate diet, and its results of weight loss at 12 months is no better than low fat diets.  40 g of carbohydrates is 160 kcals which is less than 10% of daily calories, so by any argument that’s very low carbohydrate.

And you wrote that the study has been discussed ‘hear.’  To the best of my knowledge, this meta-analysis of named diets hasn’t been discussed here previously.  The one in the Lancet has been discussed with the quartile of the population having the lowest carbohydrate intake has been discussed though, with the same argument that the average carbohydrate intake was above that necessary to produce a nutritional ketosis.

But anyway.  What is your response to my other recent comments and my queries about whether you experienced the plateau?  If your low carbohydrate/high fat ketogenic diet shows greater weight loss than other diets it’s partly due to loss of body water (as glycogen is depleted), and not largely due to loss of body fat.

You’re the one who’s keen on short term studies indicating long term success.  I’m not so certain.  The data regarding long term results is just lacking. 
« Last Edit: November 11, 2018, 05:11:53 AM by bachfiend »

Online CarbShark

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9187
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #1081 on: November 11, 2018, 11:46:31 AM »
Quote
.. dietary programs that did not refer to Atkins but consisted of less than 40% of kilocalories from carbohydrates per day for the duration of study or were funded by Atkins were considered Atkins-like.

Atkins stipulates less than 10% (20g per day to start) of calories from carbs. So they're lumping LCHF Keto diets in with others that do not restrict carbs as much.
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

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

Online bachfiend

  • Seasoned Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 767
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #1082 on: November 11, 2018, 02:54:14 PM »
Quote
.. dietary programs that did not refer to Atkins but consisted of less than 40% of kilocalories from carbohydrates per day for the duration of study or were funded by Atkins were considered Atkins-like.

Atkins stipulates less than 10% (20g per day to start) of calories from carbs. So they're lumping LCHF Keto diets in with others that do not restrict carbs as much.

So you’re using the ‘no true Scotsman defence?’  If a diet sets out to be low carbohydrate, but doesn’t achieve your highly restrictive definition of low carbohydrate, then it isn’t considered in the success or otherwise in weight loss of low carbohydrate diets? 

But you still haven’t provided any evidence that your low carbohydrate/high fat ketogenic diet is more successful in producing body fat loss in the overweight or obese in the first 12 months (an appreciable proportion of its body weight loss is due to depletion of glycogen stores, of which there’s normally around 600 g, and water - glycogen is associated with 4 times its weight in water).  So even your cherrypicked blockdumped links to short term studies of weight loss don’t show that ketogenic diets are clearly superior even in the short term.  Or in continuing to produce body weight and body fat loss and eventual maintenance of a healthy body weight in the subsequent years.

How well do users manage to stick to the diet?  Which is possibly why the plateau in weight loss is relevant.  Your Mayo Clinic link referred to the supposition that the plateau caused dieters to become discouraged and abandon the diet, accounting for the failure of most diets.  I asked you if you experienced a plateau with your diet, and your reaction.  You still haven’t responded.

Online CarbShark

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9187
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #1083 on: November 11, 2018, 04:22:40 PM »
Quote
.. dietary programs that did not refer to Atkins but consisted of less than 40% of kilocalories from carbohydrates per day for the duration of study or were funded by Atkins were considered Atkins-like.

Atkins stipulates less than 10% (20g per day to start) of calories from carbs. So they're lumping LCHF Keto diets in with others that do not restrict carbs as much.

So you’re using the ‘no true Scotsman defence?’

I don't think you know what that means. 
Quote
If a diet sets out to be low carbohydrate, but doesn’t achieve your highly restrictive definition of low carbohydrate, then it isn’t considered in the success or otherwise in weight loss of low carbohydrate diets? 

No. Not at all. Unfortunately there is no consensus as to what constitutes low-carb. Moderate reductions of carbs does not induce nutritional ketosis.

If you cut carbs to 20g per day or less, your liver will begin production of ketone bodies and your body will become fat adapted, and increase fat oxidation (burning fat).

If you cut carbs to only 40g per day, you will not enter nutritional ketosis.

LCHF Ketogenic diets, by definition cut carbs sufficiently to enter nutritional ketosis. This is not an after the fact or made up distinction.

Quote
But you still haven’t provided any evidence that your low carbohydrate/high fat ketogenic diet is more successful in producing body fat loss in the overweight or obese in the first 12 months (an appreciable proportion of its body weight loss is due to depletion of glycogen stores, of which there’s normally around 600 g, and water - glycogen is associated with 4 times its weight in water). 

Actually, I have, numerous times. LCHF diets have shown small advantages in fat loss over every diet they've been tested against.


Quote
So even your cherrypicked blockdumped links to short term studies of weight loss don’t show that ketogenic diets are clearly superior even in the short term.  Or in continuing to produce body weight and body fat loss and eventual maintenance of a healthy body weight in the subsequent years.

If you're accusing me of cherry picking those it means one of two things, either there are larger number of short term studies that show the opposite of what I'm claiming which I am ignoring, or you haven't a clue about what you're talking about.

So it's up to you to provide links to all these other studies that show the opposite or admit that you're too lazy to inform yourself enough to engage in an intelligent conversation.

Quote

How well do users manage to stick to the diet?  Which is possibly why the plateau in weight loss is relevant.  Your Mayo Clinic link referred to the supposition that the plateau caused dieters to become discouraged and abandon the diet, accounting for the failure of most diets.  I asked you if you experienced a plateau with your diet, and your reaction.  You still haven’t responded.

I'm not here to discuss anecdotes. Yours or mine. I prefer science.
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

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

Online bachfiend

  • Seasoned Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 767
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #1084 on: November 11, 2018, 05:06:35 PM »
CarbShark,

If you’re only eating 40 g of carbohydrate a day, you will be burning fat.  Such a small amount of carbohydrates provides only 160 kcals, less than 10% of total energy expenditure.  If you’ve restricted calorie intake to less than total daily energy expenditure, you will also be burning fat (after you’ve depleted the limited glycogen stores).

And you’re burning fat all the time.  It’s not necessary to go into a nutritional ketosis to burn fat.  Even people on a high carbohydrate/low fat diet are burning fat without being in a nutritional ketosis, if their body weight and their body fat stores aren’t increasing (that is, their total dietary calorie intake exactly matches their total daily energy expenditure), since whatever small amount of fat they’re consuming is being burned.  You don’t store fat if you’re in energy balance.

And you’re confusing total body weight loss with body fat loss.  Ketogenic diets show slightly greater loss in body weight over the short term compared to other diets, but that doesn’t mean they’re superior in loss of body fat.  An appreciable proportion of their body weight loss is in glycogen and water.

What does the science show regarding dieters’ ability to adhere to ketogenic diets long term in continuing to lose body weight and body fat and eventually enter the maintenance phase of staying at a healthy body weight?  If a person sets out to stay on a ketogenic diet, but fails and eats more carbohydrates than is necessary to stay in a nutritional ketosis, isn’t that a failure of ketogenic diets?  And if a person trying to be on a ketogenic diet, but fails (and actually puts on weight and body fat), then you’d invoke the no true Scotsman defence and claim that it indicates that the ketogenic diet didn’t fail.  But if the person does manage to continue to lose weight, despite not being in a nutritional ketosis (because dietary calorie energy intake is still less than total daily energy expenditure), then you’d count that as a success of ketogenic diets.  It’s just confirmation bias.  As you’ve previously noted, it’s not easy determining whether a person is in a nutritional ketosis.

Anecdotes are important.  I find the arguments for ketogenic diets not convincing based on my experience of having a very low BMI and total body fat for years and decades on a high carbohydrate diet.  If you didn’t have a similar experience on your high fat/low carbohydrate diet, then you wouldn’t be proselytising so much for ketogenic diets.  So your anecdote is important for you.

Online CarbShark

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9187
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #1085 on: November 11, 2018, 05:30:16 PM »

If you’re only eating 40 g of carbohydrate a day, you will be burning fat.  Such a small amount of carbohydrates provides only 160 kcals, less than 10% of total energy expenditure.  If you’ve restricted calorie intake to less than total daily energy expenditure, you will also be burning fat (after you’ve depleted the limited glycogen stores).

You will not be in nutritional ketosis.

Quote

And you’re burning fat all the time. 

Most people are burning carbs most of the time, and burn fat last.

Quote
It’s not necessary to go into a nutritional ketosis to burn fat. 

No one said it is. But there is a clear and distinct metabolic difference between being in nutritional ketosis and not being in nutritional ketosis. It's one of the key aspects of the LCHF ketogenic diet. Fat oxidation increases significantly on LCHF Ketogenic diet. But no one said it increases from zero.

Quote
Even people on a high carbohydrate/low fat diet are burning fat without being in a nutritional ketosis, if their body weight and their body fat stores aren’t increasing (that is, their total dietary calorie intake exactly matches their total daily energy expenditure), since whatever small amount of fat they’re consuming is being burned.  You don’t store fat if you’re in energy balance.
[/quote]

Again, no one is arguing that you must be in nutritional ketosis in order to burn fat.

But it is pretty clear that fat oxidation increases significantly in nutritional ketosis, especially during exercise.

Quote
And you’re confusing total body weight loss with body fat loss.  Ketogenic diets show slightly greater loss in body weight over the short term compared to other diets, but that doesn’t mean they’re superior in loss of body fat.  An appreciable proportion of their body weight loss is in glycogen and water.

No me I never confuse those. And if you bothered to look at those studies I've linked, in the ones where they tracked body fat loss vs. weight loss you'd know that on LCHF Ketogenic diets, a significantly higher proportion of weight loss is from fat than in other diets.

Quote
What does the science show regarding dieters’ ability to adhere to ketogenic diets long term in continuing to lose body weight and body fat and eventually enter the maintenance phase of staying at a healthy body weight? 

Again, in studies where they have tracked that, the LCHF ketogenic diets outperformed others. More subjects stay with the diet longer, and subjects generally follow the diet more closely.

Quote
If a person sets out to stay on a ketogenic diet, but fails and eats more carbohydrates than is necessary to stay in a nutritional ketosis, isn’t that a failure of ketogenic diets? 

Well, this is actually a question that's a source of controversy in diet and nutrition. There are two options to evaluating a diet: per protocol, or intention to treat. Most diet trials do their analyses based on intent to treat, meaning they measure results from everyone enrolled in the study, even those who dropped out after the first week.

Researchers have been arguing that especially diets that are making metabolic claims (like LCHF) there should be a per protocol analysis, that would provide comparable results from those who followed protocol. (This is especially important in issues that go beyond weight loss, and includes BP; HDL; LDL-P; LDL-C; TGs; HgA1c; FBG; and other risk factors for chronic disease).

Quote
And if a person trying to be on a ketogenic diet, but fails (and actually puts on weight and body fat), then you’d invoke the no true Scotsman defence and claim that it indicates that the ketogenic diet didn’t fail. 

Again that's not the No True Scottsman fallacy.  And, no, study results often include subjects on LCHF ketogenic and other diets who gained weight. Perhaps we could assume those were the ones who dropped out and must be counted. If the results were per-protocol and that happened that would be different.

Quote
But if the person does manage to continue to lose weight, despite not being in a nutritional ketosis (because dietary calorie energy intake is still less than total daily energy expenditure), then you’d count that as a success of ketogenic diets.  It’s just confirmation bias.  As you’ve previously noted, it’s not easy determining whether a person is in a nutritional ketosis.

No. The peer review studies I link to consistently show accurate results. What you're doing here is imagining various scenarios not based on any specific study or trial or actual results and then inventing from whole cloth what you imagine my response to be.

Quote
Anecdotes are important. 


No. They are not.
« Last Edit: November 11, 2018, 08:11:33 PM by CarbShark »
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

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

Online bachfiend

  • Seasoned Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 767
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #1086 on: November 11, 2018, 07:16:23 PM »
CarbShark,

Well, let’s put it another way.  If your daily dietary calorie intake exceeds your total daily energy expenditure, regardless of whether your calories are predominantly in carbohydrates or fats, you will put on body weight and body fat.  If your total daily energy expenditure exceeds your daily dietary calorie intake, then you will lose weight and body fat, regardless whether your calories are coming predominantly from fats or carbohydrates.

If you’re on a ketogenic diet, and you’re losing weight and body fat, it’s because your total daily energy expenditure exceeds your daily calorie energy intake.  The nutritional ketosis is just an unnecessary added ornamentation.  Being in nutritional ketosis doesn’t cause you to lose weight.  It’s having a deficit in calories that causes you to lose weight and body fat.

There’s an epidemic of obesity in America, Australia and other developed countries, because people are just eating too much and too many calories, not because they’re following nutrition and diet guidelines (which you think are flawed).  The problem is that people aren’t following the guidelines.  At least 50% of people are breaking them.

I’m on a high carbohydrate/low fat diet, which is less restrictive that your low carbohydrate/high fat ketogenic diet.  If I’m offered a food item high in fat, there’s nothing stopping me from accepting it.  I don’t have to engage in worries whether exceeding some arbitrary amount of carbohydrates will cause me to drop out of nutritional ketosis, as you do.  And you don’t actually know whether you’re actually in nutritional ketosis since you won’t pay to have the blood tests done.

A major part of the problem is that there’s an increasing plague of fast food outlets selling calorie dense, heavily advertised and allegedly tasty food (and some have hopped on the low carbohydrate fad by including low carbohydrate options).

I don’t disagree that low carbohydrate/high fat ketogenic diets aren’t an acceptable diet for weight loss if they work, but having to count carbohydrates would be a nuisance for most people.  Knowing what carbohydrates to count is a matter of controversy.  Carb Manager classifies whole carrots as keto grade A (approved), but carrot juice as keto grade F (avoid), despite whole carrots and carrot juice having similar levels of carbohydrates and sugars per weight.

And I’m not impressed with your studies.  There’s no good ones comparing ketogenic diets to other diets matched regarding total calories consumed and total daily energy expenditure and monitoring body fat by accurate DEXA scans (impedance scale measurements of body composition have to be taken with a considerable grain of salt) instead of just looking at body weight.    If you’ve got such a study, then link to it, instead of your previous unimpressive studies.
« Last Edit: November 11, 2018, 07:28:18 PM by bachfiend »

Online CarbShark

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9187
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #1087 on: November 11, 2018, 08:19:04 PM »
Well, let’s put it another way.  If your daily dietary calorie intake exceeds your total daily energy expenditure, regardless of whether your calories are predominantly in carbohydrates or fats, you will put on body weight and body fat.

That's false. It's entirely possible to put on body weight and not put on body fat. You can even build muscle while losing fat.


Quote
The nutritional ketosis is just an unnecessary added ornamentation.  Being in nutritional ketosis doesn’t cause you to lose weight.  It’s having a deficit in calories that causes you to lose weight and body fat.


And yet, when diets that cause nutritional ketosis are tested the subjects lose weight faster, have higher REE and TEE than other dieters and better improvements of risk factors for chronic disease.

Plus, you're making the assumption that adding body fat is caused by an excess in calories, when it is more likely that added body fat causes additional calorie intake and the reverse, that burning body fat causes a reduction in caloric intake. (That's exactly how it works in animals).

Not even reading the rest of your anecdote based post. Not interesting and I'm not interested.
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

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

Online bachfiend

  • Seasoned Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 767
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #1088 on: November 11, 2018, 08:50:11 PM »
Well, let’s put it another way.  If your daily dietary calorie intake exceeds your total daily energy expenditure, regardless of whether your calories are predominantly in carbohydrates or fats, you will put on body weight and body fat.

That's false. It's entirely possible to put on body weight and not put on body fat. You can even build muscle while losing fat.


Quote
The nutritional ketosis is just an unnecessary added ornamentation.  Being in nutritional ketosis doesn’t cause you to lose weight.  It’s having a deficit in calories that causes you to lose weight and body fat.


And yet, when diets that cause nutritional ketosis are tested the subjects lose weight faster, have higher REE and TEE than other dieters and better improvements of risk factors for chronic disease.

Plus, you're making the assumption that adding body fat is caused by an excess in calories, when it is more likely that added body fat causes additional calorie intake and the reverse, that burning body fat causes a reduction in caloric intake. (That's exactly how it works in animals).

Not even reading the rest of your anecdote based post. Not interesting and I'm not interested.

But how are the resting energy expenditure and the total energy expenditure measured?  The gold standard of daily energy expenditure measurement - double-labelled water studies - have shown that total  daily energy expenditure doesn’t vary much worldwide, regardless of whether the person is sedentary or habitually moderately active, and regardless of what diet the person is on.  Calorimetry is a flawed inaccurate way of measuring energy expenditure.

And if you’re not growing, or engaging in muscle building exercise, if your daily calorie intake exceeds your daily energy expenditure, then you are going to put on body fat.  And you could gain body weight and lose body fat by putting on muscle mass by exercising (or taking anabolic steroids) if your total daily energy expenditure exceeds your daily calorie intake.

And anecdotes are important in understanding why weight reducing diets fail in most people.  Your experience with your ketogenic diet is the reason why you proselytise for ketogenic diets.  If your anecdote was one of that of failure with a ketogenic diet (and I’m not certain how successful you were with it actually), you wouldn’t be proselytising for it.

Online CarbShark

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9187
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #1089 on: November 11, 2018, 08:57:02 PM »

But how are the resting energy expenditure and the total energy expenditure measured?  The gold standard of daily energy expenditure measurement - double-labelled water studies - have shown that total  daily energy expenditure doesn’t vary much worldwide, regardless of whether the person is sedentary or habitually moderately active, and regardless of what diet the person is on.  Calorimetry is a flawed inaccurate way of measuring energy expenditure.

Source please. I've posted links to studies that show that REE and TEE do indeed vary significantly between those on LCHF and other diets. Further, changes in diet do have an effect on both.

Quote
And if you’re not growing, or engaging in muscle building exercise, if your daily calorie intake exceeds your daily energy expenditure, then you are going to put on body fat. 

That's what basic science says.

Not reading anything else you have to say about anecdotes in general or yours in particular. Not interested and not interesting.
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

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

Online bachfiend

  • Seasoned Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 767
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #1090 on: November 11, 2018, 09:33:15 PM »

But how are the resting energy expenditure and the total energy expenditure measured?  The gold standard of daily energy expenditure measurement - double-labelled water studies - have shown that total  daily energy expenditure doesn’t vary much worldwide, regardless of whether the person is sedentary or habitually moderately active, and regardless of what diet the person is on.  Calorimetry is a flawed inaccurate way of measuring energy expenditure.

Source please. I've posted links to studies that show that REE and TEE do indeed vary significantly between those on LCHF and other diets. Further, changes in diet do have an effect on both.

Quote
And if you’re not growing, or engaging in muscle building exercise, if your daily calorie intake exceeds your daily energy expenditure, then you are going to put on body fat. 

That's what basic science says.

Not reading anything else you have to say about anecdotes in general or yours in particular. Not interested and not interesting.

A review article on the double-labelled water assay:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5486561/

A relevant quote from the article:

‘The last decades, the prevalence of overweight and obesity has increased worldwide.  Initially, it was suggested that modern inactive lifestyles were the predominant factor in the increasing prevalence of overweight and obesity.  The physical activity level and thus energy needs should have declined faster than energy intake as encouraged by the increasing availability of highly palatable foods.  However, analysis of double labelled water-assessed physical activity levels for trends over time showed that activity-induced energy expenditure has not declined over the same period that obesity rates have increased, and total energy expenditure of modern man is in line with energy expenditure in wild mammals.  The relation between daily energy expenditure and body mass suggests that increase in energy intake has driven the increase in body mass.’

In other words, total daily energy expenditure doesn’t decrease with the increasing sedentary lifestyle of modern developed societies.  And people are getting fat because they’re eating too much.  People are getting fat not because their total daily energy expenditure is decreasing as they become lazier.

People put on fat, because they’re eating too much.  Suggesting that putting on fat causes people to eat too much is ridiculous - it would lead to a positive feedback eventually causing the person to explode with ever increasing body fat stores and dietary intake.  And it would imply that it should be easier to lose weight as a person loses body fat because they’d be eating less as they lose appetite - the plateau during dieting wouldn’t happen.
« Last Edit: November 12, 2018, 02:57:22 AM by bachfiend »

Online CarbShark

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9187
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #1091 on: November 13, 2018, 01:40:14 AM »
Why?

Why do people eat “too much”.

Why children, all of a sudden, seeing epidemic levels ov obesity?

Why are rates of overweight toddlers sky rocketing?

Why are babies being born with body high fat percentages ?

What happened in the US between the 1970s and to day to change all of those things from fairly rare to prevalent?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

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

Online bachfiend

  • Seasoned Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 767
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #1092 on: November 13, 2018, 02:16:11 AM »
Why?

Why do people eat “too much”.

Why children, all of a sudden, seeing epidemic levels ov obesity?

Why are rates of overweight toddlers sky rocketing?

Why are babies being born with body high fat percentages ?

What happened in the US between the 1970s and to day to change all of those things from fairly rare to prevalent?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Because of the increasing plague of fast food outlets selling cheap, heavily advertised, allegedly tasty food.  Parents are being ‘sold’ on junk food, and they’re giving it to their children too, because they’re seeing the advertising too.

It’s the same in Australia too.  The gym I go to each day is surrounded by 5 fast food outlets, and there’s a food court in the shopping centre just 300 metres away.  And they all advertise heavily.  Back in the ‘70s, there was MacDonalds and Kentucky Fried, and that was about it.  Now there’s around 14 different fast food chains nationally.  And some of them have hopped on the low carbohydrate diet fad, offering low carbohydrate options to their usually overweight customers.

It’s more complicated than this of course.  Society has changed considerably in the past 50 years.  Nowadays, it’s not possible for families to survive on a single income, needing two incomes to afford to buy the junk heavily marketed.  People are time-poor, so they have to rely on pre-prepared food, which isn’t as good as food previously eaten, which people had the time to prepare.  And manufacturers and food sellers, in a competitive market, have to offer food which is both cheap and tasty, meaning food high in sugar, fat and salt.  Manufacturers offer food which has tastes that evolution has caused humans to seek out in the natural world (because naturally they’re uncommon requiring a lot of effort to obtain them); sweet, fat and salt.
« Last Edit: November 13, 2018, 03:09:49 AM by bachfiend »

Online CarbShark

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9187
LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #1093 on: November 13, 2018, 10:13:50 AM »
Maybe that’s different from the 40s and 59s, but hasn’t changed much from the 80s and 90s.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

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

Online jt512

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2163
    • jt512
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #1094 on: November 13, 2018, 10:41:56 AM »
Maybe that’s different from the 40s and 59s, but hasn’t changed much from the 80s and 90s.

The "food environment" and "normative eating behaviors" have changed drastically from when I was a kid.  Not only did the rise of fast food chains introduce cheap, ubiquitously available, highly palatable energy-dense food, they started a portion-size war.  Before McDonalds introduced it's "quarter pounder" and Burger King countered with its "Whopper," hamburgers were tiny.  Indeed where I grew up, the biggest hamburger chain, White Castle, was actually known for how small its hamburgers were. A lager order of fries back then was bigger than a small order today, and there were no giant sizes of soft drinks, which today can contain up to 500 kcal with essentially no satiating effects.  These sodas, which are now routinely consumed multiple times a day, are just calories added on to whatever else a person eats in a day.

My girlfriend hosts many European postdocs in her lab.  When they come here they are typically trim.  They are astonished by the portion sizes in American restaurants, which they can't finish.  Two- to four years later, they're 15 lbs heavier and have no trouble finishing a typical American restaurant dinner. 

As Kevin Hall writes:

Quote
It is easier to rule out simple explanations of obesity such as those based on individual dietary macronutrients. More plausible explanations invoke complex changes in the overall food environment and the associated alterations in normative eating behaviors.

In other words, "It's the Environment, Stupid."
« Last Edit: November 13, 2018, 10:44:30 AM by jt512 »
Nur dass ich nicht nur Katzen gemacht habe.

 

personate-rain