Is the "calories in vs calories out" myth the reason why you are fat

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

mTOR

Full Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2007
Messages
572
Reaction score
4
and the reason why your patients are fat as well?

First a word from our sponsors

lulz.


Ah... You gotta love our pharmaceutical industry-driven medicine, our food-industry driven nutritional "science" and our preventative-health anemic medical training



...Cuz spending all day managing metabolic syndrome is ****ing Awesome


lmao It's 2011 folks. Please bring yourselves up to speed with the science and allow yourselves to exercise common sense: Isocaloric =/= Isometabolic.


Fructose is a biochemical nightmare. And it's everywhere. Let UCSF pediatric neuroendocrinologist and childhood obesity program director, Dr. Robert Lustig, tell it:

[YOUTUBE]dBnniua6-oM[/YOUTUBE]

*Warning: This video is LONG and has a ****-ton of biochem, dust off your old ass Lippincott at the 42:00 minute mark 😀
Esteemed science writer, Gary Taubes's, who's written several books on the topic, expounds in this NYT article from earlier this year:

Is Sugar Toxic?
By GARY TAUBES
Published: April 13, 2011

On May 26, 2009, Robert Lustig gave a lecture called "Sugar: The Bitter Truth," which was posted on YouTube the following July. Since then, it has been viewed well over 800,000 times, gaining new viewers at a rate of about 50,000 per month, fairly remarkable numbers for a 90-minute discussion of the nuances of fructose biochemistry and human physiology.

Lustig is a specialist on pediatric hormone disorders and the leading expert in childhood obesity at the University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine, which is one of the best medical schools in the country. He published his first paper on childhood obesity a dozen years ago, and he has been treating patients and doing research on the disorder ever since.

[-- snip --]

By the end of the 1970s, any scientist who studied the potentially deleterious effects of sugar in the diet, according to Sheldon Reiser, who did just that at the U.S.D.A.'s Carbohydrate Nutrition Laboratory in Beltsville, Md., and talked about it publicly, was endangering his reputation. "Yudkin was so discredited," Reiser said to me. "He was ridiculed in a way. And anybody else who said something bad about sucrose, they'd say, ‘He's just like Yudkin.' "

What has changed since then, other than Americans getting fatter and more diabetic? It wasn't so much that researchers learned anything particularly new about the effects of sugar or high-fructose corn syrup in the human body. Rather the context of the science changed: physicians and medical authorities came to accept the idea that a condition known as metabolic syndrome is a major, if not the major, risk factor for heart disease and diabetes. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention now estimate that some 75 million Americans have metabolic syndrome. For those who have heart attacks, metabolic syndrome will very likely be the reason.

[-- snipped out metabolic syndrome physio --]

When physicians assess your risk of heart disease these days, they will take into consideration your LDL cholesterol (the bad kind), but also these symptoms of metabolic syndrome. The idea, according to Scott Grundy, a University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center nutritionist and the chairman of the panel that produced the last edition of the National Cholesterol Education Program guidelines, is that heart attacks 50 years ago might have been caused by high cholesterol — particularly high LDL cholesterol — but since then we've all gotten fatter and more diabetic, and now it's metabolic syndrome that's the more conspicuous problem.

This raises two obvious questions. The first is what sets off metabolic syndrome to begin with, which is another way of asking, What causes the initial insulin resistance? There are several hypotheses, but researchers who study the mechanisms of insulin resistance now think that a likely cause is the accumulation of fat in the liver. When studies have been done trying to answer this question in humans, says Varman Samuel, who studies insulin resistance at Yale School of Medicine, the correlation between liver fat and insulin resistance in patients, lean or obese, is "remarkably strong." What it looks like, Samuel says, is that "when you deposit fat in the liver, that's when you become insulin-resistant."

That raises the other obvious question: What causes the liver to accumulate fat in humans? A common assumption is that simply getting fatter leads to a fatty liver, but this does not explain fatty liver in lean people. Some of it could be attributed to genetic predisposition. But harking back to Lustig, there's also the very real possibility that it is caused by sugar.

As it happens, metabolic syndrome and insulin resistance are the reasons that many of the researchers today studying fructose became interested in the subject to begin with. If you want to cause insulin resistance in laboratory rats, says Gerald Reaven, the Stanford University diabetologist who did much of the pioneering work on the subject, feeding them diets that are mostly fructose is an easy way to do it. It's a "very obvious, very dramatic" effect, Reaven says.

By the early 2000s, researchers studying fructose metabolism had established certain findings unambiguously and had well-established biochemical explanations for what was happening. Feed animals enough pure fructose or enough sugar, and their livers convert the fructose into fat — the saturated fatty acid, palmitate, to be precise, that supposedly gives us heart disease when we eat it, by raising LDL cholesterol. The fat accumulates in the liver, and insulin resistance and metabolic syndrome follow.


[-- snip --]

When Tappy fed his human subjects the equivalent of the fructose in 8 to 10 cans of Coke or Pepsi a day — a "pretty high dose," he says —– their livers would start to become insulin-resistant, and their triglycerides would go up in just a few days. With lower doses, Tappy says, just as in the animal research, the same effects would appear, but it would take longer, a month or more.

[-- snip --]

One of the diseases that increases in incidence with obesity, diabetes and metabolic syndrome is cancer. This is why I said earlier that insulin resistance may be a fundamental underlying defect in many cancers, as it is in type 2 diabetes and heart disease.

So how does it work? Cancer researchers now consider that the problem with insulin resistance is that it leads us to secrete more insulin, and insulin (as well as a related hormone known as insulin-like growth factor) actually promotes tumor growth.

As it was explained to me by Craig Thompson, who has done much of this research and is now president of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York, the cells of many human cancers come to depend on insulin to provide the fuel (blood sugar) and materials they need to grow and multiply. Insulin and insulin-like growth factor (and related growth factors) also provide the signal, in effect, to do it. The more insulin, the better they do. Some cancers develop mutations that serve the purpose of increasing the influence of insulin on the cell; others take advantage of the elevated insulin levels that are common to metabolic syndrome, obesity and type 2 diabetes. Some do both. Thompson believes that many pre-cancerous cells would never acquire the mutations that turn them into malignant tumors if they weren't being driven by insulin to take up more and more blood sugar and metabolize it.

[-- snip --]

Lewis Cantley, director of the Cancer Center at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center at Harvard Medical School, says that up to 80 percent of all human cancers are driven by either mutations or environmental factors that work to enhance or mimic the effect of insulin on the incipient tumor cells.

[-- snip --]

If it's sugar that causes insulin resistance, they say, then the conclusion is hard to avoid that sugar causes cancer — some cancers, at least — radical as this may seem and despite the fact that this suggestion has rarely if ever been voiced before publicly. For just this reason, neither of these men will eat sugar or high-fructose corn syrup, if they can avoid it.

"I have eliminated refined sugar from my diet and eat as little as I possibly can," Thompson told me, "because I believe ultimately it's something I can do to decrease my risk of cancer." Cantley put it this way: "Sugar scares me."

[-- snip --]


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.html?pagewanted=all
Cliffs:

- calories in vs calories out is an absurd oversimplification
- sucrose and HFCS are killin Americans and, by virtue of paying for the resulting poor health, our economy


Inb4 tl;dr
Inb4 "holy wall-o-text"
Inb4 Mark Haub twinkie diet
Inb4 Alan Aragon blog post

Members don't see this ad.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If you burn off more calories than you eat, you won't get fat. No one gained weight by starving.

No, starving is not a good diet, or a healthy one. But we're talking about gaining weight.

In the end, like the Simpsons household, the human body follows the laws of thermodynamics.


What you're talking about is an 'optimum' diet, which is a separate issue.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
I think "Eat Less, Move More" is a better and simpler solution
 
I think that what people are failing to recognize, in this thread and in others, is that there is a dichotomy between the average person's diet and the athlete's diet. For the average person, the "calories in calories out" thermodynamic argument is good enough to maintain a healthy weight. For the athlete trying to create the "ideal" body, however, this does not suffice. As said before, caloric equivalence does not equal metabolic equivalence.
 
I think that what people are failing to recognize, in this thread and in others, is that there is a dichotomy between the average person's diet and the athlete's diet. For the average person, the "calories in calories out" thermodynamic argument is good enough to maintain a healthy weight. For the athlete trying to create the "ideal" body, however, this does not suffice. As said before, caloric equivalence does not equal metabolic equivalence.

Agreed ^. Near the center of the bell curve, this is fine. And actually for everyone, it's technically true at bottom, impossible to get around. However the severly out of shape (severely) and the very fit do not operate the same as the middle of the curve.

For instance, athlete consistenly rotating anaerobic exercize from one bodypart to another day to day where a large portion of muscles only have ~70%max glycogen saturation, and no muscle group reaches 100% for more than ~3 days before it's turn in rotation (i.e. legs day) comes up again, STILL obeys calories in and calories out. But if they're at <10% (male) bodyfat % as a cosmetic athelete, then their body will tend to 'horde' fat resources unlike someone in the middle of the bell curve, thus when they work out hormonally (i.e. insulin low and glucagon very high post 1.5hr weight training, they do cardio) matters to keep pushing the envelope in a way that the mean/median of society does not. In my () example, that person does their cardio then cause if they have resting hormonal homeostasis, they'll tend to shift more metabolism to glycogen metabolism cause their body don't wanna 'waste' any fat in case there's a famine up ahead, more than the average person (who will use almost all fat in the proper intensity level for fat burning rather than anaerobic excercise and thus doesn't need to consider this). There are many other factors than this one illustrating one that the really out of shape and really athletic NEED to consider (and if you've been there, you know), however in reality, the [energy properly absorbed from digestive track]=[energy (out + stored) - 'cost of metabolism'] equation is still valid; you're just trying to make it seem like the energy in and out is only regarding the fat around your mid section, not taking evolutionary/horomonal considerations into effect to adjust for your unique situation.

This has come up with me way back when and normally this objection is only voiced by the super fit because only they frankly CARE enough to get this nuanced about weight loss (and yes often they're the only ones who are dedicated enough to actually lose it at will in America). I certainly don't think at all that abolishing this by trying to educate laypeople about the intricacies of hormones, etc etc would remove the problem for most people, LET ALONE be at all implementable. I eat this stuff up cause of my bodybuilding background way back when I still have a thing about learning up on, but I don't have a smartphone cause I'm not patient enough in something like that to figure out how to work it. I assure you, the average 1st world person doesn't care about this issue any more than I do the phone (I guess we're opposites in that regard, me and the average american!) so it certainly isn't the way to fight the 'obesity epidemic'.

In my humble opinion. Thanks for listening! 🙂
 
Agreed ^. Near the center of the bell curve, this is fine. And actually for everyone, it's technically true at bottom, impossible to get around. However the severly out of shape (severely) and the very fit do not operate the same as the middle of the curve.

For instance, athlete consistenly rotating anaerobic exercize from one bodypart to another day to day where a large portion of muscles only have ~70%max glycogen saturation, and no muscle group reaches 100% for more than ~3 days before it's turn in rotation (i.e. legs day) comes up again, STILL obeys calories in and calories out. But if they're at <10% (male) bodyfat % as a cosmetic athelete, then their body will tend to 'horde' fat resources unlike someone in the middle of the bell curve, thus when they work out hormonally (i.e. insulin low and glucagon very high post 1.5hr weight training, they do cardio) matters to keep pushing the envelope in a way that the mean/median of society does not. In my () example, that person does their cardio then cause if they have resting hormonal homeostasis, they'll tend to shift more metabolism to glycogen metabolism cause their body don't wanna 'waste' any fat in case there's a famine up ahead, more than the average person (who will use almost all fat in the proper intensity level for fat burning rather than anaerobic excercise and thus doesn't need to consider this). There are many other factors than this one illustrating one that the really out of shape and really athletic NEED to consider (and if you've been there, you know), however in reality, the [energy properly absorbed from digestive track]=[energy (out + stored) - 'cost of metabolism'] equation is still valid; you're just trying to make it seem like the energy in and out is only regarding the fat around your mid section, not taking evolutionary/horomonal considerations into effect to adjust for your unique situation.

This has come up with me way back when and normally this objection is only voiced by the super fit because only they frankly CARE enough to get this nuanced about weight loss (and yes often they're the only ones who are dedicated enough to actually lose it at will in America). I certainly don't think at all that abolishing this by trying to educate laypeople about the intricacies of hormones, etc etc would remove the problem for most people, LET ALONE be at all implementable. I eat this stuff up cause of my bodybuilding background way back when I still have a thing about learning up on, but I don't have a smartphone cause I'm not patient enough in something like that to figure out how to work it. I assure you, the average 1st world person doesn't care about this issue any more than I do the phone (I guess we're opposites in that regard, me and the average american!) so it certainly isn't the way to fight the 'obesity epidemic'.

In my humble opinion. Thanks for listening! 🙂

^Written very quickly sorry for all the spelling/syntax/other errors I think the points are ok though.
 
If you eat a lot of sugary foods chances are you're also just eating a lot. If you eat three twinkies a day and nothing else you're going to be thin, but no one does that.
 
The articles posted here about "types" of calories are very interesting, and the nuances of energy regulation are important.

That said, anyone MUST lose weight if they SUFFICIENTLY reduce their overall caloric intake and increase their overall energy expenditure. Genetic mutations affecting different aspects of energy homeostasis will require a significantly greater - and, pragmatically, near impossible - calorie reduction, but these mutations are extremely rare and affect a remarkably small percentage of the population.

Point is, "calories in vs. calories out" is no myth, but you're probably right that the average med student/doctor does not know enough about energy regulation to fully explain the statement. Perhaps a better simple statement would be "total energy in minus total energy out equals weight change," with some additional explanation about types of foods, regulatory changes in metabolism, etc.
 
Point is, "calories in vs. calories out" is no myth, but you're probably right that the average med student/doctor does not know enough about energy regulation to fully explain the statement. Perhaps a better simple statement would be "total energy in minus total energy out equals weight change," with some additional explanation about types of foods, regulatory changes in metabolism, etc.

This is two things: wrong, and frankly kind of sad. If people graduating from medical school don't know enough about energy regulation to create a nutritionally sound diet... we're screwed as a healthcare system.

The "thermodynamic argument" can only stand on its own feet under the umbrella of hormone regulation. If you compare two diets with the same calorie deficit, the lower carb diet WILL yield more fat oxidation.. regardless of one's athletic level. Why? Insulin spikes after carb heavy meals halt fat oxidation (oh insulin, you antagonist of glucagon/cortisol). You could draw a similar comparison between two diets of similar carb intake split between low and high GI carbs.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
The articles posted here about "types" of calories are very interesting, and the nuances of energy regulation are important.

That said, anyone MUST lose weight if they SUFFICIENTLY reduce their overall caloric intake and increase their overall energy expenditure. Genetic mutations affecting different aspects of energy homeostasis will require a significantly greater - and, pragmatically, near impossible - calorie reduction, but these mutations are extremely rare and affect a remarkably small percentage of the population.

Point is, "calories in vs. calories out" is no myth, but you're probably right that the average med student/doctor does not know enough about energy regulation to fully explain the statement. Perhaps a better simple statement would be "total energy in minus total energy out equals weight change," with some additional explanation about types of foods, regulatory changes in metabolism, etc.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Watch this, for starters. He starts speaking at about 6:04.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTUspjZG-wc
 
This is two things: wrong, and frankly kind of sad. If people graduating from medical school don't know enough about energy regulation to create a nutritionally sound diet... we're screwed as a healthcare system.

The "thermodynamic argument" can only stand on its own feet under the umbrella of hormone regulation. If you compare two diets with the same calorie deficit, the lower carb diet WILL yield more fat oxidation.. regardless of one's athletic level. Why? Insulin spikes after carb heavy meals halt fat oxidation (oh insulin, you antagonist of glucagon/cortisol). You could draw a similar comparison between two diets of similar carb intake split between low and high GI carbs.

The thermodynamic argument is fine. What is not is your follow through. The law of conservation of energy is valid - otherwise you really sold out humanity by not getting into and changing the face of physics.

Assuming you've not got any handy example of that being flawed, I'll definitely grant you that minutia like a) eating X calories but only Y calories get absorbed whereas Z calories get excreted where Z increases with harder-to-digest substrates and the equation X=Y+Z is valid; b) Y absorbed calories need to be converted into a form convenient for current metabolic needs; assuming all Y came from carbohydrates and it is to be converted into fat the actual yield = ~.75*Y (biochemical rearrangement 'costing' energy thus even energy absorbed is not all used or stored in equal values - also consider loss of heat); c) Sky-high insulin from a high carb w/high GI/GL not only lessening utilization of fat oxidation but directly inhibiting it; I say again a)-c) and other minutia add up to significant considerations, however this simply means that the 'equation' itself has to reflect the changes in the energy required. You should also be aware that much of metabolism can become 'wasteful/inefficient' or corners can be cut in accordance with what the nutrient intake is, from your curriculum. Thus, the problem is not the idea of 'calories in does not equal calories burned or stored' but rather where you artificially pretend that calorie usage is static or that needs after a prolonged (different in the way you described) dietary regimen do not change, between people who have the same calories but different sources of nutrients.

So if you have a shallow ability to follow through an argument, and cannot see that the needs of the body change BECAUSE of the input materials and body's usage of what it has to work with, then you have a simple philosophical myopia which I do for the record hope no one mimics and passes on to patients. The food difference may be the independent variable in a study of obesity, but the body's initial and long-term homeostatic reaction follows an iterative process where it changes its requirements and overall efficiency very specifically in accordance with the change in the input variable. Thus, the 'energy in=energy burned+energy stored+losses (heat conversions etc)' equation, as well as the food in equation, is actually something like A=B+C+D where A=(combination of many many variables); B=(combination of many many overlapping or different variables from A's variables); C etc etc... But the equation works.

IN order to ensure this isn't taken as pure philosophy or academic mathematical difference, there would, I think, be real failures and holdups in honest and very collaborative, concentrated efforts by very very smart people in our research community if we gave up the approach of figuring out what exactly the variables that govern A, B, C, and D; halting important advances in the field in favor of a much more short-sighted observation, "Insulin is a glucagon antagonist and everything else static and equal, thus fat oxidation in equal calorie meals will be higher where insulin is lower so throw out/attack the old equation" (I'd add 'because usually I only carry the argument as a 1 step cause and effect with a direct relationship and thus will pretend everyone else does, too). The good thing is that those who understand how to actually use the fully-conceptualized model as a heuristic, that is, the only people whose opinions matter (except if it really makes someone feel smart at thanksgiving dinner spouting off to relatives and looking smart and insightful by being the archetypical intellectual underdog, trod on by the system) pretty unanimously agree with the former system because they are immersed enough to be beyond the cocktail version of this argument (which I'll admit, if you weigh me down with a bunch of fallacious counterarguments, I'll just move on because honestly that's what SDN is in a question like this), and thus this opinion of yours and some people looking to sell some books etc won't do any damage to advancing future knowledge. They don't need you to get it for them to progress nor do they need me for that matter as it's not my field, just interest, so I don't contribute or detract any more than you (or the others on the thread of your general inclination).

In your favor and at the end to hopefully quell any ruffled feathers, I DO think that lower GI meals in the mean time is the way to go and that your patient outcomes (the reason we get into medicine, right?) I would expect to come out as well as mine. And, thinking outside the box can be extremely helpful too, so don't think I'm attacking you just strongly disagreeing. Thank you.
 
Its simple why people are fat.

People are lazy
People eat horribly
Even when people rarely go to the gym, they do a useless workout
People abuse their bodies with cigs/alcohol/worse...

Its that simple...America is not morbidly obese due to genetics lmao

-Eat clean
-Be active during the day/workout a few times per week
-Don't drink a lot
If you truly do these things for a year its unlikely you will be fat...not saying you will look like Frank Zane or Arnold, but you will slice down your BMI big time
 
sorry didnt see the video u posted on Gary Taubes... this man is exposing the bad science in nutrition. I have always been a vegetarian but now have changed my diet cutting out all refined carbs and take in about 50 grams of carbs total. I feel better, have more energy, lost body fat, emotionally more stable... i get so heated when people say saturated fat causes heart disease now

Just go look at the studies Stanford, Harvard, Johns Hopkins, etc have done on low carb/ Atkins diets they blow every other diet out of the water when it comes to TG levels, weight loss, blood pressure, HDL, etc...
 
i think the problem here is that people are arguing on two different levels. one group is saying that if you remove more energy from a system than you put in, then the system will lose energy over time. the other group is arguing about the body's response to different types of energy and hormone levels.

the thermodynamic argument is stating the laws of physics and is correct for any system including a person, but the actual nuances of human metabolism are more complicated than implied by the statement. as referenced above, energy use (metabolism) varies depending on to how much and what type of calories are consumed both presently and in the past.
 
Guys, you're taking this too seriously. The simple reason why it is a myth is that there's no accurate way to calculate how many calories the body is burning due to unknown variables. The BMR for one, doesn't take into account many factors such as muscle having a higher metabolism.

Otherwise, in theory, if the output of the blackbox is greater than the input into the blackbox, yes you'd get a net loss, but the problem is that every blackbox is different and you can't assume it works the same way for everyone. That's why as docs, you can't tell patients this phrase and expect it to work for them every time. Yes, it works for some people, but not for others.
 
Guys, you're taking this too seriously. The simple reason why it is a myth is that there's no accurate way to calculate how many calories the body is burning due to unknown variables. The BMR for one, doesn't take into account many factors such as muscle having a higher metabolism.

Otherwise, in theory, if the output of the blackbox is greater than the input into the blackbox, yes you'd get a net loss, but the problem is that every blackbox is different and you can't assume it works the same way for everyone. That's why as docs, you can't tell patients this phrase and expect it to work for them every time. Yes, it works for some people, but not for others.

Well said. As you point out, every 'blackbox' is different. We call this "metabolism", and it varies greatly between individuals and varies greatly by the types of foods consumed. To pretend otherwise is a gross oversimplification.
 
Interesting NPR radio program that discussed this very issue.

Body as testube vs. Body as organism, Is low fat the answer? etc.

Importance of subtypes of LDL, especially small dense particles.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15886898

Gary Taubes, author of Good Calories, Bad Calories: Challenging the Conventional Wisdom on Diet, Weight Control, and Disease; contributing correspondent for Science Magazine
Ronald Krauss, M.D., senior scientist and director of Atherosclerosis research at the Children's Hospital Oakland Research Institute


You can click to hear the show on the left side.
 
Last edited:
Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Watch this, for starters. He starts speaking at about 6:04.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTUspjZG-wc

Not wrong. Unless you've published basic science research in this field, which I have, I'm frankly inclined to think you don't know what you're talking about. I suspect you're just misinterpreting what I wrote.

Guys, you're taking this too seriously. The simple reason why it is a myth is that there's no accurate way to calculate how many calories the body is burning due to unknown variables. The BMR for one, doesn't take into account many factors such as muscle having a higher metabolism.

Otherwise, in theory, if the output of the blackbox is greater than the input into the blackbox, yes you'd get a net loss, but the problem is that every blackbox is different and you can't assume it works the same way for everyone. That's why as docs, you can't tell patients this phrase and expect it to work for them every time. Yes, it works for some people, but not for others.

This is basically what I'm getting at.
 
Not wrong. Unless you've published basic science research in this field, which I have, I'm frankly inclined to think you don't know what you're talking about. I suspect you're just misinterpreting what I wrote.
That's your argument, seriously? I post a video link and you discount it based on my "not knowing what I'm talking about" just because I haven't published a paper in the field? I would say you committed the fallacy of appealing to authority, but seeing as I doubt you yourself are an authority (you don't know everything just because you were published in this field), that's not exactly correct. Why don't you try watching the video instead of attacking my post based on my lack of research?

BTW, since you brought it up, what exactly did your research entail?

Edit: I do understand what you're trying to say. You're essentially making the same argument as the guy giving the blackbox analogy, but the language you used in your post indicated to me that while you're acknowledging at face value that the subject is more nuanced than just "calories in, calories out," you're still advocating exactly that. Which is not correct. Calories in, calories out grossly oversimplifies the subject to the point of being completely misleading. Getting fat is more contingent on the type of energy we consume.

Watch the video. Just watch the video, please. It will take an hour of your life, that's it. I will be interested to see what you have to say about it.

Example from the video: Trinidad, 1961-1963. A third of women over age 25 are obese. Per capita diet is less than 2000 calories (21% fat). Less than 2000 calories. This is not an isolated incident. If you start looking for them (and they aren't at all difficult to find), you will find innumerable examples of what are ostensibly paradoxes (according to conventional wisdom, that is). But when you start looking at evidence you start finding out that these aren't paradoxes at all.
 
Last edited:
Modern nutrition is a joke, in that everyone has their niche theories, most of which are probably wrong, as we see new diets emerge daily, only to vanish in months. Modern nutrition is young, still developing, hardly considered a science, methinks.

It's obvious that humans can thrive on many types of diets -- just not on the Western diet. Look around. Go to Africa and see the Masai thriving on milk and meat. Go to rural China where they subsist on white rice for crying out loud. Turn the clock, Native Americans basically subsisted on corn. The traditional Japanese diet included pounds of fish and a lot of white rice. None of these guys were as fat as we are, yet their diets all varied greatly in terms of macronutrient ratio.

You may say it's a matter of activity, that if you exercise a lot, you can eat anything and not get fat. Wrong. Anyone who has tried to lose weight through exercising alone knows this is fallacious. Diet is key.

But it is clear to me that carbohydrates aren't the enemy as Gary taubes makes it out to be; millions of healthy traditional diets were starch-centered and probably "high-gi," and none of these populations were fat. To deny that would be idiocy. Low-carb is simply not the answer. Yet I can't deny that many societies probably thrived on low-carb diets as well -- the eskimos, the masai, perhaps all of us back in the palo days.

Pritkins, Atkins, Mcdougall, Fuhrman, Bernstein -- all incredibly different diets, all effective. All of these guys report incredible weight loss in their patients, many of the stories miraculous. None of these guys are lying, but simply bringing to light a basic idea.

The only common theme is that all the healthy traditional populations ate natural foods, in their natural states. If you eat manmade foods, you are more likely to be fat. Interest and curiosity withstanding, for patient care, there is no need to go into these niche, scientific theories about nutrition--metabolism, macronutrient ratios, blah blah-- when we have thrived on traditional diets for thousands of years without the guidance of biostatistics and basic research, and never faced a "obesity epidemic," so to speak.
 
Last edited:
That's your argument, seriously? I post a video link and you discount it based on my "not knowing what I'm talking about" just because I haven't published a paper in the field? I would say you committed the fallacy of appealing to authority, but seeing as I doubt you yourself are an authority (you don't know everything just because you were published in this field), that's not exactly correct. Why don't you try watching the video instead of attacking my post based on my lack of research?

BTW, since you brought it up, what exactly did your research entail?

You're right, that was a lame argument. I'll take a look at the movie. As for my research, we looked at a neuropeptide receptor that mediates anorexia/satiety. One thing that stood out to me was that this neuropeptide and its associated receptors not only regulate appetite, but also metabolic energy output.
 
I heard Dr. Lustig give this hypothetical when asked about 'a calorie is a calorie':

Let's say you are at a steady weight and you eat 2000 calories per day. You're neither gaining nor losing weight. 2000 calories is what your body wants.

Now, I hook you up to an insulin IV, and every time you eat I'm going to pump you up with extra insulin.

So, the next day you eat your 2000 calories like usual. However, because of the extra insulin I'm giving you, 500 of those calories go straight to your adipose tissue for storage before you get a chance to burn them for energy. You've just gained weight (1/7 pound).

Now, instead of having 2000 calories available, you've only got 1500. Since you have less energy, you reduce your activity.

And, you are now hungry since you are 500 calories below what your body wants. So, you eat more to make up those lost calories. And the next time you eat, that extra insulin is going to "steal" some of those calories again and send them straight to adipose storage. And this cycle will continue as you gain weight and reduce your activity.

When you go to your doctor or nutritionist, they will likely tell you that you are 1) lazy and 2) eating too much (i.e., sloth and gluttony).

'A calorie is a calorie' implies that one is choosing to eat too much or not expend enough. The reality is that there are hormonal/metabolic factors involved that go beyond this simple explanation of "eat less and exercise more".
 
OK but people aren't disputing that. But it still comes down to how many calories your body burns vs. how many you take. No one is claiming 2000 Twinkie calories are the same as 2000 calories of broccoli and spinach. There are ways to rev up your metabolism and ways to inhibit it - but it's still part of the calories in vs. out.
 
OK but people aren't disputing that. But it still comes down to how many calories your body burns vs. how many you take. No one is claiming 2000 Twinkie calories are the same as 2000 calories of broccoli and spinach. There are ways to rev up your metabolism and ways to inhibit it - but it's still part of the calories in vs. out.


this your physio text brah?

Human-Physiology-9780077265878.jpg


lulz.

the NIH says something very similar on their websites

What Causes Overweight and Obesity?

Lack of Energy Balance

A lack of energy balance most often causes overweight and obesity. Energy balance means that your energy IN equals your energy OUT.

Energy IN is the amount of energy or calories you get from food and drinks. Energy OUT is the amount of energy your body uses for things like breathing, digesting, and being physically active.

To maintain a healthy weight, your energy IN and OUT don't have to balance exactly every day. It's the balance over time that helps you maintain a healthy weight.

The same amount of energy IN and energy OUT over time = weight stays the same
More energy IN than energy OUT over time = weight gain
More energy OUT than energy IN over time = weight loss
Overweight and obesity happen over time when you take in more calories than you use.

http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/dci/Diseases/obe/obe_causes.html

Obesity means having too much body fat. It is different from being overweight, which means weighing too much. The weight may come from muscle, bone, fat and/or body water. Both terms mean that a person's weight is greater than what's considered healthy for his or her height.

Obesity occurs over time when you eat more calories than you use. The balance between calories-in and calories-out differs for each person. Factors that might tip the balance include your genetic makeup, overeating, eating high-fat foods and not being physically active.

Being obese increases your risk of diabetes, heart disease, stroke, arthritis and some cancers. If you are obese, losing even 5 to 10 percent of your weight can delay or prevent some of these diseases.

NIH: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/obesity.html

intredasting.jpg


The problem with the thermodynamic argument is manifold. If the system in question is the entire human body, it's obviously an inappropriate analogy to explain obesity because obesity doesn't happen wholesale due to increased calories irrespective of carb presence and %-age.

If the system in question is fatty tissue it still doesn't hold for similar reasons.

If, however, we change the analogy such that the system = adipocyte but Energy = fatty acids in the presence of insulin (instead of ingested kcals) the analogy holds but is uninformative as to the question of what's ultimately causing the flux.

Taube's videos really should be required viewing before posting in this thread (hell, for med school and any health and nutrition courses for that matter!). He very eloquently addresses some of the problems with the NIH's ridiculous stance on his blog. Here's a snippet:


[-- snip --]


let's say you're carrying around 40 pounds of excess fat and you put on that 40 pounds over the course of 20 years, as many of us do. When you're in your late 20s, say, you're still lean, and then, lo and behold, you celebrate your fiftieth birthday and you're obese and your doctor is lecturing you on eating less and getting to the gym regularly (and probably writing you a prescription for Lipitor, as well). Now, if you gain 40 pounds of fat over 20 years, that's an average of two pounds of excess fat accumulation every year. Since a pound of fat is roughly equal to 3500 calories, this means you accumulate roughly 7000 calories worth of fat every year. Divide that 7000 by 365 and you get the number of calories of fat you stored each day and never burned &#8211; roughly 19 calories. Let's round up to 20 calories, so we have a nice round number. (In the new book I discuss this issue in a chapter called "The Significance of Twenty Calories a Day.")

So now the question: if all you have to do to become obese is store 20 extra calories each day on average in your fat tissue &#8212; 20 calories that you don't mobilize and burn &#8212; what does overeating have to do with it? And why aren't we all fat? Twenty calories, after all, is a bite or two of food, a swallow or two of soda or fruit juice or milk or beer. It is an absolutely trivial amount of overeating that the body then chooses, for reasons we'll have to discuss at some point, not to expend, but to store as fat instead. Does anyone &#8211; even Jonah Lehrer or the neuroscientists he consults &#8211; think that the brain, perhaps in cohort with the gut, is making decisions about how much we should eat, on how long we stay hungry and when we get full, so that we don't overshoot by 20 calories a day. That's matching intake to expenditure with an accuracy of better than 1 percent. (We consume, on average, about 2700 calories a day, so matching energy in to energy out and not overshooting by 20 calories requires better than one percent accuracy.) And, of course, if we only overshoot by ten calories a day on average, we're still going to put on 20 pounds of excess fat in 20 years. So really when we talk about being in energy balance &#8211; or practicing energy balance, as the experts now like to say &#8211; we actually have to be perfect in our matching of intake to expenditure or we're going to get inexorably fatter (or leaner, if we err on the side of going hungry), or at least we have to average perfection over decades.

[-- snip --]

http://www.garytaubes.com/2010/12/inanity-of-overeating/


I should also note, what Taube had suggested in 1 of his videos -- to do an isocaloric experiment varying carb%-age -- has been done with a rat model. The experiment was published early last year in the journal of Endocrinology showed calories do matter..... but carbs %age matter MORE.

Carbohydrate-Responsive Gene Expression in the Adipose Tissue of Rats


Kartik Shankar, Amanda Harrell, Ping Kang, Rohit Singhal, Martin J. J. Ronis and Thomas M. Badger

Abstract

Although obesity is often associated with high-fat diets, it can develop from a variety of meal patterns. Excessive intake of simple carbohydrates is one consistent eating behavior leading to obesity. However, the impact of overconsumption of diets with high carbohydrate to fat ratios (C/F) on body composition and global adipose tissue gene expression remains unclear. We used total enteral nutrition to evaluate the effects of caloric intake and C/F on body weight gain and development of obesity. Female Sprague Dawley rats were fed diets with either low C/F or high C/F (HC) (reflecting a 19.5-fold increase in C/F) at two levels of caloric intake: 187 or 220 kcal/kg3/4 · d (15% excess) for 4 wk. At the end of the study period, rats fed HC diets had about 20% higher body weight at either caloric intake compared with rats fed low C/F diets (P < 0.05). Body composition (assessed by nuclear magnetic resonance, computerized tomography, and adipose tissue weights) revealed higher percent fat mass (P < 0.05) in HC rats. Obesity was associated with increased serum resistin, leptin, fasting hyperinsulinemia, and insulin resistance after an oral glucose challenge (P < 0.05). Microarray analyses of adipose tissues revealed HC diets led to changes in 270 and 464 transcripts at 187 and 220 kcal/kg3/4 · d intakes. Genes regulating glucose transport, glycolysis, fatty acid and triglyceride biosynthesis, desaturation and elongation, adipogenesis, and adipokines were affected by HC diets. These results suggest that C/F and interactions with excessive caloric intake per se may regulate body composition and play important roles in the development of obesity and metabolic syndrome.

http://endo.endojournals.org/content/151/1/153.abstract?rss=1

Oh yes we gotta take another look at this:

fatrat1.jpg


😱

LOW CALORIE HIGH CARB DIET CAUSED MORE WEIGHT GAIN AND FAT THAN EVEN THE HIGH CALORIE LOW CARB DIET!

Again, when it comes to what's worse for your health: bumping calories up 15% vs bumping carbs up from 35 (barely "low") to 75%... Carbs clearly matter more!

fatrat2.jpg


I should point out explicitly, that low carb diets such as the Atkins diet have carb%-ages <10%! (which consist's of no more than 50g of carbohydrates, i.e. 200 kcal). One could only imagine the results with a true low carb diet as opposed to the 25%-carbs they used in this experiment.

Also, for those doubting animal models, given all we know about low carb diets in humans, I find NO reason to anticipate a different result!


Cliffs:
- Taube is right.
 
LOL. I really had no idea so many SDN members were familiar with the Gary Taubes/Robert Lustig/Sally Fallon/Nutrition&Metabolism (Feinman/Volek/Westman) high fat/low carb dogma. I definitely find there are valid argument intertwined in their spiel, but also many fallacies. Check out the following sites for some interesting critiques on the "scientific research" behind low-carb diets.

http://weightology.net/?cat=79
http://carbsanity.blogspot.com/search/label/Gary Taubes Fact Check
http://nutritionovereasy.com/2011/05/the-antidote-to-fructose-fears
 
this your physio text brah?

Human-Physiology-9780077265878.jpg


lulz.

the NIH says something very similar on their websites





intredasting.jpg


The problem with the thermodynamic argument is manifold. If the system in question is the entire human body, it's obviously an inappropriate analogy to explain obesity because obesity doesn't happen wholesale due to increased calories irrespective of carb presence and %-age.

If the system in question is fatty tissue it still doesn't hold for similar reasons.

If, however, we change the analogy such that the system = adipocyte but Energy = fatty acids in the presence of insulin (instead of ingested kcals) the analogy holds but is uninformative as to the question of what's ultimately causing the flux.

Taube's videos really should be required viewing before posting in this thread (hell, for med school and any health and nutrition courses for that matter!). He very eloquently addresses some of the problems with the NIH's ridiculous stance on his blog. Here's a snippet:





I should also note, what Taube had suggested in 1 of his videos -- to do an isocaloric experiment varying carb%-age -- has been done with a rat model. The experiment was published early last year in the journal of Endocrinology showed calories do matter..... but carbs %age matter MORE.



Oh yes we gotta take another look at this:

fatrat1.jpg


😱

LOW CALORIE HIGH CARB DIET CAUSED MORE WEIGHT GAIN AND FAT THAN EVEN THE HIGH CALORIE LOW CARB DIET!

Again, when it comes to what's worse for your health: bumping calories up 15% vs bumping carbs up from 35 (barely "low") to 75%... Carbs clearly matter more!

fatrat2.jpg


I should point out explicitly, that low carb diets such as the Atkins diet have carb%-ages <10%! (which consist's of no more than 50g of carbohydrates, i.e. 200 kcal). One could only imagine the results with a true low carb diet as opposed to the 25%-carbs they used in this experiment.

Also, for those doubting animal models, given all we know about low carb diets in humans, I find NO reason to anticipate a different result!


Cliffs:
- Taube is right.

That's great brah but it still doesn't contradict calories in vs. calories out. It just says some types of food rev up your metabolism and so you burn more calories (e.g calories out) and are better for you - most sane people would realize that a diet of spinach and brocolli is probably going to allow you to eat more than ice cream.
 
OK but people aren't disputing that. But it still comes down to how many calories your body burns vs. how many you take. No one is claiming 2000 Twinkie calories are the same as 2000 calories of broccoli and spinach. There are ways to rev up your metabolism and ways to inhibit it - but it's still part of the calories in vs. out.

That's great brah but it still doesn't contradict calories in vs. calories out. It just says some types of food rev up your metabolism and so you burn more calories (e.g calories out) and are better for you - most sane people would realize that a diet of spinach and brocolli is probably going to allow you to eat more than ice cream.

It's not simply a matter of revving up one's metabolism. If you eat foods that promote storage of rather than burning of those consumed calories, you will gain fat. Recall that insulin doesn't just clear glucose from the bloodstream, but it upregulates lipoprotein lipase, which then promotes storage in adipose tissue. So, for those with metabolic syndrome, numbering in the tens of millions in the US alone, their hallmark insulin resistance promotes fat gain. Insulin also downregulates hormone-sensitive lipase, inhibiting lipolysis and "trapping" fat in adipose.

Yes, sugars are worst, and glycemic load matters somewhat. But for those with insulin resistance, total carb load is likely the key. Metabolically, it's the response to the calories that counts more than the calories themselves.

Many of the clinical trials involving low-fat vs. low-carb are set up such that the low-fat group eats a stritly controlled number of calories while the low-carb group eats ad libitum. In the end, the calories end up taking care of themselves. Yet, low-carb diets always fare at least as well, and usually better, than the low-fat groups, both in weight loss and improvements in cardiovascular risk factors (TGs, HDL, LDL particle size, etc.).

One of the reasons for low-carbers being able to eat ad lib gets back to the hormone-sensitive lipase issue. When that enzyme is able to do its job, there is a steady release of fatty acids from adipose into the bloodstream, where cells can then oxidize them for energy; energy that doesn't need to be consumed as additional calories.
 
LOL. I really had no idea so many SDN members were familiar with the Gary Taubes/Robert Lustig/Sally Fallon/Nutrition&Metabolism (Feinman/Volek/Westman) high fat/low carb dogma. I definitely find there are valid argument intertwined in their spiel, but also many fallacies. Check out the following sites for some interesting critiques on the "scientific research" behind low-carb diets.

http://weightology.net/?cat=79
http://carbsanity.blogspot.com/search/label/Gary%20Taubes%20Fact%20Check
http://nutritionovereasy.com/2011/05/the-antidote-to-fructose-fears

I've been reading Carbsane's stuff for awhile, and she does make some valid points and tries to tame some low-carb fanaticism. But, in the end, she still eats low-carb nonetheless.

The fact that more of us are familiar with the personalities you listed tells me that, in time, ideas and policies about diet and nutrition will change. But it will happen slowly, as much has been invested in the low-fat message over decades.
 
I understand that more energy is lost as heat in metabolism of protein than in the metabolism of fat/carbs, theoretically meaning that 1 calorie of protein means fewer "net calories" for the body than 1 calorie of carbs.

Here's what I don't get. That additional energy is lost as heat. But we are warm blooded animals that have to generate heat in order to survive (except in rare circumstances during exercise or living in death valley). Say person A is on a high protein diet, and person B is on a low protein diet. They both have a temp of 98.6, and thus both expend similar quantities of energy as heat. So whether you generate that heat from inefficient protein metabolism or from utilization of fat or glycogen stores shouldn't matter.
 
So a lot of people here are saying that high carb diets are bad? As a vegan who east mostly raw food (50% or more) my diet involves an enormous amount of raw fruits and vegetables, foods that are very low in fat (I eat a set portion of almonds/walnuts/sunflower seeds to get SOME fat) but high in carbs, but I also restrict my calories in order to extend lifespan. (Not a problem for me, an entire bag of spinach has ~20 calories). Besides feeling great, I look years younger then my actual age and wouldn't ever think of changing my diet. Granted almost all my carbs are complex and I think that really helps avoid any of the bad affects that these high carb diet studies suggest. Thoughtss?
 
So I watched the Taubes video... I get the low carb aspect. So is the diet these people are saying to eat a indeterminate amount of calories, protein, fat with low carb??
 
So a lot of people here are saying that high carb diets are bad? As a vegan who east mostly raw food (50% or more) my diet involves an enormous amount of raw fruits and vegetables, foods that are very low in fat (I eat a set portion of almonds/walnuts/sunflower seeds to get SOME fat) but high in carbs, but I also restrict my calories in order to extend lifespan. (Not a problem for me, an entire bag of spinach has ~20 calories). Besides feeling great, I look years younger then my actual age and wouldn't ever think of changing my diet. Granted almost all my carbs are complex and I think that really helps avoid any of the bad affects that these high carb diet studies suggest. Thoughtss?
Do you take vitamin B12 supplements?

My thoughts are that humans wouldn't have even evolved if we had eaten a diet like yours. The whole reason we even have brains as powerful as we do is because we switched our diets from predominantly vegetable/plant matter to meat--protein and fat. Carbohydrates are not energy dense--we have to eat tons more of them to get the same amount of energy we would from meat, so processing all those carbs requires more energy be devoted to the digestive system. When we switched to meat, the resources that previously had to be devoted to digestion, could now be funneled into our nervous systems. This did not cause our brains to evolve, but it allowed them to be able to. Switching to a meat-based diet removed the roadblock.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/2744104

You can read the first page.

BTW, looking younger really means nothing. I had a friend who smoked a pack a day for years and looked like a teenager.
 
Do you take vitamin B12 supplements?

My thoughts are that humans wouldn't have even evolved if we had eaten a diet like yours. The whole reason we even have brains as powerful as we do is because we switched our diets from predominantly vegetable/plant matter to meat--protein and fat. Carbohydrates are not energy dense--we have to eat tons more of them to get the same amount of energy we would from meat, so processing all those carbs requires more energy be devoted to the digestive system. When we switched to meat, the resources that previously had to be devoted to digestion, could now be funneled into our nervous systems. This did not cause our brains to evolve, but it allowed them to be able to. Switching to a meat-based diet removed the roadblock.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/2744104

You can read the first page.

BTW, looking younger really means nothing. I had a friend who smoked a pack a day for years and looked like a teenager.

The problem with carbs is that in excess they are preferentially converted to fat in metabolism whereas proteins are a hell of a lot tougher biochemically to be converted to fat... therefore high protein diets don't contribute to obesity etc.

I'm a vegetarian but not a vegan, so I can't speak for the poster you're replying to, but I have eaten meat in the past... I definitely feel much healthier on a purely vegetarian diet. As for the evolutionary thing... meh. There's a LOT of theories about how we developed higher cognition and I honestly doubt that a switch to a meat diet is exactly how it happened.
 
The problem with carbs is that in excess they are preferentially converted to fat in metabolism whereas proteins are a hell of a lot tougher biochemically to be converted to fat... therefore high protein diets don't contribute to obesity etc.

I'm a vegetarian but not a vegan, so I can't speak for the poster you're replying to, but I have eaten meat in the past... I definitely feel much healthier on a purely vegetarian diet. As for the evolutionary thing... meh. There's a LOT of theories about how we developed higher cognition and I honestly doubt that a switch to a meat diet is exactly how it happened.
Ahh--it wasn't the impetus, exactly, it was more like the removal of an impediment. Let's say you have a Porsche in your driveway, and for whatever reason there's a boot on the car, so you can't drive it. The car has the capability to go 160 mph, but until you get the boot off, it never will. Switching to a meat based diet was like removing the boot.

And you're right, there's a lot of theories as to what was actually the impetus for the development of the hominid brain. The one I personally believe is that it occurred as a result of the switch to hunting. The ones who had the biggest brain could develop the best hunting strategy, and they were the ones who brought food home to their families, while the less intelligent ones starved.

P.S. Would you like to see the full journal article? I can send it to you, it's very interesting.
 
Last edited:
Well, our neighbor to the south recently beat us out at being the fattest country on Earth. According to the NY Times article, about 70% of Mexicans (living in Mexico) are obese. Additionally, the article stated that "Mexicans drink more soft drinks than anyone else in the world, except Americans." Sugar (in drinks, pastries, hidden in all sorts of foods) makes people fat, not eating fat per se. I believe that a low simple sugar, high lean protein, high vegetable and WHOLE grain diet is the way to go.


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/29/international/americas/29obese.html
 
The problem, I think, is that people combine too many SIMPLE, PROCESSED carbohydrates with their high fat diets. You can't have it both ways. Vegans who eat a ton of raw, unprocessed vegetables will probably not be affected by their high carb consumption the way mentioned fat person would be affected by carbs in his/her Twinkie. That and fat people tend to be more sedentary than thin people.

I WAS ONCE FAT MYSELF, SO I AM ONLY SPEAKING FROM MY ANECDOTAL LIFE EXPERIENCE. Thank you.
 
Do you take vitamin B12 supplements?

My thoughts are that humans wouldn't have even evolved if we had eaten a diet like yours. The whole reason we even have brains as powerful as we do is because we switched our diets from predominantly vegetable/plant matter to meat--protein and fat. Carbohydrates are not energy dense--we have to eat tons more of them to get the same amount of energy we would from meat, so processing all those carbs requires more energy be devoted to the digestive system. When we switched to meat, the resources that previously had to be devoted to digestion, could now be funneled into our nervous systems. This did not cause our brains to evolve, but it allowed them to be able to. Switching to a meat-based diet removed the roadblock.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/2744104

You can read the first page.

BTW, looking younger really means nothing. I had a friend who smoked a pack a day for years and looked like a teenager.

Carbs and proteins both yield around 4 Calories per gram, so I'm not what you mean by carbs vs. meat being easier to digest. Some people will look younger then other due to genetic differences, but ever since starting a vegan & calorie restricted diet I actually look younger now then when I started, and will continue to look much younger then my years, and this has been the case for a lot of people I know who have also switched to a raw vegan diet. Calorie restriction is right now the only method shown to increase lifespan in almost all known organisms tested:



The monkey on the left was allowed to eat ad libitum, while the monkey on the right ate the same food pellets but was calorie restricted (Typically 30% less). Not only is he more alert and active then his left counterpart, but has a shiner thicker coat and markedly clearer eyes and younger complexion. These differences were due to a simple calorie reduction.

Also take a look at Mimi Kirk, winner of PETA's sexiest vegetarian over 50 contest, she won first place AT 71 years old 😱😱 She is a raw vegan and has said that her diet has kept her looking and feeling great.

600mimikirk-269x300.jpg


To answer your question I don't take any B12 supplements and I feel fine despite eating this way for just about 2 years. Blood work has shown no deficiencies either.
 
It's FAT that is the important macronutrient for what I was discussing, not so much protein. Fat has ~9 cal/g.

Vitamin B12 deficiency can potentially cause severe and irreversible damage, especially to the brain and nervous system. At levels only slightly lower than normal, a range of symptoms such as fatigue, depression, and poor memory may be experienced.[
Not something I would play around with if I were you.

Anyway, my point was that vitamin B12 is something we can only get from eating animal products. That by itself should tell you something.
 
Carbs and proteins both yield around 4 Calories per gram, so I'm not what you mean by carbs vs. meat being easier to digest. Some people will look younger then other due to genetic differences, but ever since starting a vegan & calorie restricted diet I actually look younger now then when I started, and will continue to look much younger then my years, and this has been the case for a lot of people I know who have also switched to a raw vegan diet. Calorie restriction is right now the only method shown to increase lifespan in almost all known organisms tested:

lol dude sorry to rain on your parade but just about every putative explanation for WHY Calorie Restriction (CR) slows aging has to do with it limiting CARB metabolism!

See:

1. "How does calorie restriction work?" Or hell, even
2. the Wiki article on it will do:

Mitochondrial hormesis
The mitochondrial hormesis was a purely hypothetical concept until late 2007 when work by Michael Ristow's group in a small worm named Caenorhabditis elegans suggests that restriction of glucose metabolism extends life span primarily by increasing oxidative stress to stimulate the organism into having an ultimately increased resistance to further oxidative stress.[52] This is probably the first experimental evidence for hormesis being the reason for extended life span following CR.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calorie_restriction#Mechanism_of_Action

Referenced article:

Glucose Restriction Extends Caenorhabditis elegans Life Span by Inducing Mitochondrial Respiration and Increasing Oxidative Stress

Tim J. Schulz1, 2, Kim Zarse1, Anja Voigt1, 2, Nadine Urban1, Marc Birringer1 and Michael Ristow1, 2, ,

Summary

Increasing cellular glucose uptake is a fundamental concept in treatment of type 2 diabetes, whereas nutritive calorie restriction increases life expectancy. We show here that increased glucose availability decreases Caenorhabditis elegans life span, while impaired glucose metabolism extends life expectancy by inducing mitochondrial respiration. The histone deacetylase Sir2.1 is found here to be dispensable for this phenotype, whereas disruption of aak-2, a homolog of AMP-dependent kinase (AMPK), abolishes extension of life span due to impaired glycolysis. Reduced glucose availability promotes formation of reactive oxygen species (ROS), induces catalase activity, and increases oxidative stress resistance and survival rates, altogether providing direct evidence for a hitherto hypothetical concept named mitochondrial hormesis or "mitohormesis." Accordingly, treatment of nematodes with different antioxidants and vitamins prevents extension of life span. In summary, these data indicate that glucose restriction promotes mitochondrial metabolism, causing increased ROS formation and cumulating in hormetic extension of life span, questioning current treatments of type 2 diabetes as well as the widespread use of antioxidant supplements.

http://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/retrieve/pii/S1550413107002562

In fact, it was noticed years ago that feeding C. elegans sugar reduces their lifespan. And it has even scared some researchers on aging and calorie restriction to go low carb! Meet Cynthia Kenyon:

Nevertheless, the discoveries about the role of the insulin/IGF-1 pathway in ageing have had a profound impact on [Kenyon's] own lifestyle, which includes a tendency to discard the bread from sandwiches and eat only the toppings of pizzas. "I'm on a low-carb diet. I gave my worms glucose, and it shortened their lifespan. [The diet] makes sense because it keeps your insulin levels down," she says.

http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.0020012

Anyways, as far as your dilemma is concerned, if being a vegan works for you, do you. More meat for the rest of us lmao. Health-wise, if you intend on eating carbs obviously your approach is the way to go!
 
No. Not really. I don't think it's simple.

Previous research had shown that laboratory animals given 30 percent to 50 percent less food can live up to 50 percent longer. Because of those findings, some people have adopted calorie restriction in the hope that they can lengthen their lives. But the new research suggests the diet may not have the desired effect unless people on calorie restriction also pay attention to their protein intake.
In an article published online this month in the journal Aging Cell, investigators point to a discrepancy between humans and animals on calorie restriction. In the majority of the animal models of longevity, extended lifespan involves pathways related to a growth factor called IGF-1 (insulin-like growth factor-1), which is produced primarily in the liver. Production is stimulated by growth hormone and can be reduced by fasting or by insensitivity to growth hormone. In calorie-restricted animals, levels of circulating IGF-1 decline between 30 percent and 40 percent.
"We looked at IGF-1 in humans doing calorie restriction," says first author Luigi Fontana, M.D., Ph.D., assistant professor of medicine at Washington University and an investigator at the Istituto Superiore di Sanità in Rome, Italy. "For years, we have been following a cohort of people from the CR Society who have been on long-term calorie restriction. We found no difference in IGF-1 levels between people on calorie restriction and those who are not."
The CR Society members, who call themselves CRONies (Calorie Restriction with Optimal Nutrition), had been on a calorie-restriction diet for an average of seven years when Fontana did the measurements, but their IGF-1 levels were virtually identical to sedentary people who ate a standard, Western diet.
Because calorie restriction is linked to extraordinary increases in maximal lifespan in rats and mice, Fontana and colleagues at Washington University, including principal investigator John O. Holloszy, M.D., professor of medicine, have been involved in a scientific study that compares calorie restriction to exercise and measures many biological factors linked to longevity and health. Called the CALERIE study (Comprehensive Assessment of the Long term Effects of Reducing Intake of Energy), the project randomly divided 48 people into three groups: Eighteen cut their caloric intake by 25 percent for one year. Another 18 started exercising to increase their energy expenditure by 25 percent for a year. A third group of 10 people didn't change anything.
At the end of that year, the investigators measured IGF-1 levels in all three groups. Again they found no reductions in the group on calorie restriction.
"That was puzzling because it was the first time we hadn't seen agreement between mice and rats on calorie restriction and humans on calorie restriction," Fontana explains. "But we know there are two major influences on IGF-1 levels: calorie intake and protein intake. So we decided to look at the influence of protein."
Again, Fontana had a ready-made study group. His team has been following a population of strict vegans for several years. They tend to eat less protein than the CRONies from the CR Society, so he compared IGF-1 levels between the two groups.
"The vegans had significantly less circulating IGF-1, even if they were heavier and had more body fat than CRONies," he says. "Protein in the diet seemed to correlate with the lower levels of IGF-1. The strict vegans took in about 10 percent of their total calories from protein, whereas those on calorie restriction tended to get about 23 or 24 percent of calories from protein."
The investigators wanted to take one more look at the relationship between dietary protein and IGF-1, so Fontana asked a group of CRONies to eat less protein for a few weeks. He says it was not easy to cut protein because those on calorie restriction have to do a lot of calculating and juggling to ensure they take in very few calories and still get adequate nutrition. Increasing dietary protein is one way many CRONies guard against becoming malnourished.
"But six of them agreed to lower their protein intake," Fontana explains, "and after three weeks their circulating IGF-1 declined dramatically."
Previous research from Fontana's group had found that a diet lower in protein might protect against some cancers. These more recent findings suggest lowering protein also might be important to longevity. Fontana admits his evidence is preliminary, but the findings suggest that when people adjust their diets to improve health and lengthen life, they should control not only calories and fat but also keep an eye on protein.
Fontana isn't proposing radical low-protein diets. Instead, he is suggesting the current recommended daily allowance (RDA) for protein, which is 0.82 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight, or about 56 grams of protein for an average, adult man and 46 grams for an average, adult woman. Most people, including CRONies, consume much more protein than the RDA recommendation.
"It's much easier to restrict protein than to restrict calories," he says. "If our research is on the right track, maybe humans don't need to be so calorie restricted. Limiting protein intake to .7 or .8 grams per kilogram per day might be more effective. That's just a hypothesis. We have to confirm it in future studies."
Until then, Fontana suggests people might want to look at protein consumption and tailor it to RDA recommendations. Traditionally, he says, nutritionists have not worried about people eating too much protein, but these findings suggest perhaps they should.

lol dude sorry to rain on your parade but just about every putative explanation for WHY Calorie Restriction (CR) slows aging has to do with it limiting CARB metabolism!

See:

1. "How does calorie restriction work?" Or hell, even
2. the Wiki article on it will do:



Referenced article:



In fact, it was noticed years ago that feeding C. elegans sugar reduces their lifespan. And it has even scared some researchers on aging and calorie restriction to go low carb! Meet Cynthia Kenyon:



Anyways, as far as your dilemma is concerned, if being a vegan works for you, do you. More meat for the rest of us lmao. Health-wise, if you intend on eating carbs obviously your approach is the way to go!
 
Last edited:
Ahh--it wasn't the impetus, exactly, it was more like the removal of an impediment. Let's say you have a Porsche in your driveway, and for whatever reason there's a boot on the car, so you can't drive it. The car has the capability to go 160 mph, but until you get the boot off, it never will. Switching to a meat based diet was like removing the boot.

And you're right, there's a lot of theories as to what was actually the impetus for the development of the hominid brain. The one I personally believe is that it occurred as a result of the switch to hunting. The ones who had the biggest brain could develop the best hunting strategy, and they were the ones who brought food home to their families, while the less intelligent ones starved.

P.S. Would you like to see the full journal article? I can send it to you, it's very interesting.
Meh regardless of whether meat was the driver of large brain sizes, it does not then follow that meat is necessarily the healthiest diet. I mean meat may be the best diet if you want to live to 26 (which is what the life expectancy would have been in those days if you were lucky) but it may not be the best if you wanted to live to 80. So it's not like the average person back then had remotely the variety and quality of fruits and vegetables available that we do now, definitely not pre-farming and even for the vast majority of people post-farming whereas meat would have given a LOT of calories (and lots of protein) quickly and efficiently. So it would be obvious why that would win out vs. a non meat foraging diet that would have consisted of a very few items around the area where you happened to be living - so it still wouldn't be a valid head to head comparison.

I mean meat makes up 90% of my diet (I'm pretty unhealthy) so I'm certainly not a vegetarian, let alone a vegan, but the evolution brain size argument is not really relevant to the question at hand.

Also, that's why I laugh at the 'cave man diet'. Yup, gimmie the diet that allowed these awesomely healthy cavemen to live to the ripe old age of 25 (obviously diet was just one factor in life expectancy but you could feed people twinkies and you would likely make it until 25 - that doesn't mean an all twinkie diet is healthy).
 
Last edited:
lulz had to google scholar the hell outta that to find the original article. In the process, stumbled across

Long-term effects of calorie restriction on serum sex-hormone concentrations in men
Roberto Cangemi1,2, Alberto J. Friedmann1, John O. Holloszy1, Luigi Fontana1,3


17-&#946;-estradiol;calorie restriction;DHEA-S;endurance exercise;sex hormone binding globulin;sex hormones;testosterone
Summary
Calorie restriction (CR) slows aging and consistently reduces circulating sex hormones in laboratory animals. However, nothing is known regarding the long-term effects of CR with adequate nutrition on serum sex-hormone concentration in lean healthy humans. In this study, we measured body composition, and serum total testosterone, total 17-&#946;-estradiol, sex hormone&#8211;binding globulin (SHBG), and dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate (DHEA-S) concentrations in 24 men (mean age 51.5 ± 13 years), who had been practicing CR with adequate nutrition for an average of 7.4 ± 4.5 years, in 24 age- and body fat&#8211;matched endurance runners (EX), and 24 age-matched sedentary controls eating Western diets (WD). We found that both the CR and EX volunteers had significantly lower body fat than the WD volunteers (total body fat, 8.7 ± 4.2%; 10.5 ± 4.4%; 23.2 ± 6.1%, respectively; P = 0.0001). Serum total testosterone and the free androgen index were significantly lower, and SHBG was higher in the CR group than in the EX and WD groups (P &#8804; 0.001). Serum 17&#946;-estradiol and the estradiol:SHBG ratio were both significantly lower in the CR and EX groups than in the WD group (P &#8804; 0.005). Serum DHEA-S concentrations were not different between the three groups. These findings demonstrate that, as in long-lived CR rodents, long-term severe CR reduces serum total and free testosterone and increases SHBG concentrations in humans, independently of adiposity. More studies are needed to understand the role of this CR-mediated reduction in sex hormones in modulating the pathogenesis of age-associated chronic diseases such as cancer and the aging process itself.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1474-9726.2010.00553.x/full


...


gifface243.gif
 
Top