(07-06-2011 09:12 PM)Happy Wrote:  Pretty sad, that so many people are mislead by people who rather care about the money & fame, than the truth and (mental) health of the people they advice.

Low carb gurus just don't belong in there. Simply too attached to their idea to be objective and care for how the world really works. Confirmation bias.

If you don't want to get on the science based, "do what works" "bandwagon" that's of course fine by me. You seem like a very smart guy, but even those can be mislead. Hope this just helps some people to look at the whole health & fitness thing a bit more objectively and ask "why?" a lot more.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

I'm done. You're just impugning the motives of everybody who disagrees with you to disqualify them from being serious people. You aren't interested in a real discussion. You are interested in asserting a consensus by dismissing anybody who disagrees with you. You aren't actually saying what is wrong with the thrust of the argument, because, I assume, you don't know, so you link to people who call Lustig and Taubes names. You can disagree with Lustig if you want, but it's pretty absurd to question the seriousness of his background.

http://chc.ucsf.edu/coast/faculty_lustig.htm

Here's another professor who is less on the low carb bandwagon, but clearly acknowledges that we don't know exactly what works.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAOiMs-J2...ure=relmfu

No, I don't mean to devalue their argument on the base that I think they are knowingly misleading people or that they are emotionally attached to their ideas (of course, it's human!). I don't think they aren't serious.
I'm just frustrated because I see those people quoted so often, because their PR is great. And then I see (some) people get hurt by it or spinning their wheels. I hate that.

Their background & credentials can be a useful heuristic, but they can still be wrong. Lots of MDs give awful advice simply because they haven't been taught better or missed something.

What shall we discuss? The significance of fructose uptake on weight loss? How did you understand Lustig's argument?

My point was that your assertion that there is a 99% consensus is nonsense, and you only get it by ignoring a bunch of actual medical experts. Now you are backtracking by saying lots of medical experts can be wrong. Which is it?

(07-06-2011 11:01 PM)Jon Wrote:  My point was that your assertion that there is a 99% consensus is nonsense, and you only get it by ignoring a bunch of actual medical experts. Now you are backtracking by saying lots of medical experts can be wrong. Which is it?

No, I'm not backtracking. There is a large consensus on the basics of what you need to do to lose weight and eat healthy amongst the experts who have in the trenches + academic knowledge. There are lots of arguments about little details, but overall the important basics are clear.

Just because one is a medical expert doesn't mean one is an expert on eating healthy and becoming fit. They just aren't experts on that. (not defining it by academic achievements, although they can be useful, but by actual knowledge of the topic and being able to provide proof for the claims)

Let's take Lustig's Argument: fructose = poison and that Carbs (esp. HCFS) are the reason for the rise in obesity rates

Now you have (some) people avoiding fruit, because he doesn't make the context and quality of research clear that he bases these hypothesis on.
Where does he point out that one would need to consume ludicrous amounts of table sugar (half fructose) or HFCS (55%) until the discussed effects start happening (still below even the very high average intake, about 16 % iirc)? HCFS and Sucrose are pretty much the same once in you stomach (besides the slightly shifted fructose content). Or that obesity is multifactoral (availability of high energy dense food, lack of activity, micronutrient deficiencies, social changes etc.)? Or that a lot of cited research is based on massive overfeeding in rodents (not necessarily bad, but DNL pathways are far, far more active in rats, than humans)? Don't get me wrong, it can be useful as preliminary testing. But you can't tell a lot from it about the results in humans under normal conditions. Scientists use it to study/find metabolic pathways in organisms, not to show that fructose in the diet is harmful.

Problem is that people consume too much sugar (100g +) and a lot of it in liquid form (worse satiety). Just too many kcal from processed sources.

If somebody misinterprets Lustig's speech and skips fruit, that's their fault. Lustig specifically says that the problem is fructose far beyond what people consume by eating fruit and without the fiber that cmes with eating fruit. He also says right at the beginning that sugar and hfcs are the same. He points out that the corn syrup lobby makes this argument and they are right. Also, show me the evidence that obesity is linked to lack of activity. There is an arguable correlation (although there isn't really good data on activity levels going far back) but given that increasing activity levels does not correlate with more than nominal weight loss, it's not clear if there is causation. He does cite rodent studies, but there's also plenty of human research as well. Picking and choosing from among the data does nothing.

In terms of academic vs in the trenches knowledge, the problem with citing experts "in the trenches" is that there are huge problems with confirmation bias among people actually treating obesity. You have to look at academic studies to parse out which ones work. And those studies show that calorie unrestricted, low carbohydrate diets do as well as or better than calorie restricted diets in termms of weight loss and cardiovascular risk factors. The results aren't overwhelmingly impressive with low carb diets either. The reality is nobody has come up with a diet that 1) most people follow and 2) can eliminate obesity in most people who follow it.

(07-07-2011 12:43 AM)Jon Wrote:  If somebody misinterprets Lustig's speech and skips fruit, that's their fault. Lustig specifically says that the problem is fructose far beyond what people consume by eating fruit and without the fiber that cmes with eating fruit. He also says right at the beginning that sugar and hfcs are the same. He points out that the corn syrup lobby makes this argument and they are right. Also, show me the evidence that obesity is linked to lack of activity. There is an arguable correlation (although there isn't really good data on activity levels going far back) but given that increasing activity levels does not correlate with more than nominal weight loss, it's not clear if there is causation. He does cite rodent studies, but there's also plenty of human research as well. Picking and choosing from among the data does nothing.

Okay, show me his applicable research in humans he cites. I must have missed that.
What's his exact point then in your opinion?
To reduce obesity:
- don't drink sugary drinks
- eat more fiber
- exercise

Of course, I agree. But where is the controversy?

Exercise is relevant (or even critical) in regards to weight maintenance and thus one of the reasons people tend to overeat and get fat. And yeah, it's really healthy + improves body composition on a diet.

Quote:In terms of academic vs in the trenches knowledge, the problem with citing experts "in the trenches" is that there are huge problems with confirmation bias among people actually treating obesity. You have to look at academic studies to parse out which ones work. And those studies show that calorie unrestricted, low carbohydrate diets do as well as or better than calorie restricted diets in termms of weight loss and cardiovascular risk factors. The results aren't overwhelmingly impressive with low carb diets either. The reality is nobody has come up with a diet that 1) most people follow and 2) can eliminate obesity in most people who follow it.

Well, why is fructose responsible for the obesity problem, if consumption in most cases stays below the "danger" threshold of 50g or even 100g for most people? It's just not relevant and leads people to focus on something that just doesn't matter. There are some benefits to a low fat diet as well (sometimes higher HDL, lower ldl than low carb), sometimes better adherence. And you don't have to go to the extremes; you can do a moderate carb, moderate fat diet as well. Lipids always improve on a diet (see twinkie guy as well). But the jury is still out on how useful blood lipids are anyway; they are looking for specific lipoproteins ATM.

Bottom line is, just do what works better for you (which will likely change as BF drops). For many a moderate approach works best, the fatter you are, the more lower carbs tend to be helpful.

I never said in the trenches vs. academic. I said "+". It's about combining those and using the scientific method to find out what really works. As you said.

The main problem as you pointed out is compliance/adherence. It's hard to change. It will likely be solved by drugs for many. There just isn't a magic pill (yet).

I just don't understand where you see the controversy then?

Thinking of trying it. Tried the low card diets and I love my carbs too much. More specifically, thinking of throwing it in 2x a week to coincide with my nights out, or when I plan to sleep in.

Yay or nay?

Plus links to any reputable resources please. Seems easy and simple enough if you take sleep hours into account.

To note, I'm already fairly skinny (5'9 at 140lbs), and should probably be around 15% bodyfat tops. 140lbs is my "top weight" and I'm now normally around 138lbs (and gaining strength on the kettlebells) thanks to the following 3 changes about a month ago:

- Once a week one-handed kettlebell swing upon waking

- Stopped drinking. Period.

- Stopped eating solid foods at night (and when I do, it's theoretically metabolised better because of the alcohol). This is probably what resulted in the fat loss as I would go 18-19 hours w/out solid food or sugar - not that different from an Intermittent Fast, which gave me the idea to try it out.

All 3 were implemented at roughly the same time, so I can't tell which one resulted in the fat loss. It's obviously fat loss because I'm gaining strength on the kettlebells.

I'm obviously not overweight, but my goal is to be "skinny-ripped" - think the Red Hot Chili Peppers in the 90's, but not via cocaine:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mr_uHJPUlO8

My goal is to reach 135lbs while maintaining my poundage on the kettlebells or even getting stronger. At 135lbs my abs really show, and maybe 5 years ago I was this weight and much stronger than I am today, so I know it's possible - I was hella skinny ripped back then. For reasons unbeknownst to me, there is a HUGE difference in how I look at 135 vs. 138 lbs. All my definition seems to be at 135 and none at 138.

Aside from the links, I'm asking 2 questions to anyone who may know it/ have experience with Intermittent Fasting:

1) Is Intermittent Fasting a good strategy for those who want to "burn those last pounds off"?

2) Is a 2x a week application enough for this? Thinking it is close enough to my normal habits when I go out, so application should be doable.

Thanks.

if I were you I wouldn't try to lose weight at this moment. Start hitting the weights a lot harder. serious weight training 3 days per week, and eat plenty of protein, build up the muscle, then worry about that body fat. You need to do a full body workout, not just one exercise.

Just ensure you are on some resistance training plan that covers your whole body. Ensure a kcal deficit with plenty of protein.

Intermittent Fasting is great for adherence. Nutrient timing doesn't matter that much. So if it helps you to ensure eating less, just do that.

Learning & improving in the lifts for strength training would be more useful, if you plan on putting on more muscle mass sometime in the future. But for your goal you probably won't need it.
Do you have most of the muscle mass you want already?

Thanks Jon and Happy.

So that's +2 for whole body resistance training, which makes sense. 2 handed kettlebell lifts aren't that, but they come close working all my legs, my back and triceps - but nothing in the front of my arms or torso.

I'm getting Pavel's book, so what I can do is implement another kettlebell exercise to hit the parts the 2 handed swing doesn't hit. Trying to make it like approaching - not a big deal and an easy, time + cost effective hobby. Don't plan to go through a brief super fitness phase, but just get something I can stick to forever.

Quote:Intermittent Fasting is great for adherence. Nutrient timing doesn't matter that much. So if it helps you to ensure eating less, just do that.

+ 1 for Intermittent Fasting. Good to know nutrient timing isn't a big factor in the diet.

Quote:Ensure a kcal deficit with plenty of protein.

That's the plan.

Quote:Do you have most of the muscle mass you want already?

No, but I'm not far from it. I put muscle on relatively fast, and the reason I choose to stick to such a low weight is because I look stocky as fuck when I gain muscle. Am really aiming for that skinny-ripped ban look.

The heaviest I want to be is 140lbs to get this, minus all the bodyfat I have now (say, at around 8-10%). I've gone through a period of being 135lbs and stronger and more defined than I am now, so I know it's possible in that weigh.

So yeah, basically, will read up on Intermittent Fasting and continue with the 2-handed swing + another of Pavel's exercises as well.

Thanks - exactly the info I need.