41–50 of 53 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's thanks (IMO) to the existence of a huge industry dedicated to convincing people that "a diet" is a temporary change in what you eat, after which you can once again throw restraint to the wind.
I don't think so. Your body works hard to maintain stasis.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's exactly his point. There is no scientific evidence that this happens systemically, i.e. "Keto will lead to weight loss". That does not mean it does not or that you can't lose weight. There's just no evidence.
That is BS - there is so much evidence that I don't know where to start.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think so. Your body works hard to maintain stasis.
It really doesn't. Humans (like all animals) tend to do everything based on rates rather than absolute measurements, so setpoints drift all over the place with time.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_exa...
> For instance, much of the research assumes that when fat people lose weight, they become “healthy” in the same ways as a thinner person is healthy. The evidence says otherwise. “Even if someone loses weight, they will always need fewer calories and need to exercise more,” says [UNC pediatrician Asheley] Skinner. “So we’re putting people through something we know will probably not be successful anyway. Who knows what we’re doing to their metabolisms.”
> Debra Sapp-Yarwood, a fiftysomething from Kansas City, Missouri, who’s studying to be a hospital chaplain, is one of the three percenters, the select few who have lost a chunk of weight and kept it off. She dropped 55 pounds 11 years ago, and maintains her new weight with a diet and exercise routine most people would find unsustainable: She eats 1,800 calories a day—no more than 200 in carbs—and has learned to put up with what she describes as “intrusive thoughts and food preoccupations.” She used to run for an hour a day, but after foot surgery she switched to her current routine: a 50-minute exercise video performed at twice the speed of the instructor, while wearing ankle weights and a weighted vest that add between 25 or 30 pounds to her small frame.
> “Maintaining weight loss is not a lifestyle,” she says. “It’s a job.” It’s a job that requires not just time, self-discipline, and energy—it also takes up a lot of mental real estate. People who maintain weight loss over the long term typically make it their top priority in life
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It found that home-made meals based on 408 bestselling cookbook recipes for infants and young children are not always healthier than ready meals and convenience products. In fact, on many measures they seemed less healthy: they tended to have a lower vegetable variety per meal and were more likely to exceed maximum recommendations for energy and fat content. Is that representative of what the average person cooks?
Cookbooks are probably not representative of actual cooking, but it is hard to judge whether average cooking is healthier. It is impossible to judge how much less healthy it would be if people who are cool not cooking for children switched to cooking. It is good point through, not everything that comes in can is bad for you.
I mean obviously sugar is not toxic. I think most people that do low sugar and no sugar diets are aware of that. Instead, they understand that there's way too much sugar out there and it is very addictive. That's the issue with this kind of anti-homeopathy reasoning, it's mostly just an attack on non-scientists who have their own theories and claims. However, science has a lot of gaps, especially when it comes to nut…
Science has gaps because scientist do not know things. Non-scientist going "based on what happened to my cousin, this must have been what happened" is not going to fill the gaps in knowledge.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, nothing wakes you up in the morning like a Coca-Cola.
Calories aren't directly related to arousal to my knowledge, aside from needing to feed ones self. My point being: you're ignoring obvious benefits by hyperbolizing having a piece of toast to put something in your stomach before leaving the house.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Posting some peer reviewed studies would be a good start in convincing people.
Equally is true vice-versa, posting some peer reviewed studies that there is no effect.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It really doesn't. Humans (like all animals) tend to do everything based on rates rather than absolute measurements, so setpoints drift all over the place with time.
The thing is that you'll need to forever eat a rather low-calorie diet (more so than someone who was never overweight) and often this leads to frustrating, pervasive cravings for food that aren't that different from what people who have undergone starvation experiences report. Not for some finite period of time, but forever. http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_exa... > For instance, much of the r…
Anyway, I'd like to see a credible source on the claim that "Even if someone loses weight, they will always need fewer calories and need to exercise more". And even IF that's true, it doesn't change the fact that that person can still, by eating fewer calories, maintain their weight loss.
The case with Debra Sapp-Yarwood says she eats 1800 calories, or 7500kJ/day. That's not a severe caloric restriction. For a "small-framed" but active 55-year-old woman that's an entirely appropriate intake.
I mean obviously sugar is not toxic. I think most people that do low sugar and no sugar diets are aware of that. Instead, they understand that there's way too much sugar out there and it is very addictive. That's the issue with this kind of anti-homeopathy reasoning, it's mostly just an attack on non-scientists who have their own theories and claims. However, science has a lot of gaps, especially when it comes to nut…
If you're on a low carb diet, sugar can give you a headache so in that way it does feel toxic. But is that just because your body isn't use to it?
I know that's not actually a low carb diet, at least by the standards most people use when they talk about low carb, but it is quite a bit lower in carbs than what the average American eats.
I've been eating this way since September 2015, and even this moderate reduction in sugar has been enough to cause a change in how I react to sugar.
I don't suffer any adverse reaction, such as headaches, if I have something high in sugar. Well, at least nothing I have ever noticed. What has changed is that I just don't find anything particularly attractive about high sugar foods any more.
For example, if someone brings in donuts for the office and I eat one or two it tastes OK, but it is nothing special. It's not really a treat like it would have been a a few years ago. I will now almost always pick a salty snack like potato chips over a sugary snack.