Then what is the culprit for the massive obesity problem and type 2 diabetes? Why when western diets are introduced to foreign countries their is a direct correlation to spikes in their obesity and diabetes cases? The food americans eat is making them sick. how much longer can this be denied? I just don't get it.
Then what is the culprit for the massive obesity problem and type 2 diabetes? Why when western diets are introduced to foreign countries their is a direct correlation to spikes in their obesity and diabetes cases? The food americans eat is making them sick. how much longer can this be denied? I just don't get it.
SociallyChallenged
Elite
- Mar 22, 2002
- 10,483
- 32
- 81
Obesity, carb sources, and genetics are where type 2 diabetes comes from. Obesity comes from eating too much, moving too little, genetic factors and socioeconomic background.
It's funny you make the point about western diets introducing obesity and diabetes when many other cultures eat a much higher carb ratio (Japanese, French, Greeks) than Americans do. Also, could you give examples and point to articles/studies that present these correlations? I don't they exist.
The American diet is high in protein, saturated/polyunsaturated fat, and sugar. One macronutrient isn't responsible for the downfall of a nation. Caloric surplus for a cheap price is.
this is just one of many sources I can find for you, talking in circles here i'm done.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/08/060811192215.htm
Childhood Obesity Caused By 'Toxic Environment' Of Western Diets, Study Says
In particular, fructose (too much) and fiber (not enough) appear to be cornerstones of the obesity epidemic through their effects on insulin," he adds.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article6913376.ece
Western diets rich in fat and sugar are causing obesity not only because they are so dense in calories but because they are changing the bacterial contents of the human gut, new research suggests.
Last edited:
SociallyChallenged
Elite
- Mar 22, 2002
- 10,483
- 32
- 81
You said carbs were the culprit and then post research articles that blame the western diet as a whole - high sucrose and therefore fructose in the diet and not enough fiber. That's not saying carbs are bad at all. It's saying bad carbs are bad.
The next article states that fat and sugar are enablers for obesity. We all know that. We all agree on that. However, again, the article doesn't pinpoint CARBS. It pinpoints sugar and fat. You've posted unrelated articles to the point you're trying to make.
On top of this, these are articles on sedentary individuals. If you are an active person, carbs are much more vital and beneficial for the human body. Let me find you some links to carb intake and athletic performance today.
For the OP and the rest of the fat americans carbs are the culprit.
What happens to glucose in the body:
Brain gets priority
Muscle especially on an active conditioned athelete gets a ton
Then extra is stored as Fat
if there isn't enough the liver produces glucose (gluconeogenesis)
So from perspective of the OP, he is taking in 50%+ carbs....most of these are entering the blood stream very rapidly as glucose which causes a spike in insulin level. The insulin determines that after the brain and muscle are fed there is still too much glucose in the blood so it will be stored in the adipose tissue.(small amount is stored at glycogen but that is minimal)
Storing extra glucose as in adipose tissue*fat* was a very important biological function back when humans didn't have an abundance of food and may not see cabs for a couple days at a time.
If the op wants to get a grip on his weight loss he needs to understand and control his carb intake in order to control blood sugar and insulin spikes which will control when glucose is oxidize or stored. Its pretty simple not sure what you are arguing.
The OP is not an elite athlete so any articles you have about elite athletes and carbs are still not relevant to my advice to the OP.
I NEVER SAID DON'T EAT ANY CARBS!
yes you are you were following a very strict dietary and exercise regiment to achieve this. Hence why you opened with stating "I've been 135-140" my whole life.
Last edited:
SociallyChallenged
Elite
- Mar 22, 2002
- 10,483
- 32
- 81
And yet you fail to address the actual points I make. I've been a runner all my life. That's a balance between weight and efficiency. Your goals may have been different than mine as an athlete, but it has no say here in this thread. My argument is based on research that I've been taught and have read myself. Go have someone meticulously track their food and maintain a caloric deficit, eat a 40/30/30 carb, fat protein diet, and lift weights. They'll lose weight and lean out just fine.
Also, do you know what a hard gainer is? It's someone who has trouble gaining weight. Do I have trouble gaining weight? Not under the right circumstances. I'm not an ectomorph that has to eat 6k calories to gain a pound a week. And does this affect the scientific basis for anything that I'm saying? Not at all. You're pulling an alkemyst with your argumentum ad hominem.
Last edited:
what is your argument anyways because you haven't addressed the fact i never said don't eat any carbs. I said don't eat any processed carbs. Your carbs should come from veggies and fruit. pretty simple and I don't think their is a metabolic physiologist out there that would disagree. Its less about the quantity of carbs and more about the quality and timing of them. You want to control the blood sugar and insulin response. I didn't think it was necessary to get into the scientific principles behind why carbs are the OPs problem but they obviously are.
If your diet works for you thats great. 150g was aimed at the OP maybe thats not enough for you because you are way more active than the OP(not to mention you are 20 y.o. and that makes a difference too) The average human in the USA is not an elite athlete though and would have trouble convincing me why they need more than 150g of carbs when their goal is to lose fat.
Last edited:
Carbs are almost never stored directly as bodyfat (a process called de novo lipogenesis) except in cases of very high carb intakes for an extended period of time, or very low dietary fat intakes. This doesn't mean you won't get fat through extra carbs, just not through direct means. As carb intake goes up, carb oxidation increases and fat storage goes up. The same goes for protein. And before you go ahead saying most peopes diet is very high in carbs, I'm talking 700-900g a day for multiple days for DNL to occur.
As for the whole insulin BS, read this:
http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=319
The fact of the matter is insulin does not have the effect you think it does and controlling insulin levels is not going to give you the results you seem to think it does. In fact, studies looking at a high protein/moderate carb diet and a high protein/low carb diet show no differences. It still comes down to calories in vs. calories out.
Last edited:
This is rubbish. Calories are meaningless. In every study that was ever done where they put people on a calories in < calories out diet there was never a single instance of the person losing the predicted amount over the time of the experiment. NOT ONCE!
Secondly I'm not a physics major but how can you measure
change in mass = cals in - cals out
in what bizzaro world would that equation ever make sense converting units of heat and energy to units of mass???
Yeah, name me one fad diet that stresses calories in vs. calories out. Everyone knows they work so well.
The only studies that have been done not showing fat loss in a calorie deficit rely on self reported intakes. Study after study have shown that the obese under-report their food intake up to 30-50% and over-report their activity levels. So when they say they are only eating 1800 calories they may be eating 2400-3600. When you put these same people in an environment where food intake is controlled, the energy balance equation holds.
I'm not saying calories are everything, because they aren't, as the composition of the diet does matter. Specifically a high protein intake has shown to produce better results then a low protein diet, due to many reasons. However, to go as far as to say calories are meaningless, carbs should be avoided, etc. is absurd.
I'm not saying calories are everything, because they aren't, as the composition of the diet does matter. Specifically a high protein intake has shown to produce better results then a low protein diet, due to many reasons. However, to go as far as to say calories are meaningless, carbs should be avoided, etc. is absurd.
rcpratt
Lifer
- Jul 2, 2009
- 10,433
- 110
- 116
Are you serious? The most famous equation in the world relates energy to mass. You have to be kidding.
If you are in a caloric (ENERGY) deficit, the body burns fat or muscle to utilize it's chemical potential ENERGY. It's not complicated.
SociallyChallenged
Elite
- Mar 22, 2002
- 10,483
- 32
- 81
E = mc^2 is a quantum equation. The theory of relativity is most active under conditions in which the human body does not function. Basic metabolism utilizes basic chemical bonds to harness energy. The law of conservation of energy (i.e. first law of thermodynamics) is much more applicable to metabolism than relativity.
Also, it seems your understand of relativity is a bit simplistic. You're saying muscle or fat becomes energy and that supports the theory of relativity. That's not correct at all. The bonds between the amino acids or fatty acids store energy. When those bonds are broken and reformed, energy is converted and harnessed in different ways. All the atoms involved in the original equation come out on the other side of the equation. For relativity, a certain mass of atoms goes in and a lower mass of atoms comes out. It's a completely different reaction. Metabolism utilizes energy from chemical bonds, conserving all mass involved. Relativity converts mass directly into energy, losing some mass in the process.
rcpratt
Lifer
- Jul 2, 2009
- 10,433
- 110
- 116
I realize e=mc2 has nothing to do with this, the point was simply the ridiculousness of saying "there's no way to relate energy and mass." I didn't mean to imply that this had anything to do with relativity.
I certainly hope I understand relativity. Or my school might take my degree back.
SociallyChallenged
Elite
- Mar 22, 2002
- 10,483
- 32
- 81
Phew, thank God. Coulda swore you were mixing up bond energy and the mass-energy relationship.
SociallyChallenged
Elite
- Mar 22, 2002
- 10,483
- 32
- 81
My argument is that, to maintain optimal muscle glycogen, an individual may need to take in over 150g of carbs per day. Like I said before, setting a specific mass of carbs for all individuals trying to lose weight (whether 200lbs or 500lbs) is illogical. In the research that I found, active athletes are advised to consume 45-55% carbohydrates (mind you, these are very active athletes participating in 1-2h per day of sports 5-6d per week). The research article can be found under the following: ISSN exercise & sport nutrition review: research & recommendations in J Int Soc Sports Nutr. 2010; 7: 7. I can't even paste the abstract without it attempting to use my school access to the article. However, I also read another article that said there is no difference in performance (although there is a slight difference in muscle glycogen concentration) between athletes who take in 40% of calories as carbs compared to 80%. However, if muscle glycogen continues to decrease, there is a more significant decrease in muscle glycogen storage and lesser ability to perform work. I assume the OP wants to actually improve his ability in his skills.
I agree that lower carb diets benefit weight loss. I'm stating that having a set amount of carbs (not a percentage of total caloric intake) is inane and should be done away with. For a big enough person, 150g might be close to ketogenic, while for a small female trying to lose weight, 150g of carbs might be too much. Just stop using a set amount and start using a percentage of total calories as founded in research.
Last edited:
SociallyChallenged
Elite
- Mar 22, 2002
- 10,483
- 32
- 81
This is completely unfounded. In every study of actual weight loss, each individual is specifically set in a caloric deficit, as calculated based on their estimated daily caloric expenditure. It doesn't matter if an individual is on a high carb diet, low carb diet, all-soup diet, whatever. If they are in a caloric deficit, individuals consistently lose weight. The difference is in how much each individual loses. This is due to genetic variability. Some people are great calorie wasters, utilizing thermogenesis to waste calories as heat. Some people are instant fat-storers and retain each and every calorie over maintenance.
That equations makes perfect sense if you actually have a proper understanding of thermodynamics and the human body. The mass of one pound of fat can produce approximately 3500cal. If in a calorie deficit of 500cal, an individual will metabolize one pound of fat and breathe off its building blocks as CO2 and H2O. It's a simple combustion reaction. The energy contained in one pound of fat can be utilized in the body. The mass will then be lost to the external system and will no longer be contained within the body. If you don't understand this, why would you argue so fervently for any aspect of nutrition?
I'm not arguing a deficit won't result in weight loss. It will. I'm arguing that simplifying the equation is foolish, If I have a 500cals per day deficit on paper I would lose 3500cals per week or 1 lb. of fat per week. This is not possible. 3500cals is the value of a 1lb of fat burned in a bomb calorimeter the human body isn't a closed system like a bomb calorimeter. A human body can be similar to one as it does burn fuel(fat) for energy. However, a bomb calorimeter burns at a constant. Your furnace and my furnace don't necessarily burn at the same temperature or at the same efficiency so for this reason any equation based on calories which are defined by the energy they produce when they are burned inside the closed system of a bomb calorimeter cannot directly transfer to the real values achieved in a the human body. At the end of the day, like i said previously a cell in your body has no idea what a calorie or a carb is. It knows glucose, amino acids, fatty acids and insulin.
In no particular order...
1) Hyperabundance of cheap food and larger portion sizes, mostly with increases in fat and refined sugar (so your refined carbs argument does partly apply here).
2) Widespread genotype promoting fat storage with calorie excess
3) Sedentary lifestyle (cars, washing machines, dishwashers, etc.)
4) Shift away from traditional diets with migration/Westernization (e.g. Healthy Migrant effect).
Blackjack200
Lifer
- May 28, 2007
- 15,995
- 1,688
- 126
This should be easy enough to test. Look back to when most Americans couldn't afford an abundance of food and see if obesity coorelated with wealth, as the wealthy would have had an abundance of food available, but the average American would not have.
This is probably a little closer to the truth, but why was that genotype selected for?
But are people really more sedintary than they were 30 years ago? It's conventional wisdom that we don't move around as much as we used to, but I'm not sure I agree.
I have little more here than anecdotal evidence (i.e., people I know that have avoided the Western diet but have not lost weight) so I don't think I'll comment on it.
SociallyChallenged
Elite
- Mar 22, 2002
- 10,483
- 32
- 81
Think about how many white collar jobs there are now compared to a few decades ago. We have a whole new technological field revolving around computer sales, management, repair, computer programming, etc (not to mention people sitting in front of the TV + video games). The starkest decrease in activity wouldn't show over the last thirty years, but over the last 100 years. There have been many research studies that show a huge increase in time spent sitting, rather than doing activities like standing, walking, biking, etc. That has a pretty big effect on one's daily caloric expenditure.
Overweight is a sign and societal mark of wealth in many developing nations. It is notoriously difficult to convince immigrant parents that their children are not healthy when they have been raised to believe the opposite. The calorie availability in the United States has expanded substantially over the past four decades. Food is cheaper than ever, and calorie per calorie, healthier foods are more expensive and depending on where you live, may or may not be accessible.
Because you obviously have a survival advantage in periods of restricted food supply if you have the so-called "thrifty gene."
As there has been a huge demographic shift from the city to the suburbs we move less. Think about it. I live in New York City. I walk to the subway, I buy my groceries and walk home. If I go out to eat, I walk and take public transit to wherever I'm going. Probably walk on average between 20-30 blocks a day (1-1.5 miles). In the suburbs, I drive everywhere because it's not feasible to walk. TV watching and Internet use have skyrocketed. Recess and gym class have been sacrificed on the chopping block as schools try to fit in more class time so students can pass standardized tests. We do less work at home. We have eliminated a ton of manual labor from our lives. Cooking, cleaning, washing dishes, laundry, ironing, etc.
There are many variations to the "Western diet." Diets are not magic, nor are they like prescriptions. They don't make you lose weight automatically. You have to stick to them and eat enough (or alternative, move enough) so that you can induce a calorie deficit. The first thing when I hear someone say "I tried XYZ diet but it didn't work" is that there was something wrong with the execution. In theory, you could lose weight on a pizza diet or a McD's diet. From a pure weight loss standpoint, what you eat really doesn't matter. But of course, it's never that simple.
Last edited:
Denithor
Diamond Member
- Apr 11, 2004
- 6,298
- 23
- 81
My two cents worth:
Humans love fat & sugar.
Foods these days focus on these elements.
Portions have grown larger and larger over the past couple decades.
And we wonder why we (mostly in the West) are getting fatter and fatter?
I love the theory above, losing weight on pizza and McDeath. In the last six months I have dropped over 23 pounds while eating mostly junk food and a moderate amount of alcohol. I simply worked out so much that I burned more than I consumed. Muscle has replaced some fat and the cardio has whittled away a bunch of the rest. I have now started to watch more what I eat and have a feeling the changes will become more rapid with proper diet but it still amazes me the progress I have made without any kind of "diet" whatsoever.
Humans love fat & sugar.
Foods these days focus on these elements.
Portions have grown larger and larger over the past couple decades.
And we wonder why we (mostly in the West) are getting fatter and fatter?
I love the theory above, losing weight on pizza and McDeath. In the last six months I have dropped over 23 pounds while eating mostly junk food and a moderate amount of alcohol. I simply worked out so much that I burned more than I consumed. Muscle has replaced some fat and the cardio has whittled away a bunch of the rest. I have now started to watch more what I eat and have a feeling the changes will become more rapid with proper diet but it still amazes me the progress I have made without any kind of "diet" whatsoever.
polarmystery
Diamond Member
- Aug 21, 2005
- 3,888
- 8
- 81
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 411
-
Facebook
Twitter