91–100 of 114 posts
https://www.reddit.com/r/keto/comments/437lyj/nsv_take_that_... https://www.reddit.com/r/keto/comments/1dws7z/nsv_defeated_d... https://www.reddit.com/r/keto/comments/3v1nq3/nsv_im_officia... https://www.reddit.com/r/keto/comments/41cu92/sv_nsv_pics_lo...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But the word "dominates" should really be emphasized there because there is growing evidence that gut microbiota can help with breaking down lactose even when you lack the ability to produce lactase. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17927751 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11157352
It isn't that nuanced; lactose intolerance is uncomfortable because there are microorganisms breaking down the lactose and releasing gas (and what not). Those studies are looking at whether bacteria that do not produce as much gas can colonize our digestive systems. If the lactose passed through intact, it wouldn't be a problem. If enzymes weren't responsible for breaking down sucrose and there were bacteria doing it…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Could you recommend some useful links about this? In particular it is interesting to know if there is some range with fat/carbo ratio when the result is particularly bad.
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/saturated-fat-healthy/ This is a nice digest of a lot of the science around fats, that while somewhat biased, is a pretty good summary and includes links to studies should you want to dig deeper.
Type 2 Diabetes can 100% be "cured" by a low fat vegan diet. Sorry you don't need a pill, you need to wake up and face the fact that you are poising yourself with your high fat diet. FAT causes diabetes (and high blood pressure and heart disease) NOT Sugar. Dietary fat clogs up your bloodstream preventing insulin from effectively doing it's job. http://www.amazon.com/Neal-Barnards-Program-Reversing-Diabet... https://…
Vegetarianism/veganism may help with diabetes, but it's probably not because of reducing fat intake. "Less fat" has been the dominant message since the late 70's, and it's coincided with the explosion in the rate of consumption of sugar, overweight people and diabetics. The epidemiology suggests you're mistaken.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "No dude, you are ignoring the fact that these people did not have ample fat stores." I don't think I am ignoring it. You seem to be asserting that their issues with calorie restriction were lack of body fat. There is no evidence for that I am aware of. A simple rejoinder based on anyone's experience, do fat people get hungry? If they do, why? They have all that energy available. But I don't need to rely on argumen…
> You seem to be asserting that their issues with calorie restriction were lack of body fat. No I'm asserting that what happens to people's bodies at 4% body fat when in severe caloric restriction is very different than what happens to people's bodies at 40% body fat with severe caloric restriction, and so we can't apply the metabolic damage/starvation models to fat people. Fat people just need to eat less, and the i…
On oversimplification, but the crux of the issue. The astronomical failure rate is because of compliance. The prescription you seem to be suggest is "comply more! comply better!" but the biology of this is exactly why it fails so often. The type of food you eat is what sets you up for sustainable long-term success or its opposite. What you wave away with a wash of the hand--compliance--is the reason people fail and more willpower is not the issue and not a solution. It's a dysfunction of the hormones brought on by high insulin resistance brought on by excessive sugar and flour, which becomes a hunger trap, unless you add fat to your diet, which is exactly what people are told not to do. So, I do think hunger tends to differ when you suffer from fatty liver disease and insulin resistance. People can endure calorie restriction and lose weight for a while doing low-fat but they do not stay on it. Saying that people should just comply more is like telling someone with sleep apnea to sleep better. They need a different intervention.
edit--A failure rate of 80-90% is not an anomaly, it's a colossal failure. It's not something to be overcome, it's an indication of wrongness. By asking for more compliance you are asking people to fight their biology and they will lose this fight. Instead the intervention should be to employ their biology as their ally, and lose weight more easily and without much hunger and that's possible. It's just not helpful to tell people to eat less. We've been telling them that for forty years.
(Side note. The 4% bodyfat in the UofM study you mention is an assumption of yours, and not the starting weight of the people in the study. I think you're unfairly dismissing the study and presenting it as if it's a binary condition between starving/not starving, and that may be a thing, but it's not certain that it is. I'm merely cautiously using it as evidence that calorie restriction is difficult (actually more than difficult) to maintain, which anyway we all know from experience. It would be good to explore other studies on the topic). Intermittent fasting, for example, is vastly easier than consistent calorie restriction, and you're consuming the same number of calories as calorie restriction (if you design it right). That's not a matter of willpower, that's a different intervention).
Unfortunately I don't have time to continue the conversation, but take the time to explore some of the links I posted (there are tons more)--they go into way, way more detail and make the argument better than I have.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/saturated-fat-healthy/ This is a nice digest of a lot of the science around fats, that while somewhat biased, is a pretty good summary and includes links to studies should you want to dig deeper.
Please don't trust your health to people selling Paelo diet t-shirts, books, and diet bars... A high fat diet will kill you in the long term. Idea: Call 10 cardiologists, ask them if you should increase your fat consumption... then call 10,000 more and hear the same thing. https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=fat+causes+diab...
I totally agree that the nutritional "science" community is filled with snakeoil salesmen and that you have to careful.
But also, note that there is a difference between increasing your fat consumption absent of any other changes to your diet, and moving to a diet based mostly on fats, and that those changes have been pretty well described by me, to you, in our previous posts. I would agree that if you make no other changes, for the every day person increasing fat is bad. But literally no one is telling you to do that. NO ONE.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Could you recommend some useful links about this? In particular it is interesting to know if there is some range with fat/carbo ratio when the result is particularly bad.
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/saturated-fat-healthy/ This is a nice digest of a lot of the science around fats, that while somewhat biased, is a pretty good summary and includes links to studies should you want to dig deeper.
For example, if both high-fat/low-carbo and very-high-carbo/no-fat are good, can one combine them? If one eats very high fat meal, how long one has to wait before eating carbos-without-fat? Is it just few hours? Or should it be 16 hours? Or should one just not do that?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not a straw-man. Look at the adoption of the low fat/high carb diet by medical professionals in america. Now compare that to the prevalence of obesity and type 2 diabetes.
No offense but you literally just ignored everything I wrote and restated the original argument, which I see all the time, which is "medical professionals don't understand diet and don't recommend the right thing," which is, frankly, bullshit. Let me repeat: There are zero (0) medical professionals advocating for a high sugar diet. The "high carb" part of the recommended diet is meant to come from vegetables and whol…
That's true as far as it goes, but the internal fight inside the medical research community was whether it was fat or sugar that was the culprit in a host of physical problems. Fat won in a slam dunk, even though it turns out to be wrong. Doctors are largely not researchers, and they are taught what was the conventional wisdom. There is no suggestion of malice, just bad (or at least overturned, but it was actually bad in this case) research that has been promulgated in the medical community. A lot of doctors think fat is bad and pay less attention to sugar.
The Guardian recently wrote about this: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/07/the-sugar-con...
So, it's not bullshit to say a lot of doctors don't understand the nutrition.
OK, later! :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You seem to be asserting that their issues with calorie restriction were lack of body fat. No I'm asserting that what happens to people's bodies at 4% body fat when in severe caloric restriction is very different than what happens to people's bodies at 40% body fat with severe caloric restriction, and so we can't apply the metabolic damage/starvation models to fat people. Fat people just need to eat less, and the i…
> "Fat people just need to eat less, and the issue basically comes down to compliance.: On oversimplification, but the crux of the issue. The astronomical failure rate is because of compliance. The prescription you seem to be suggest is "comply more! comply better!" but the biology of this is exactly why it fails so often. The type of food you eat is what sets you up for sustainable long-term success or its opposite.…
You've offered introducing fats as a way to stave off hunger (aka increasing satiety) but introducing fats are far from the only way to increase satiety. Introducing fiber, for instance, is another way.
You also seem to be in favor of a ketogenic diet. Let me say that I totally believe that a keto diet is a great way to eat healthily and boost compliance for some people. Others have a really hard time tolerating large amounts of fat, and so we still need to find alternative solutions for them.
I agree that simply telling people to have more willpower is not the solution, but I think it's important to recognize that the diet is not causing physiological damage to the vast majority of people (it's not the insulin spike in and of itself that causes damage, it's what happens after that, ie: more food intake). So maybe we can attack this from the pure will power front and leave the diet alone (or maybe not, but let's be deliberate about what we are doing).
Regardless, the UofM study is heavily discredited and I still maintain that it is not relevant to what you are arguing either way: the study is designed to study extreme starvation and famine. Brink of death type stuff. Obese people who feel hungry are not that. We know this because if you don't feed them they don't die.
FWIW I actually have read/watched all the links you've posted (I had before this conversation as they are all relatively well known), and I still hold by all my points.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No offense but you literally just ignored everything I wrote and restated the original argument, which I see all the time, which is "medical professionals don't understand diet and don't recommend the right thing," which is, frankly, bullshit. Let me repeat: There are zero (0) medical professionals advocating for a high sugar diet. The "high carb" part of the recommended diet is meant to come from vegetables and whol…
> "there aren't doctors out there recommending cutting out fats and subsisting on sugar" That's true as far as it goes, but the internal fight inside the medical research community was whether it was fat or sugar that was the culprit in a host of physical problems. Fat won in a slam dunk, even though it turns out to be wrong. Doctors are largely not researchers, and they are taught what was the conventional wisdom. T…