Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by FoxGator, May 5, 2014.
You're fragile. Like a flower.
You're simply repeating the same untested axiom passed down from your Godfather. I think you threw in a few different words and used some font for emphasis. But the fact is that, no, there is no evidence that people who are heavier than you consume more calories than you do. And you've just heard from one person on this thread that ought to give your bro-wisdom pause.
As to the rest, some people are loud and proud. Good for them! We're due for a backlash. It's richly deserved. Fat people are the new blacks/Jews/homosexuals. People on this board speak about fat people in ways that would get them banned for life if they said them about other categories.
And some bemoan their fatness. Undoubtedly they do. These are the ones who have not yet summoned to resolved to stand up and say "F*** off!" to the disconfiguring voices of society.
Finally, fat people prefer sugary carbs. That's one thing about fat people that I love. They eat like I do. Oh wait, no they don't. In my years of studying food journals they typically consumed less sugar and got more fruits and veggies than this slender fitness trainer did.
I appreciate your reading the article, but here again, the point is being missed. What is the basis for the breathtaking leap in logic that because a calorie deficit would lead to temporary weight-loss, that we can somehow determine that there are people on this planet who weight more than they ought to ?
For those interested in the topic of the thread, I'd highly recommend the movie Fat Head. It's perfect for the TH crowd. Lots of talk about liberty, falsified scientific studies, taxation, regulation, you know, the good stuff. Plus it's funny. For the diehards, it would be fun to try to blame a particular political party for all the bad stuff. It's streamable through Amazon, Hulu, and prolly others.
The lipid hypothesis is bologna. Throw away your vegetable oils and eat less carbs.
... or eat more carbs, since they don't make you fat. That's the whole point of Mark Haub's Twinkie Diet. On a podcast with Jimmy Moore leading diva for the low-carb movement, Haub reiterated that he sought to show that that there is no such thing as "obesigenic foods."
If it sounded like I was repeating myself, it's because I was clarifying what I wrote, in response to your objections.
e.g.--"It's my experience" not a "universal rule" to your retort that 'some myriad studies' have found differently.
As for 'fat folks' being the new blacks/jews, etc.--fat folks have always been subject to being teased for being fat. The only thing that's changed, is the PC cult of victim-hood has informed you that you have a claim to victim-hood--and you have dutifully responded to the call.
Experience can be a many-blinkered thing. Settled science is another matter. And of course fat people have been subject to teasing. Nowadays they are subject to out-and-out disparagement and I'm delighted that some are fighting back and fighting back good. Also, just because victimization is fashionable doesn't mean some are not being victimized. Take fat people for instance, we're still stampeding them into losing weight. Accordingly, when people are subject to cruelty and punishment, at what point are we allowed to say that they are victims ? Please advise.
No, the point of his diet was that you could lose weight by eating less calories, even so called bad calories. In an isocaloric diet, too many carbs are generally bad for cardiovascular health.
In the podcast with Jimmy Moore he indicated that the objective was to disprove that there are foods that make you fat. So, low-carb was bolstered in that it took the heat off of demonizing this and that food group, but chastened by the fact that the guy lost a sh**-ton of weight eating sugary carbs. But no, carbs are not bad for cardiovascular health. Heart disease is highly heritable.
At a caloric deficit.
He successful demonstrated that weight could be lost at a caloric deficit, regardless of the macro-nutritional make-up of the diet. This does not prove the "good" or "bad" of any type of calorie, it proves thermodynamics.
If you put a person on an isocaloric diet and start altering the macro-nutritional composition, you'll find varying results based upon the individual's lean body mass, activity level, etc. For the vast majority of people, they'll lose more weight on a low-to-moderate-carb / high-protein / moderate-fat / fiber-rich diet.
Heart disease's heritability does not mean it's not immune to carb intake.
I agree that if you establish a calorie deficit, you will lose weight *short-term* REGARDLESS food choices, as the good professor again proved. For low-carbers calorie deficit is neither here nor there. Rather, it is carb consumption and carbs impact on insulin. Recall that Dr, Atkins famously asserted that a middle-aged woman could eat meat and veggies ad libitum and not gain weight because she wasn't getting much in the way of carbs. Epidemiological studies are to be taken with a grain of salt. Moreover, if carbs were bad for the heart, how do you explain increased carb consumption correlating with a decrease in heart disease ?
I've eaten an all-fat diet and lost weight. I've eaten low carb and lost weight. I've eaten a balanced diet and lost weight. One thing I will say is that the more carbs in my diet the quicker I get hungry. Eating very high fat (bacon, eggs, avocado, olive oil, fatty salmon, red meat, whole milk, butter, etc) takes much less willpower. I never really felt hungry at 2000 kcal/day. Add in carbs (even good carbs like oats, whole wheat bread, quinoa, brown rice) and I got hungry more often and had to fight the urges to eat excess calories. So...in my experience carbs don't make me fat. They make me hungry.
Which is probably an individual thing. Fat makes me hungry. Carbs fill me up. BUT the homeostatic hunger complex is regulated by calories, period, not satiety.
Since you keep referring to research, I'll simply add that it is the medical community that says obesity is unhealthy and can lead to an increased incidence of a variety of maladies.
Body types and metabolisms vary and it is certainly easier for some to maintain what medical science would call a "healthy weight" than others. But I will continue to assert than anyone can lose weight by proper calorie counting. I'll also assert that they can maintain that weight loss by making habitual changes to their diet.
For my part, to help keep my weight in check, I've eliminated most all drinks with calories from my meals and only eat 1/2 a banana for breakfast. Not easy, but I feel better and have more energy when I do this. Anyone can do it, but it takes discipline and will power.
And, nowhere on this thread have I stated that I dislike or am prejudiced against the overweight. Just have a little different understanding and evaluation of the science than you do.
I've found a few tricks that help. A small Wendy's chili is only 200 calories and very filling with the beans and meat. A can of tuna is only 95 calories so I can mix up 2 cans with a little mayo, pickles and tomatoes and have a very filling and healthy meal for 300 calories. Non-starch veggies you can eat all you want.
You can pretty much eat all the unfried meats you want...chicken, beef, fish. You'll feel full and burn a decent number of calories processing the food.
I submit that whereas I'd be happy to have a doctor for an inflamed appendix, the healthcare industry is in a morass regarding the subject of weight. I wonder if doctors ever actually read the studies they tout ? Nonetheless, never mind the studies, train your eyes on the big picture: Americans are living longer than ever, living actively longer than heavier, healthier than ever, heart disease down for decades now, cancer incidence down, diabetes slightly up and probably because the ADA lowered the diagnosis threshold in 1998.
Ah, yes, the monolithic low-carber.
Which is why I've never espoused Atkinsocism. Calories do matter, but while he's just a hack tryin' to make a buck, the underlying premises are very valid.
I've already shown my case. You?
Yes, satiety is huge here, particularly since few people meticulously track their intake.
How could you even begin to make a case when: (A) the Carb-Insulin Hypothesis has been thoroughly debunked and (B) correlation is not causation and (C) heart disease continues to decrease ?
So "training your eyes on the big picture" supports your claims, but training your eyes on the fact that fat people eat more is wrong?