While I like Sisson's take on exercise, he seriously needs to abandon the Insulin-Carbohydrate Hypothesis before he's the last low-carber left to champion it.
But on the ground, yes, hunger is a bigger issue for some than others. And I certainly don't begrudge people finding ways of eating that work best for them.
Back to skinny me, I can eat anything I want. But skinny and active as I am, I can't eat AS MUCH as I want. No one can. Indeed, I gain weight just like any other man.
Simple question. What is the point of insulin?
I agree that over-eating will make you fat regardless. Do you at least admin that hormones matter? I'm not just talking about insulin. (leptin, glucagon, thyroid, testosterone, etc). In other words, do eunuchs just get fat because not having nuts requires less calories?
I agree that over-eating will make you fat regardless. Do you at least admin that hormones matter? I'm not just talking about insulin. (leptin, glucagon, thyroid, testosterone, etc). In other words, do eunuchs just get fat because not having nuts requires less calories?
Insulin is a traffic cop. It's not the bad guy. It is merely facilitative, not causative. It can contribute to weight gain. It is not the cause of weight gain. That would be over-eating. Over-eat, gain weight. Gain weight, watch insulin increase.
Yes, hormones do matter. And they can be insistent. But they do not need to be obeyed. When a client tells me, "I felt hungry and had to eat something", my response is nuanced, two-fold: (1) no, you didn't but (2) by all means, let's talk about foods that satisfy and foods that don't.
Insulin is a traffic cop. It's not the bad guy. It is merely facilitative, not causative. It can contribute to weight gain. It is not the cause of weight gain. That would be over-eating. Over-eat, gain weight. Gain weight, watch insulin increase.
Yes, hormones do matter. And they can be insistent. But they do not need to be obeyed. When a client tells me, "I felt hungry and had to eat something", my response is nuanced, two-fold: (1) no, you didn't but (2) by all means, let's talk about foods that satisfy and foods that don't.
That's basically all I'm saying. Both hormones and intake matter. When you say insulin can contribute to weight gain, you are admitting that controlling insulin can also contribute to weight loss.
I like your response to your clients. Makes perfect sense to me.
That's basically all I'm saying. Both hormones and intake matter. When you say insulin can contribute to weight gain, you are admitting that controlling insulin can also contribute to weight loss.
I like your response to your clients. Makes perfect sense to me.
It's possible that I'm cutting too fine a point. At the same time, I hasten to point out:
(1) People with elevated insulin will not gain weight on a hypocaloric diet. Conversely, people with normal insulin will gain weight on a hypercaloric diet.
(2) Low-carbers and apparently lots of Paleos will not acknowledge this.
I just think that the notion that "carbs raise insulin and then you become fat" fosters a sort of powerlessness.
Salt,everything has salt in it,is very bad for the heart and the food we buy here ,chickens that are full grown in less than 40 day,beef cows less than 6 months,my daughter had a 4H pig about 7 years ago, we bought it a 30lbs in oct,in feb it weighed 340lbs, found out the feed had growth /steriods in it, must taste good Publix Market bought all the pigs winners and loser from the kids.
I don't think you guys are disagreeing as much on the general concept; you just disagree on the measures necessary or recommended to accomplish any desired reduction. Dream is right in that the simple equation is the essence of the problem, and nobody has really posted anything that refutes that. The issue is more complex than the simple equation in terms of people being able to understand what all the components of "calories in" are as well as what all the components of "calories out" are. But that doesn't mean that the simple equation is wrong, just that people don't necessarily understand all the ways that they are able to manipulate said equation to work in their favor.
WES, thanks for accurately describing my working philosophy. But I don't see where my disputants have actually acceded to calories-in/calories-out. After all, I led with studies showing that activity has not decreased, since 1980, whereas calorie consumption has spiked.
I haven't forgotten about this thread. Have just been busy, and I am realizing that it is easier to leverage the work of others in making my argument than it is to reinvent the wheel. This video doesn't exactly address the concept of calories, but I think the content is relevant enough to warrant posting. It is 20 minutes long but I promise you will find it thought-provoking if not convincing.
Less than four minutes in I have a number of impressions:
(1) I should point out that the low-carb advocate the speaker is tightly associated with, Jimmy Moore, is himself a tub of goo.
(2) The speaker himself looks like he could stand to lose a few. I don't think it's sniping to point out that the physiques of low-carbers and paleos I typically see are less than impressive. Atkins was obese. Taubes is paunchy. Hahn is soft. I could go on. If low-carb is THE prescription for fat-loss, then why are so many low-carbers, well, fat ?
(3) The speaker fairly begins by conflating categories. To the contrary, calorie deficits work 100% of the time. Further, it is not hard to lose weight. Rather, it is easy to lose weight. Hell, who in the room hasn't lost weight at some time ? Here, let me ask for a show of hands from those who haven't lost weight. See ? Nobody.
(4) Now, granted, whereas it is easy to lose weight, it is much harder to keep it off. But if I were a low-carber I think I'd lay low on this one since low-carb fares poorly, in terms of adherence, in comparison studies.
(5) He hoists himself by his own petard when he quotes the Kuhn Maxim. Kuhn is waggling a finger even now at the low-carbers who lack the integrity to jettison the Carb-Insulin Hypothesis. Want to talk about Selection Bias ? Roughly half the free-living studies (and none of the ward studies) show low-carb marginally superior to other strategies. Yet, somehow (I think we know why), low-carbers never seem to mention the studies which show no distinction.
(6) To score cheap points with the choir the speaker imagines he can muster outrage by imagining that doctors and others view obese people as gluttons. Well, they are gluttons. Sue me. But someone needs to point out that no other major country is nearly as fat as we are and the rest of the world gets its carbs. Hell, the Japanese eat enriched white rice by the rickshaw-load.
Less than four minutes in I have a number of impressions:
(1) I should point out that the low-carb advocate the speaker is tightly associated with, Jimmy Moore, is himself a tub of goo.
Jimmy Moore is a dork, but he's not fat. He was a tub of goo before going low carb. I agree he doesn't look like an athlete, though.
Quote:
(2) The speaker himself looks like he could stand to lose a few. I don't think it's sniping to point out that the physiques of low-carbers and paleos I typically see are less than impressive. Atkins was obese. Taubes is paunchy. Hahn is soft. I could go on. If low-carb is THE prescription for fat-loss, then why are so many low-carbers, well, fat ?
Another bad example with Taubes. "Paunchy?" I saw him in person, and he nearly bored the fat right off the crowd, but he ain't fat. You know who you should make fun of is Greg Glassman.
Quote:
(3) The speaker fairly begins by conflating categories. To the contrary, calorie deficits work 100% of the time. Further, it is not hard to lose weight. Rather, it is easy to lose weight. Hell, who in the room hasn't lost weight at some time ? Here, let me ask for a show of hands from those who haven't lost weight. See ? Nobody.
So the speaker is lying? You've already fibbed a bit on your first and second points, and we're supposed to believe you over some other fathead?
Quote:
(4) Now, granted, whereas it is easy to lose weight, it is much harder to keep it off. But if I were a low-carber I think I'd lay low on this one since low-carb fares poorly, in terms of adherence, in comparison studies.
Prolonged caloric deficit doesn't work either. Can we agree that you need to get off your fat ass if you want to maintain weight loss? Good. Next.
Quote:
(5) He hoists himself by his own petard when he quotes the Kuhn Maxim. Kuhn is waggling a finger even now at the low-carbers who lack the integrity to jettison the Carb-Insulin Hypothesis. Want to talk about Selection Bias ? Roughly half the free-living studies (and none of the ward studies) show low-carb marginally superior to other strategies. Yet, somehow (I think we know why), low-carbers never seem to mention the studies which show no distinction.
I probably didn't make it this far into the video. I got sleepy.
Quote:
(6) To score cheap points with the choir the speaker imagines he can muster outrage by imagining that doctors and others view obese people as gluttons. Well, they are gluttons. Sue me. But someone needs to point out that no other major country is nearly as fat as we are and the rest of the world gets its carbs. Hell, the Japanese eat enriched white rice by the rickshaw-load.
TBC ...
Excellent point on #6. We are a culture of huge portions, buffets, and general laziness.
I firmly believe change for most people should begin with diet.
Yep, forgot Glassman. But at least Jimmy Moore's not an asshole. However (are you aware of this ?), he is a Creationist.
What do you mean by 'prolonged calorie deficit' ? Do you mean sustaining a calorie deficit longer after you've achieved your target weight ? Do you mean you can't achieve negative weight ? Thanks for the heads-up. I was about to encourage one of my clients to shoot for a target weight of -15 pounds. But seriously, no, to achieve a target weight you have to take the calorie deficit to the bitter end.
The reason why people think they only take you part of the way is because people generally fail to FURTHER reduce as they become lighter, more movement-efficient and metabolically efficient. People also (and I found this surprising) tend to reduce general activity as they become lighter.
But of course calorie reduction doesn't preclude activity. I always, ALWAYS recommend exercise. However, you can't out-exercise overeating ... but you can lose weight without exercising.
Glad to see you agree with the old school rules like self-control, industry, loving Jesus, etc.
I've been looking into the 180degreehealth.com site recently. It's good to see other viewpoints. You know how I feel about dogma
Hehe, I think they're whack-doodles myself. But I have no compunction about using them and then casting them overboard.
Seriously though, there does seem to be significant infighting in Paleo ranks. Seems that more and more of them are moving away from low-carb. And more and more appear likely to categorize their approach as 'soft-Paleo.'
Basically, soft-Paleo is all there ever was since it is basically impossible to replicate the Paleolithic diet and because nobody really does it. Wolf and Sisson both hawk supplements.
Linear Mode
