For all those that share Brian's "50 lb. goal" in 2008

[Bronco Billy]

Zero Carbs......

Bronco Billy - you are frickin' killin' me here, man. Hey, I'm on your side, for the most part.

The Zone is just Atkins/Taubes for very active people. Same principles. Do you think athletes riding stages of 130 mile bike race are just so fat they are getting hungry? They have to have access to energy to finish a race. Tiger isn't eating a piece of fruit on the 16th hole because he's too fat. The critic above who stated that Atkins people sometime experience serious loss of energy/fatigue issues is correct although on balance every day they experience a lot less fatigue than people who constantly overconsume carbs and feel the sugar highs and lows. You probably regulate better than most and are closer to a balance than the people who still need to lose significant weight.

Exercise increases the amount of energy you can consume without gaining weight.Taubes said exercise doesn't work for most people to lose weight because they get hungry. That's what he says. A more precise formulation would be that exercise increases the number of carb grams you can eat before you stop or slow the fat burning for energy process that causes you to lose weight and once people are hungry because of exercise they overestimate how many carb grams they need to get back to zero where they can burn fat instead of store fat. The Zone gives you a good idea of that energy/food equation.

All of human nutritional science is rudimentary compared with theoretical physics, it is ridiculous to think it won't be refined significiantly. The back and forth between various camps with various dietary studies is a part of that evolutionary process. Newton was wrong in part, so was Einstein, so I'm gonna' guess Taubes has a least a few errors and that he would be the first to say that's true (even if the key premises turn out to be true).

The good news is that not all of science of physics has to be know to construct an airplane, and not all of nutritional science had to be understood to learn how to lose or gain weight.

Taubes States/Implies that ZERO Carbs are Needed for a Human Beings Healthy Existence......And I Totally Agree With This ZERO Carb Assertion.... Have a Great Day with Your New Found Knowledge.......

 

[niblick1]

Errrr...wrong again. People don't lose weight with conventional wisdom and the food pyramid BECAUSE THEY DON'T FOLLOW IT. People cheat their diets and then complain that they don't lose weight.

I agree that people cheat on their diets. They do so because their diets make them hungry because they are poorly constructed based on ineffective or at best partially flawed science. The diets don't work well. You think if the diets worked well so many people would find them so hard?

Atkins is based on better science (even if he came across as a crank and did a poor job presenting the science side early on), so people are less hungry while eating that way, the science is better, and they lose much more weight.

The issue is can they sustain that for a lifetime and what are the side effects of adopting the approach. What you learn from reading Taubes (have you read it yet?) is that the side effects may be great and not bad as the average medical practitioner believes. And perhaps an Atkins approach even once you reach your ideal weight is the best from a health perspective if your goal is to avoid other diseases.

Seriously, read taubes and report back. This is not a "Eat Grapefruit 30 days a month and lose 100 Pounds!" kind of crackpot book. It is a survey of current science (the science in your nutrition textbook) used to argue a specific set of scientific hypotheses.

IMO talk about golf swing theory reads more like religion than this. Nutrition is based on science(some good, some bad unfortunately). The golf swing is a purely man made motion that can only partly be explained in scientific terms.

True enough. Purely theoretical science is both easier and harder.

 

[niblick1]

Taubes States/Implies that ZERO Carbs are Needed for a Human Beings Healthy Existence......And I Totally Agree With This ZERO Carb Assertion.... Have a Great Day with Your New Found Knowledge.......

And my basic point is for the inactive American sitting at a desk all day reading the internet arguing with a guy riding a recumbent bicycle, very few carbs will suffice while you are burning fat. Run out of fat and then get a job working hard outside all day or start training for bike races and you won't be able to function for long.

Did you read the whole Taubes' book? Remember the sugar cane workers who chew on sugar cane all day while chopping sugar cane? They don't get fat. They also could not function on a zero carb appoach at the same level of extreme exertion. But almost none of us chop sugar cane 10 hours a day or ride in the Tour de France, and most have fat stores, so 20 grams of carb a day are fine for most of us.

 

[Bronco Billy]

Screw the Sports Drink.....

And my basic point is for the inactive American sitting at a desk all day reading the internet arguing with a guy riding a recumbent bicycle, very few carbs will suffice while you are burning fat. Run out of fat and then get a job working hard outside all day or start training for bike races and you won't be able to function for long.

Did you read the whole Taubes' book? Remember the sugar cane workers who chew on sugar cane all day while chopping sugar cane? They don't get fat. They also could not function on a zero carb appoach at the same level of extreme exertion. But almost none of us chop sugar cane 10 hours a day or ride in the Tour de France, and most have fat stores, so 20 grams of carb a day are fine for most of us.

Except when You are Golfing in the Winter.......Have a Coors Lite and a Bag of Planters Peanuts instead of the GD Sports Drink...... Hell You're a Fat Guy.... The Reason you are Dizzy is because Your Hungary.... Why Exasperate the Situation..... Have a Great Day.....

 

[lia41985]

Bronco--honestly, thefuture37 is wrong, but dude, you're nuts. Plants--fruits and vegetables, have carbohydrates and should be part of any healthy diet. Nuts, which are good for you, have carbohydrates. Doesn't Atkins re-introduce fruits and vegetables after the induction phase? You're an Atkins literalist. I've read Taubes book--it's excellent. Why don't you move on and read "In Defense of Food" by Michael Pollan. Also check out arthurdevany.com or modernforager.com. You need to expand your mind...

 

[thefuture37]

I agree that people cheat on their diets. They do so because their diets make them hungry because they are poorly constructed based on ineffective or at best partially flawed science. The diets don't work well. You think if the diets worked well so many people would find them so hard?

Atkins is based on better science (even if he came across as a crank and did a poor job presenting the science side early on), so people are less hungry while eating that way, the science is better, and they lose much more weight.

People find it hard to follow a traditional diet because they have been so desensitized to what food actually tastes like versus what they have been eating. When you spend your whole life eating food with tons of added sugar, salt, oil, fat, etc.. eating a carrot isn't going to do it for you. This is a mental problem, not a problem with the "traditional" diet.

Atkins is based somewhat on science, but is it really better science? Atkins works by depleting your glycogen stores so that you go into ketoacidosis and have to get your energy from burning fat. This is all well and good except for the fact that the brain REALLY wants to run off carbohydrate energy(glucose). But if there isn't any, it can run off of ketone bodies, which are made from fatty acids. The downside of this is that the brain doesn't function as well as if it had glucose(see below), and you are consuming more protein(stresses the liver) and more fat(stresses the heart) and less fiber(stresses the GI tract), and less antioxidants etc(naturally found in fruits and vegetables). So is Atkins based on science? Yes. Will it result in weight loss? Yes. Does it make you healthier? maybe but probably not. If you are morbidly obese and can lose 100s of pounds with Atkins, then you are going to be healthier simply by losing the weight. But is the added health going to offset all the downsides of Atkins? probably not. For someone who is only overweight(not obese) the downsides are definitely not worth it.

"Mental health seems to be impaired by ketosis. Performance on the "Trail-making Task," a neuropsychological test which requires higher order mental processing and flexibility was found to be adversely affected by the ketogenic diet (Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 19:811, 1995)."
from http://www.drmcdougall.com/res_high_protein_diets.html

 

[self-mastery]

Interesting topic! I'm surprised that we have been able to remain civil!

I found this interesting book last night:

http://www.ourcivilisation.com/fat/index.htm

Just to see what happens, I'm attempting a zero carb diet for thirty days. Wish me luck and high energy.

 

[niblick1]

Except when You are Golfing in the Winter.......Have a Coors Lite and a Bag of Planters Peanuts instead of the GD Sports Drink...... Hell You're a Fat Guy.... The Reason you are Dizzy is because Your Hungary.... Why Exasperate the Situation..... Have a Great Day.....

I would sign you up for my team if I needed someone to ram their heads into a brick wall repeatedly and often. Or maybe someone to cover a kick-off.

 

[lia41985]

The trail-making test consists of tracing a line between numbers in ascending numerical order. The numbers are, of course, arranged randomly so as to require scanning.

Everyone do yourself a favor, and read this essay: http://www.arthurdevany.com/webstuff/images/RevisedEssay.pdf

 

[lia41985]

Interesting topic! I'm surprised that we have been able to remain civil!

I found this interesting book last night:

http://www.ourcivilisation.com/fat/index.htm

Just to see what happens, I'm attempting a zero carb diet for thirty days. Wish me luck and high energy.

Thanks for the link!

 

[Bronco Billy]

you're nuts. Plants--fruits and vegetables, have carbohydrates..... Good One!

Bronco--honestly, thefuture37 is wrong, but dude, you're nuts. Plants--fruits and vegetables, have carbohydrates and should be part of any healthy diet. Nuts, which are good for you, have carbohydrates. Doesn't Atkins re-introduce fruits and vegetables after the induction phase? You're an Atkins literalist. I've read Taubes book--it's excellent. Why don't you move on and read "In Defense of Food" by Michael Pollan. Also check out arthurdevany.com or modernforager.com. You need to expand your mind...

All Taubes and Me said was that if one Took Carbs off the Earth... We as a Species Would Survive..... And I Truly Believe this Assertion....Hell I eat Battered Fried Chicken/Fish... Peanuts everyday Etc.....The only reason I eat carbs is because for the Life of Me I Can't Get them down to Zero and still eat what I want to eat...... Have a Great Day....

 

[self-mastery]

you are consuming more protein(stresses the liver) and more fat(stresses the heart) and less fiber(stresses the GI tract), and less antioxidants etc(naturally found in fruits and vegetables).

What is the traditional diet? You use that term as if it is universal, and easily validified. We all agree that it is the added unnatural foods, and a sedentary lifestyle that causes the most harm.

How does more fat stress the heart in a low carb diet? If you are in ketosis, fat is being used to fuel the body; it is not allowed to stagnate in the bloodstream , nor is it converted into adipose tissue.

Are you a vegetarian?

 

[Bronco Billy]

Zero Carbs....

Interesting topic! I'm surprised that we have been able to remain civil!

I found this interesting book last night:

http://www.ourcivilisation.com/fat/index.htm

Just to see what happens, I'm attempting a zero carb diet for thirty days. Wish me luck and high energy.

Here's what I eat when I go Back to Induction......It is zero carbs, very filling and Terrific eating.... 6 fried eggs and a 1/2# of Bacon 3 times a day..... It is a total of 2500 Calories and I lose weight like Crazy.... And of Course I am Never Hungary.....Have a Great Day....

 

[thefuture37]

What is the traditional diet? You use that term as if it is universal, and easily validified. We all agree that it is the added unnatural foods, and a sedentary lifestyle that causes the most harm.

How does more fat stress the heart in a low carb diet? If you are in ketosis, fat is being used to fuel the body; it is not allowed to stagnate in the bloodstream , nor is it converted into adipose tissue.

Are you a vegetarian?

High protein/fat low carb diets promote the eating of foods that are high in saturated fat(i.e. red meat, butter). Diets high in saturated fat have been linked to increases in heart disease. All the fat you eat doesn't go to providing energy during ketosis. Your body requires fat for some normal processes(making/maintaining cell membranes, myelinating neurons, etc...). Dietary saturated fats are not required for any of these processes. The saturated fats that you need(i.e. for lipid rafts) can be synthesized from unsaturated fats.

A traditional diet refers to the diet described by the food pyramid. High in whole grains, vegetables, fruits, moderate in animal proteins, and low in fats and refined sugars.

I am a vegetarian, but not because I am averse to eating animals because they have some right to life like PETA believes. I don't eat animal products because on the whole they are bad for you. Their benefits can be easily obtained in other plant foods.

 

[niblick1]

the future 37 -

Your arguments are all discussed in detail in Taubes' book -- the ketosis argument, really all the arguments you made. He replies to them because he understands those arguments represent a good portion of current scientific thought. You really ought to read the book and see if you find his arguments convincing or not - although I suspect you will not find the book appealing as the book is very critical of a certain holistic/vegetarian view that he sees as the political basis of much of the failed dietary policy of the last 40 years.

Some of the larger arguments being made are:

1) equating what happens in a low carb diet to a diabetic in a ketosis state is inaccurate;

2) that the reason typical low calorie diets fail is that they do not lower carb enough to get someone into the state where they are actually burning fat but instead keep them in a state of hunger where they are also not burning fat as efficiently as they could be and "the state of hunger" is tough state to live in for months at a time and not as effective as it could be;

3) people can live only a very low amount of carbs and used to do so not very long ago, and it may be healthier keeping that carb level very,very low in order to avoid heart disease and cancer. At a minimum, even very fit and lean people should consider avoiding highly processed foods (white rice, sugar, flour not to mention things like high-fructose corn syrup, which is discussed in detail) high in glycemic impact even if it does not make them fat. And overweight people certainly need to avoid these foods if they want to have a chance to lose weight;

4) grossly speaking (and putting the saturated and trans fat issues to the side), eating fat does not cause fat to be deposited in your arteries, which is the layman's understanding of the risk of eating fat (and certainly not current scientific view);

5) the current view that fat is bad and the food pyramid good was not based on sound science but on politics of the 60's, and much of the science that has followed is based on politics, not science;

6) the conventional wisdom that existed 50 or 100 years ago that to lose weight you avoid "starches" was far more effective in promoting weight loss than the current, "reduce calories some, eat whole grain food, exercise more" (to grossly oversimplify);

7) political decisions about nutritional science have created the current obesity epidemic, not a sudden collective loss of willpower, which if you think about it, does seem absurd.

 

[thefuture37]

the future 37 -
Some of the larger arguments being made are:

1) equating what happens in a low carb diet to a diabetic in a ketosis state is inaccurate;

I never said anything about diabetes. If you are a diabetic, consult your doctor, not a golf forum thread.

2) that the reason typical low calorie diets fail is that they do not lower carb enough to get someone into the state where they are actually burning fat but instead keep them in a state of hunger where they are also not burning fat as efficiently as they could be and "the state of hunger" is tough state to live in for months at a time and not as effective as it could be;

Low calorie diets fail for a number of reasons, mainly because people look for any way possible to cheat them. For example, choosing a small amount of calorie dense foods rather than a large amount of foods that have a low calorie density(vegetables). Ultimately they fail because people want to lose weight but they don't want to do any work to lose the weight.

3) people can live only a very low amount of carbs and used to do so not very long ago, and it may be healthier keeping that carb level very,very low in order to avoid heart disease and cancer. At a minimum, even very fit and lean people should consider avoiding highly processed foods (white rice, sugar, flour not to mention things like high-fructose corn syrup, which is discussed in detail) high in glycemic impact even if it does not make them fat. And overweight people certainly need to avoid these foods if they want to have a chance to lose weight;

I assume you are talking about Inuits/Eskimo types. Presumably, these people evolved(micro not macro) to be better genetically at metabolizing fat/protein(people that had these genes had selective advantage), because it was the only food available. Additionally, they had lifestyles that were very physically demanding.

4) eating fat does not cause fat to be deposited in your arteries, which is the layman's understanding of the risk of eating fat (and certainly not current scientific view);

If anything by now you should know that I possess more knowledge than a layman in this area. Personally, I have never even heard of someone who thinks dietary fat is deposited in the arteries. What research did Taubes do to determine that this is the current state of the layman's thoughts?

5) the current view that fat is bad and the food pyramid good was not based on sound science but on politics of the 60's, and much of the science that has followed is based on politics, not science;

This is partly true. I don't agree 100% with the food pyramid, but it is mostly right(majority of calories from whole grains, vegetables, fruits; minimal fat, added sugar). Fat is bad in high quantities. Your body only needs certain amounts of even unsaturated fats. The excess is stored as adipose tissue, which is bad for your health if you have large amounts of it. Body fat releases signals that do all sorts bad things that researchers are just now finding out about.

6) the conventional wisdom, which existed 50 or 100 years ago that to lose weight you avoid "starches" was far more effective in promoting weight loss than the current, "reduce calories some, exercise more;"

Probably "successful" for the same reason as Atkins is. But does that make it better/healthier?

7) political decisions about nutritional science have created the current obesity epidemic, not a sudden collective loss of willpower, which if you think about it, does seem absurd.

Nothing is sudden when you talk about millions of people over decades. I agree that political decisions have been a big part of the obesity epidemic in this country. Big dollars are given to US farmers to grow tons of corn, much of which is made into high fructose corn syrup, which is ubiquitous in processed foods. Food that is bad for you is very easy and cheap to get. It takes willpower to avoid these foods in favor of something else. Most people don't have this and would rather try to use tricked-up science to lose weight(ATKINS!!).

 

[niblick1]

Hey, thefuture37, should we tackle global warming now??? Just kidding.

Well I think it's safe to say we disagree. I have been encouraging my cardiologist friends to read the book so we can talk about it, so this should have been good practice for those discussions in the future.

For what it's worth, folks, do consider reading the book. You may not agree, but it may make you re-consider some of what you belive to be true - even physicians out there. And I do not pretend to believe 100% of the underlying arguments of the book are true and also suspect Taubes is being deliberately provocative at times. I suspect it will take a long time until scientific consensus about these issues emerges.

Apart from repeatedly being called the "fat" guy in this thread (I keep hearing Cartman's voice in my head -"I 'm not fat, I'm just big boned!"), the discussion has been pretty civil. I am now going to abandon this thread and return to golf and working on improving my imperatives.

In the meantime if you are overweight and been trying something that has not worked, try something else. Just like if you have been diligently trying for a decade to steer the ball by hitting a thousand balls -- more diligence may not help the situation, you may instead need a different mindset and approach.

 

[Bronco Billy]

Center/Right Field.......

I would sign you up for my team if I needed someone to ram their heads into a brick wall repeatedly and often. Or maybe someone to cover a kick-off.

We Usually Put the FatGuy at Center in Football or Right Field in BaseBall......

 

[Bronco Billy]

Caveman in a Pinstriped Suit..............

The trail-making test consists of tracing a line between numbers in ascending numerical order. The numbers are, of course, arranged randomly so as to require scanning.

Everyone do yourself a favor, and read this essay: http://www.arthurdevany.com/webstuff/images/RevisedEssay.pdf[/QUOTE]

"In short, live, eat, work and play like it is 40,000 BC while you enjoy what the modern world has to offer. Take care of that hunter-gatherer mind and body that you carry in that pinstriped suit."......


Ps. This is a Quote from the Conclusion of the Posted Link......

 

[Bronco Billy]

Vegetarian....

High protein/fat low carb diets promote the eating of foods that are high in saturated fat(i.e. red meat, butter). Diets high in saturated fat have been linked to increases in heart disease. All the fat you eat doesn't go to providing energy during ketosis. Your body requires fat for some normal processes(making/maintaining cell membranes, myelinating neurons, etc...). Dietary saturated fats are not required for any of these processes. The saturated fats that you need(i.e. for lipid rafts) can be synthesized from unsaturated fats.

A traditional diet refers to the diet described by the food pyramid. High in whole grains, vegetables, fruits, moderate in animal proteins, and low in fats and refined sugars.

I am a vegetarian, but not because I am averse to eating animals because they have some right to life like PETA believes. I don't eat animal products because on the whole they are bad for you. Their benefits can be easily obtained in other plant foods.

You are Somewhat Well Known in the Bike/Trike World and have a Website(s).... Correct? I Hope You are Feeling Well and Have Your Weight Under Control.....