31–40 of 77 posts
Uh, this is a terrible article. I don't even know where to begin. I will say this: don't drink two boullion cubes a day. Don't eat bacon and eggs every morning without consulting your doctor and getting your blood tested, and carbohydrates are not satanic but actually beneficial if you eat them at the appropriate times. Whoever is voting this stuff up, please get a clue.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The thermodynamics are straightforward. The amount of calories you eat is a known quantity, the amount you expend is a function of a number of variables. Perhaps something along the lines of: calories_in(food) => calories_out(activity_level, gender, age, weight, body_fat_percentage, protein, carbohydrates, fat, genetics) I think the complicated part is altering your environment and/or yourself so that you, on average…
The thermodynamics are straightforward but the mechanisms for energy expenditure aren't. The body is a dynamic system. It responds to the stresses placed on it and adapts. Remove calorie inputs from the system and it tries to compensate by reducing the calorie expenditure. Low-carb diets work because they control insulin levels. If you can control/avoid the insulin spikes that regulate the absorption/storage of blood…
I'd say that if you were to just dramatically reduce sugar you'll get results pretty quickly.
Gotta love any explanation and suggested resolution for being overweight and wanting to lose it that doesn't mention exercise. If you exercise enough, your diet doesn't have to be so strict, and you're way more likely to actually lose weight and feel good. Some rough guidelines of eating higher quality foods helps, but certainly exercise or lack of it is much more the root cause of so many weight/health related issue…
"So, why does it get warmer in the summer?" "Because our hemisphere takes in more calories than it gives off, causing it to get warmer." "Well, I mean I suppose that's true in the strictest sense, but is there a reason we can come up with tha--" "What, you don't believe in thermodynamics? What a crackpot!"
Come back to me when you've heard a few people say that it is physically impossible for them to lose weight regardless of what they do. They think they could be eating nothing but celery and water and still maintain an upwards trend.
Thermodynamics works. That means it is always possible to lose weight, not that it is always easy.
A weight-loss plan that works is an engineered calorie deficit. Calories in-calories out is the basic outline, but you need to get the details right to find a plan you'll stick to long enough to have a decent impact.
You can engineer a calorie deficit through diet only, exercise only, or a mix; personally, I had very good results with something that was mostly due to a major change in diet with no change in my exercise habits, which mainly consist of walking for a few hours a day. Other people are actually capable of exercising a huge amount more than they have been and making only a modest dietary change. And there are people in between.
And then there are specific foods. Ultimately, no food is bad in itself, and every diet has to meet all your needs, including emotional needs. It can be easier to lose weight and keep it off by banning certain kinds of food, but that is not necessary. Demonizing foods is psychologically unhealthy because it leads to a sin-guilt-redemption cycle that inhibits a rational approach to this engineering problem.
My point, again, is that once you get the details worked out, as long as you actually are in a calorie deficit you will lose weight. There is nothing more to it. The fad diet pushers can fuck off.
I challenge the author to load himself on steak and saturated fats and no carbs and come race me 100 miles on a road bike. I burn in excess of 4000 Calories on a 80 mile bike ride. That's a kilogram of rice on a single ride. And honestly I find it incredibly hard to eat enough just to satisfy the energy requirements of racing. Not eating carbs and attempting an endurance race event is just suicidal and guaranteed way…
Compared to the average person, you're a bit of an outlier. If you're not racing 100 miles, why would you consume those carbs? If you've read Taubes' writing, he doesn't say to eliminate all carbs. He does, however, demonize "white" carbs that have become a staple of the modern western diet. Even Tim Ferriss' "slow-carb diet" features legumes heavily, but eliminates sweets, bread, and other high-glycemic calorie sour…
I will agree that the modern western diet is a horrible thing. I have grown up eating typical Mediterranean diet with mostly home grown organic ingredients, and I find it incredibly hard to continue to eat like that living in Canada.
I think the biggest problem in North America at least is economical. The fact that certain produce like corn are subsidized by the government to the point that they are so cheap they make it into everything where you would never expect. This means you have to exclude certain foods altogether unless you have the time to make them yourself every time you want to eat them, which is rather impractical.
I challenge the author to load himself on steak and saturated fats and no carbs and come race me 100 miles on a road bike. I burn in excess of 4000 Calories on a 80 mile bike ride. That's a kilogram of rice on a single ride. And honestly I find it incredibly hard to eat enough just to satisfy the energy requirements of racing. Not eating carbs and attempting an endurance race event is just suicidal and guaranteed way…
Carbohydrate-related hormones feel pleasant. Withdrawal is unpleasant. This is a good motivation for a hunter-gatherer, but not so much for someone with an unlimited supply of carbohydrates.