Weight Loss News and Current Events - Why calorie counting doesn't work for most, presentation by Jonathan Bailor




diamondgeog
04-12-2014, 06:02 PM
I was lucky enough to attend the Expo part of PaleoFX in Austin today. With my wife and daughter. We attended a presentation by the author of The Calorie Myth. Whether or not you agree, I think this is of vast importance for most anyone on weight loss journey to consider. The actual presentation title was '6 reasons Calorie Counting is Crazy'. His title not mine.

I will present as many of the key points as I remember. Calories in hardly matter in weight loss according to him. Yes of course there are real consequences to calories but this point made sense if you heard his whole presentation. The point was if you dont change the quality and type of foods but just eat less your body will still hover around your current weight. And it will go up if you eat more but not as much as a mechanical calorie equation would say. This is why there is a 'set point' for most people if they just eat less of the same foods that made them overweight in the first place.

Americans have increased their caloric intake many times over what we actually weigh even with our rates of obesity. If you just did math like humans were a simple math equation with calories the average American would weigh 1,100 pounds now. But our bodies try to maintain homeostasis as much as they can. Obviously not always possible.

He also mentioned that calorie counting is really hard for most people. They are hungry, there is a huge failure rate. Which comes to why do we hear so many success stories on calorie counting? Because this is what most people have been led to believe is the way to lose weight, eat less, move more. At any one time around 100 million Americans are trying to lose weight with calorie counting. About 4.65 percent, his number, succeed. So that is 4.65 million success stories is a lot. So it can work.

His bottom line is humans naturally did not get diabetes for most of our history, at least type 2. They were rarely overweight and even more rarely obese. They didn't calorie count, they didn't even know what a calorie was.

So his perspective. And I admit mine as well. Is most people will not lose and have long term success without addressing their macronutritent composition. You want something away from modern processed foods, sugar, and not more carbs than your system can handle to where you lose weight more or less automatically by burning your stored fat and your hunger comes down naturally.

I don't think he is for banning grains like I am. I did find an interview though that I am posting. He says he personally does not eat grains because they do not further his nutrition and fitness goals. But he definitely thinks sugar and HFCS is at the heart of many problems. He has come up with a concept of SANE foods and of course inSANE foods. Don't remember what the SANE stands for. I am also not sure about his concept on fats, but he uses the same fats I do: coconut oil, butter for cooking, olive oil and avocado oils for salads.

So if you have too many of the inSANE foods, hard to succeed no matter how much willpower, the 4.65% success rate.

So why post this? This is a place to share. I know plenty of people have succeeded and will continue to succeed on calorie counting. But according to Bailor most don't. Over 95% according to him. And there are other ways. I didn't calorie count one day and I am down 90 pounds (I was 287 when I started 196 today I post in 5 lb increments in my ticker) in 11 months.

My body had 'no choice' but to lose weight when I switched my macro nutrients. I was exercising and my metabolism didn't slow down. Without the sugar and carbs it 'had' to burn my fat. And it was easy to lower my calorie count because the fat was so much more filling without the insulin spikes during the day.

So find out about Mr. Bailor or not. But I think this is important weight loss support information for a lot of people.

http://www.fathead-movie.com/index.php/2012/01/12/interview-jonathan-bailor-author-of-the-smarter-science-of-slim/

http://www.fathead-movie.com/index.php/2012/01/20/interview-jonathan-bailor-of-the-smarter-science-of-slim-part-two/


diamondgeog
04-12-2014, 06:25 PM
And I almost didn't post here because I get 'flamed' so much whenever I post something contrary to the eat everything in moderation lobby. Well if that works for people: awesome, I am very happy for you. But it didn't me. Yes I am only one person but I've had more success than I imagined. And I never calorie counted and I was never hungry. Do I point that out to go 'yeah me'? No. I point it out because my approach allowed me to do it more than anything intrinsic about me. So I am posting for the 'yeah approach'.

I think Mr. Bailor said it best in the first part of the interview I posted. He had become a personal trainer and this was his observation.

"Shortly after I started working with clients, I realized how ineffective traditional approaches to health and fitness were. For example, I’d work with a client for a few weeks and she’d drop a few pounds by following a traditional “eat less, exercise more” approach. But a few weeks later, that client would inevitably report how the pounds came right back. I tried all sorts of different techniques to make eating less and exercising more practical, but the results were the same: clients would lose weight, only to find themselves heavier a few months later. This caused me to re-think what success means in terms of weight loss and health, and I realized success is not defined by short-term weight loss. Instead, it is long-term fat loss and improved health. Also, I didn’t derive much satisfaction from asking clients to feel hungry, tired, deprived, and time-crunched for the rest of their lives."

I was able to find a short summary of his talk here by him:

http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/6-reasons-calorie-counting-crazy

Koshka
04-12-2014, 08:19 PM
I don't think you get flamed for posting something contrary to eat everything in moderation. My sense is that people sometimes have problems with what you post because you sometimes post stuff that isn't really supported by serious scientific research, and is very one-sided and cherry picks the data. Also, frankly, sometimes there are so-called "experts" out there who sound good but it is a little gullible to just swallow what they say whole cloth. Lots of time, they have an agenda and only present the evidence that supports the agenda. I think that before people just accept what some "expert" says they ought to go and read some of the peer-reviewed research that is in actual scholarly journals and isn't just plastered on a website or youtube video, etc.

Read this article and go look at the underlying abstract about behavioral changes. The one that made the most difference was calorie counting (and no it isn't because more people calorie count - it is because those who counted calories lost more weight than those who didn't).

http://www.drsharma.ca/does-measuring-your-food-add-up.html

Anyway, not everyone has to count calories but everyone has to eat fewer calories than they burn to lose weight. And, really, you can lose weight even if those fewer calories consist of food that isn't good for you (although it is not good to lose weight that way).

I am by no means in the camp of saying everyone can eat everything in moderation. There are foods that I just don't eat and even more foods that I would say I eat them very, very rarely and not moderately at all. I am also not anti-low carb. I ate low carb for awhile and tested whether I was sensitive to gluten. I'm not. I still only eat moderately on carbs usually ending up between 80 and 120 carbs a day, even less if you look at net carbs. I also think there are people far more sensitive to carbs than I am. And, there are people who report doing dramatically better on no grains. And, I have no problem with that. I felt interested enough to go no grain for a few weeks and no gluten for a month (it made no difference in my case).

I also don't think everyone has to calorie count. I think there are lots of ways of losing weight and calorie counting is one way, but not the only way.

However, I think this

The point was if you dont change the quality and type of foods but just eat less your body will still hover around your current weight.

is pretty much hogwash (I realize that isn't your statement and is one you are paraphrasing from someone else). Years ago, when I got to goal I didn't change my food quality or type at all. I just ate fewer calories. I lost 50 pounds. There have been many other situations where people lost weight on things like eating Twinkies or fast food. I certainly don't recommend doing that. I think it is much preferable for good health to change what you eat to something healthy. I also think that if you do have trouble eating certain foods in moderation it makes sense to eliminate those foods from your diet. So, if I can't eat cookies without overeating cookies then it makes sense to get rid of them. However, if I ate 1000 calories a day of just cookies I would lose weight (of course, I don't recommend doing that either).


diamondgeog
04-12-2014, 08:32 PM
I think with modern grains, HFCS, the explosion in added sugar the vast majority of people do indeed have to change their macro nutrients.

I also think it is false that lowering calories is better or work for most and not supported by studies. Here is an article of 23 studies. People did calorie counting or low carb with eating as many calories as they wanted to. In all 23 studies the low carb no calorie limits did as well or better.

As I said for some it works. But the lowering calories/counting calories approach fails way more often than not. Would that person succeed in other approaches? Perhaps. What people find with low carb, or a lot do, their appetites plummet. So it is 'easy'. Lots of people I have found on twitter describe it like that.

But sure if someone finds calorie counting their cup of tea by all means go for it.

And I think I post just as much great research, often by preeminent researchers. But because people don't 'like it' somehow it isn't research. Fascinating.

And if calorie counting eating less is by far the most common approach and America and the world keeps getting heavier, more diabetes, more heart disease, more cancer then to me clearly the evidence is saying it is not a good approach for most.

People try and it often just doesn't work. I know that was me in the past and family and many many friends and coworkers.

He pointed out in the talk food companies love that approach. So they produced 100 calorie packs. In theory eat less. But they found people didn't. They just eat two or three the food is so addicting, a lot of it. So they sold more and the 100 calorie packs had good markups.

http://authoritynutrition.com/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets/

yoyoma
04-12-2014, 08:49 PM
Just in the last day or so there have been news items about how consumers are moving away from unsatisfying low-fat calorie-counted prepackaged foods. Not sure that means people are moving towards eating the healthiest foods, but at least some people are trying something else.

http://www.koaa.com/news/dieters-move-past-calories-food-makers-follow/

diamondgeog
04-12-2014, 09:09 PM
Thanks YoYoMa interesting story. Here's hoping.

I'm not Paleo, but PaleoFX was awesome. Lots of positive energy. Good people, good info. Lots of samples. Too many samples.

SouthernMaven
04-12-2014, 09:49 PM
Some empirical evidence, from a study of one (me):

Whenever I counted calories & created a calorie deficit, I always lost weight. And almost in a linear fashion, especially if I got regular exercise as well. It worked extremely well for ME, and was the most effective way for ME to lose weight, whenever I chose to diet.

I didn't get horribly hungry nor did I concern myself with getting the proper balance of carbs, protein, fats, etc.

The only downside to it, for ME, was that it made me constantly think about food. But any restrictive diet does that to ME. Including (or should I say especially) low-carb diets.

IanG
04-12-2014, 10:00 PM
It's all about calories, dummy.

But to be sustainable it's about the macronutrient composition (as you put it) of those calories.

You need to keep calories low but get enough fats and protein with a residual for carbs from those calories. However, althletes might focus on getting enough carbs and residual the rest.

I focus on protein, omega 3 fats and getting some residual carbs from my calories. But I do find carbs useful to fuel exercise. So I eat oats for breakfast. Yum.

Serenity100
04-12-2014, 10:06 PM
I'm too lazy to do research, but I have read articles that low carb is basically restricting calories also. You eliminate many food groups so if you were eating lots of that stuff before, i.e. sweets, breads, pasta, you no longer do so and lose weight.

Also, as far as research, unless an article is peer-reviewed then one needs to take it with a grain of salt. This goes for any topic, not just weight loss. When I was going for my Masters and had to write a thesis, all articles had to be peer-reviewed.

If low-carb works for you, that is great!, it worked for me for about six months, and then I couldn't stand not eating any carbs at all. Losing weight is easy, keeping it off is what is the hard part. If any of us had the secret, we would be billionaires.

Tai
04-12-2014, 10:07 PM
I respect that different approaches work for different people and that many really dislike calorie counting.

For me it works great. I lost all my weight calorie counting in 2007 and have been maintaining ever since. It's important to note that not all of us eat everything in moderation.

novangel
04-13-2014, 12:06 AM
Calories in hardly matter in weight loss according to him.


With all due respect calories in is everything. The end.

kaplods
04-13-2014, 03:03 AM
Even on very low-carb, my weight loss stalls if I'm not accounting for calories in some way, be it calories, WW points, or (my personal favorite) food exchanges.

I can lose on higher carb, calorie restriction, but I'm hungrier and have to eat fewer calories than on lower carb.

I can't eat very low-carb or I get severe moodswings, blinding headaches, light headedness, vertigo, nausea - eventually to the point I have even passd out from hypoglycemia.

Finding the carb level that allows me to control appetite, lose weight, and avoid severe side effects has been extremely difficult, physically and emotionally.

My problem with all of the various weight loss theorists, is that they almost all argue that all or at least most people need to be on their diet, or one very much like it. The focus is always on a "one size fits all" approach, and I think that's why so much of the research evidence is contradictory and conflicting.

I suspect that stress, sleep quality and quantity, activity and fitness level, health history, fat and muscle compostion, gender, exposure to environmental toxins, genetic factors, immunity strength, water quality, substance use.... all impact on nutritional needs, and there is no "healthy diet" without taking these factors into account.

I think "balancing" a diet is more challenging and requires more effort than most people really want to invest (which may be why one-size approaches are so attractive).

Marniadec
04-13-2014, 03:39 AM
Ι completely disagree. I ate nothing but junk food from the time I was 11 until I turned 24. If I had to stop eating it, I'd never lose weight or maintain the loss. I wasn't losing weight for my health, I just wanted to be thin. So, it took a while before I was interested in improving my diet. I'd lost at least 30 pounds by then. Also, I lost most of my weight while at college. I only ate fast food while at college and I mostly ate well when I was at my parents'. I lost the same amounts. My brother, who was always underweight, also ate nothing but junk food.

You also can't lose weight unless you count calories. You can do that by, well, counting calories or by eliminating entire groups of food (often for no reason at all) but you're still counting calories.

People gain the weight back not because calorie counting is a failure but because they do the same stupid things I did in my first efforts (before I was obese). My mom would drag me to a professional who'd make me eat nothing but things that I absolutely hated or things that tasted like cardboard. I'd stick with it for as long as I could and then I'd give up and gain the weight back. You can't go from eating huge amounts of food and/or absolute junk to eating a balanced diet right away. You have to do it at your own pace, once you figure it out.

Plus, I know people who've gone low carb, atkins and ducan. They were miserable during the diet, they didn't last long and they gained the weight back. Atkins especially, had become a huge fad in my town when I was 15. I don't know a single person who managed to keep the weight off. The latest one was a friend who wouldn't shut up about how banning carbs was the only way and she was happy and healthy and she lost faster than two other friends and I did, etc. Her poor mom unknowingly brought cake on her birthday and she became livid. We almost decided to not eating any to support her but she pitched a huge fit, she p*ssed us off and so we all enjoyed our delicious cake while she was miserable on her own d*mn birthday. She got fed up soon after and now she's eating carbs again. She's also gaining weight but she says she'd rather be fat and happy than deprive herself of carbs for one more day.

diamondgeog
04-13-2014, 07:07 AM
If its all about the calories and so simple why do the VAST amount of people doing that approach fail? And everyone here knows thats true. Every report of resolutions every year always states that. Why is America getting sicker and heavier?

And Ian you oversimplified. And dummy isn't nice or called for. Most people, 95% qualifies as most to me, calorie restrictions do not work. But on one level low carb is still about calories. But mostly about regulating your insulin levels and getting your body in fat burning mode. Then everything takes care of itself.

But this is the FUNDAMENTAL difference and it should not be that hard to grasp. For many on low carb they NEVER have to calorie count. Never. Appetite is coming down naturally. It is no struggle, easier, much different then when people lower calories but still eat everything. Especially if diet is low fat. So LCHF are eating fewer calories but it isn't via restriction.

Is calorie restriction possible to also not be hungry? Sure. But most of my lifetime experiences, and family and friends trying to lose weight, and everything I've read on the internet points to most people having a tough go with calorie restriction.

But even Weight Watches seems to have acknowledged this for a few years. I was not aware of that. So hopefully times are a changing.

I still think Weight Watchers is wrong about fruit and fat in the article below, but acknowledging a calorie is not a calorie is good. Now they need to work on their nutrition knowledge, from my perspective.

But whatever works for people is great. If someone read this thread and has struggled with calorie counting. I hoped they found the interview links interesting. And they know there are communities of people approaching weight loss and getting healthy from a different perspective.

I know when he states how a body deals with calories is of fundamental importance that was me. When I changed my macro nutrient content I changed everything. My body burned fat instead of storing food as fat. Absolutely everything changed after that healthwise, weight wise, appetite wise, everything.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/04/nyregion/04watchers.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

diamondgeog
04-13-2014, 07:44 AM
This is from the part 1 interview¦

…"Think about trying to remove fat from a hormonally “clogged” body like trying to drain water from a clogged sink. Eating less is like turning down the faucet. Exercising more is like scooping out the overflowing water. Both are temporary ways to deal with the symptoms of the problem. Neither does anything about the root cause. That is why they both fail long term.

The problem is the clog. The solution is clearing the clog. And clearing the clog requires thinking in terms of quality, not quantity.

Fiddling with the quantity of food we eat and the quantity of exercise we get will never clear our hormonal clog. Quality—low-quality food and low-quality exercise—is the cause of the backup. A sink does not get clogged by putting too much water into it. It gets clogged when we put the wrong stuff into it. Our body works the same way…"

And I don't know about anyone else but this was my life word for word prior to May last year.

"…Once most of the calories we eat are being stored in fat cells because insulin cannot get them into other cells, internal starvation has set in. We eat plenty of food but starve on the inside because insulin cannot effectively get that energy into any cells other than our fat cells. With excess insulin shuttling most calories into fat tissue and eliminating our ability to burn body fat, the fat metabolism system has no choice but to slow down, burn muscle tissue, and demand more food. It does what it always does when it senses starvation."

diamondgeog
04-13-2014, 08:50 AM
http://www.bengreenfieldfitness.com/2014/04/deep-nutrition-fat-loss-with-cate-shanahan/

Here is a podcast I just came across making similar points. So there is a growing movement saying not that calories don't matter. But they are not going to help you or at best many will have short term success only until you get other things right first. Not asking anyone to accept it, just providing resources.

diamondgeog
04-13-2014, 09:23 AM
Wow. The Cate Shanahan interview is very powerful. She starts out saying that she saw time and time again her patients telling her how much they eat and exercised and they just could not lose weight.

You know what her colleagues told her? They are lying. She chose to believe them and then asked why. This is an oversimplification but according to the interview food contains information for our genes. So depending on the type of food you can be telling your body to store fat, burn fat, burn muscle, build muscle, etc.

She also says she learned like everyone calories in calories out in grade school but it just doesn't work that way for humans at many important levels. She has seen people training for marathons, eating 1200 calories a day not lose weight.

Ian, question. Are you eating the same foods in the same proportions that you were at your high weight? Just less of everything? Day in day out? If not you changed the macro composition of your daily food intake.

BigChiefHoho
04-13-2014, 09:30 AM
To answer your question about why most people counting calories fail, the answer is pretty simple. They're either unable to stick with it for whatever reason, or they're wrong about their calorie intake (either by improper measuring, underestimating, forgetting stuff, or, yes, sometimes lying to themselves). It drives me nuts when people quote the statistics about weight regain after calorie counting as evidence that it doesn't work. Well, yeah, of course they'll regain once they stop controlling their intake. That's kind of how it works, and it doesn't mean that the problem is with the calorie counting.

And as for marathon runners gaining weight on 1200 calories a day? Sorry to be confrontational, but I have to call bull****. That's not physically possible. Weight loss/gain isn't magic. You can't put fat on out of thin air - it's made out of something, and that something is calories.

(just as a note, I'm not saying that calorie counting is the ONLY way that works, although it is for me. Any method that results in eating fewer calories that you burn will work, whether that's by counting, cutting out food groups a la keto, portion control, whatever)

Wannabeskinny
04-13-2014, 09:35 AM
And I almost didn't post here because I get 'flamed' so much whenever I post something contrary to the eat everything in moderation lobby. Well if that works for people: awesome, I am very happy for you. But it didn't me.

You really can't let this go can you? You get flamed because your research is always one-sided and you're talking to people like they are stupid. Furthermore, there is no "eat-everything-in-moderation" lobby. I've never heard of such a lobby, why are you drawing a line in the sand and even more so, why do you continuously need to criticize people for what they eat? That's all you do, it doesn't take much searching on the forums to find you making statements like this...“And I suppose the eat everything folk do not consider grains poison so they aren't telling themselves to eat poison. What the reality is though, well I feel they are even if they don't think so.” This is really no different than saying that jesus is the saviour and people of other relgions may not think so but he is for sure and so they're going to ****. You make up statistics, you make sweeping generalizations, and you accuse people of not giving your method a chance. I mean, where does this statistic come from? "Most people, 95% qualifies as most to me, calorie restrictions do not work."

Dude, good for you that your method works. I have zero interest, none whatsoever to participate in your methods. I have no intention of putting butter in my coffee ok? Not my cup of tea. I would rather be fat forever than follow this method.

Being part of this forum is realizing that different things work for different people. We are all, everyone here, happy for you that you have lost weight, and have gained an understanding of nutrition for yourself. But you yourself cannot and will not acknowledge that anyone else can do something slightly different than you and be successful. It's rotten behavior when you tell people "of course people can do whatever they want, but they won't be successful and they are eating poison even though they don't know it." Nobody is criticizing what you do, yet you criticize what others do. That's why you get flamed.

Heather
04-13-2014, 09:47 AM
Let's play nice and not get a flame war going, peeps. Remember it's not just what you say, it's mostly how you say it.


If there is a statistic that only 5% of people are successful at calorie counting I'd want to know two things:
1) What defines success? Does it include a time frame? Amount of weight kept off?

2) Using the same criteria and methods, what % of people are successful on low carb programs? I suspect it might be equally low for a variety of reasons. Among them, lots of people try different weight loss method and leave the ones that don't work for them. Many try calorie counting and it doesn't work for them. Many try low carb and it doesn't work for them. Another reason has to do with how our hormones change once we become obese and seems to make it easier for us to regain later. A third reason would be that keeping up with ANY method of eating over time is difficult at best.

For full disclosure, I lost 125 pounds calorie counting 9 years ago, but have regained more than 1/2 of it. Is that a success or not?

I also believe in a plurality of weight loss methods. And I do know that when I cut sugar out my cravings are reduced, but I haven't been able to keep it up indefinitely.

mars735
04-13-2014, 09:56 AM
And as for marathon runners gaining weight on 1200 calories a day? Sorry to be confrontational, but I have to call bull****. That's not physically possible. Weight loss/gain isn't magic. You can't put fat on out of thin air - it's made out of something, and that something is calories.


Yes to this!
Quoting a trainer whose evidence is what her clients told her is not the least bit convincing. Did she ask her clients HOW they were training for the marathon? Did she actually observe what they ate? There is a mountain of peer-reviewed research that demonstrates both obese and non-obese folks under-estimate their food intake. Marathon training means building some muscle, which might explain the lack of weight loss. 1200 calories sounds highly suspect for anyone doing effective marathon training. I've done marathon training and got substantially thinner on ~3000 cal/day or more, including loads of big peanut butter-chocolate chip cookies & chocolate cake.

@Diamondgeog: It's great to share info about what's worked. But no one knows how a high fat diet will play out in the long run. It's a fad currently, and those who follow it are guinea pigs. The only valid conclusion you can draw from your WOE is that you've lost weight and are healthy NOW. There is no body of data yet to suggest how healthy you will be in 15 yrs, or even 5 yrs. Congrats on your success!

Wannabeskinny
04-13-2014, 10:04 AM
I'm not saying that calorie counting is the ONLY way that works, although it is for me. Any method that results in eating fewer calories that you burn will work, whether that's by counting, cutting out food groups a la keto, portion control, whatever

This is precisely the point, what does it matter what method each person follows as long as they can follow it happily and with good results? Why is it so important to start threads claiming XYZ methods don't work only for the purpose of criticizing? Someone is not "right" just because they talk the most and the loudest.

diamondgeog
04-13-2014, 10:14 AM
Ok Dr. Cate Shanahan is a liar. And every other doctor, trainer, and person who has experienced this or seen it is a liar as well. Only quantity matters, quality and composition of food is of no concern.

BTW I think losing and regaining half is a perfect example of what the presenter and the people I follow in the whole food no grains community would say happens often.

diamondgeog
04-13-2014, 10:21 AM
For those interested here are just a few of the people I follow on Twitter. And nothing bothers me here anymore. I'm as passionate as anyone here. And I will never stop being that way.

Twitter has been a big part of my success by constantly helping me learn new nutrition information. Some of my favorite follows are:

Professor Tim Noakes @ProfTimNoakes
Mark Sisson @Mark_Sisson
Dr. Ann Childers @AnnChildersMD
Dr. Andreas Eenfeldt @DietDoctor1
Jimmy Moore @livinlowcarbman
Dr. Chris Kresser @chriskresser
Sam Feltham @samfeltham

diamondgeog
04-13-2014, 10:26 AM
The fad diet comment, oh boy. There has been one time in human history that we have gone low fat high carbs. The last 50 years. How's that working out for us? Let's see. People dropping like flies from diabetes, heart disease, cancer. Dementia soaring. The low fat diet is the fad.

We actually have data for millennium on high fat¦ what happened? nonexistent or rare type 2, cancer, heart disease. The Inuit, very healthy when they eat their traditional diet. Did you know in the early 1900s graduating doctors were told never go into cardiovascular medicine¦ too few patients.

mars735
04-13-2014, 10:56 AM
The fad diet comment, oh boy. There has been one time in human history that we have gone low fat high carbs. The last 50 years. How's that working out for us? Let's see. People dropping like flies from diabetes, heart disease, cancer. Dementia soaring. The low fat diet is the fad.

We actually have data for millennium on high fat¦ what happened? nonexistent or rare type 2, cancer, heart disease. The Inuit, very healthy when they eat their traditional diet. Did you know in the early 1900s graduating doctors were told never go into cardiovascular medicine¦ too few patients.

You are doing exactly what all the other fad dieters have done: embracing your WOE as the holy grail. You are sort of the Dean Orninsh of high fat :) Instead of veering to the opposite extreme, why not take a measured approach, or at least stick to credible evidence--learn what credible evidence IS if you want to convince others, which you clearly want to do. So far you are throwing out all sorts of assumptions for which you have yet to provide credible support.
Where is the data from millenia? Everyone can pull it out their hat to say what humans ate over time. Whoever lived to reproduce, and leave remains that were found, and from which scientists can extrapolate diet habits--that's evidence. Have you actually read any of it, besides flitting around the web and quoting at best secondary, tertiary sources, and mostly philosophizers like the rest of us!

Who said Dr. Cate Shanahan is a liar? It certainly wasn't me. I said that she did not provide a shred of valid evidence, based on your description of her interview. Do you not see the difference? If I were Inuit, I would embrace their style of eating. Since I am not, I would proceed carefully, since I have a different genetic endowment. I sure as heck wouldn't presume to know what other people should eat.

Again, congrats on your success.

diamondgeog
04-13-2014, 11:04 AM
Totally completely missing my points. People eat high fat for most of human history, it isn't a fad.

She had a patient eating 1200 calories a day, training for a marathon, not losing weight. She was summarizing one of her cases.

Someone said it was BS what she said and then someone else agreed.

So either Dr. Shanahan is a liar by those comments. Or her patient is. Or both. Or they really have no clue about their calories. I suspect the Dr. Would have been pretty thorough about getting the calories down right with her patient.

I've probably read 1000 studies the last year. Thanks on the success. You know why I did this time? I approached it that I knew NOTHING about nutrition. I started with a blank canvas. Then I built up my approach by reading point, counterpoint, trying stuff out. Researching more. And my success has blown even my wildest expectations away.

Everything I have done this time has been backed by science. Everything. And it would seem I got the science right spot on for me, my wife, and every friend also succeeding. It isn't just me. I have inspired a lot of successful change in my little corner of the world.

mars735
04-13-2014, 11:09 AM
People eat high fat for most of human history, it isn't a fad.

Where is your credible evidence?

Wannabeskinny
04-13-2014, 11:11 AM
You assume that people who don't follow your preaching a are eating a high carb low fat diet. I think youre just arguing with made up scenarios. Nobody cares about or criticizes what you eat, people only care for their own eating approaches.

I think you would benefit greatly from my dietary approach but do I bother preaching to you about it? No, why would I when you are perfectly capable of having your own opinion?

You didn't used to be like this. I'm starting to suspect adverse effects of your diet.

mars735
04-13-2014, 11:17 AM
She had a patient eating 1200 calories a day, training for a marathon, not losing weight. She was summarizing one of her cases.

So either Dr. Shanahan is a liar by those comments. Or her patient is. Or both. Or they really have no clue about their calories. I suspect the Dr. Would have been pretty thorough about getting the calories down right with her patient.

One case, if it's true, is an outlier and lends little to the discussion of what works for the human population.

What is she a doctor of? Could be English literature for all we know. She may be well-qualified too. Point is, Dr. in front of a name doesn't mean much, especially on the web.

You "suspect" the Dr. would know = assumption, just like fat-is-all-bad folks. Okay, let's say she is a bona fide doctor of nutrition or kinesiology or medicine, your choice. I suggest you take a look at the initial chapter of Kessler's The End of Overeating--whoops, that's DR Kessler!--in which he cites research to show that well-intentioned researchers along with their subjects typically under-estimate food intake. It doesn't make them liars, it just means we need to control for it in the design of any study. And consumers of research, like you or I or anyone else need to have healthy skepticism and ask about the methodology, before embracing the results.

Over and out. Time for yoga class.

diamondgeog
04-13-2014, 11:18 AM
Archeological records. Grains are only 12K years old. Sugar by itself in quantity only since 1850s.

I really am shocked by this comment. Do you really think humans weren't high fat for virtually all of human history? What do you think they were eating?

And there are still or were until recently many traditional societies thriving on high fat. Great teeth, look up Weston Price, very little heart disease,obesity, super healthy.

Plains Indians basically had bison to eat. And then pemiccan, they were extraordinarily healthy. Their descendants on sugar have deteriorated swiftly.

diamondgeog
04-13-2014, 11:23 AM
Both her and the presenter say that people moving more eating less not losing weight happened over and over and over and over and over.

So they had two options. Assume all these patients were lying or ask why. They choose to ask why.

You think the cut calories don't lose weight is rare? Or it is rare people can't stick on it? Must be living on a different planet than me and not seeing the rates of obesity I see with my own eyes.

Suzanne 3FC
04-13-2014, 11:24 AM
BTW I think losing and regaining half is a perfect example of what the presenter and the people I follow in the whole food no grains community would say happens often.

She asked what defines success. If it works while you do it, then is that how you define success? If she stopped calorie counting and regained, wasn't calorie counting still successful while she did it? If you start eating grains and find that you regain weight, does that not mean that going grain free was still successful while you did it? It's the same thing. No matter what method you choose to lose weight, you can't just switch it off when you reach goal.

I know many people that have successfully lost weight and kept it off while following portion controlled diets that included grains and everything else. My own mother is a Weight Watchers success story and has never regained a pound, and she's old-school and eats grains with every meal. She also still goes to her meetings every week, and she does it because she loves it.

Check our maintainers forum. You'll be surprised how many of our maintainers lost weight while calorie counting and included whole grains :)

You know that I don't eat grains, even though my diet plan is very different from yours and is not low carb. I lost over 100 pounds and feel better. Do I think that everyone who would follow my diet would lose weight and be healthier? Yep. Do I think my diet is right for everyone? Nope. Of course not.

You have to find what works for you and stick with it. By 'works for you' I mean that your food and activity choices need to fit your personal tastes, budget, lifestyle, and health goals. We're all different :)

Marniadec
04-13-2014, 11:44 AM
Carbs are not poison. Vegans say the same thing about meat with the same conviction and with the research to back it up. Does that mean they're right? People use the same statistics you're using to prove that nobody can lose weight ever. Are they right?

A weight loss method is to blame for the regain. People who go Paleo also hit plateaus and even gain weight back if they eat too many calories. Every weight loss method is more suitable for some than it is for others. And some times, it's not the method, it's the person applying it.

We can't afford to lose weight and then slip back into old habits any more than former alcoholics can afford to start drinking occasionally. If you can gain 100 extra pounds once, you can do it twice, so you have to be careful. That's what I get from those statistics.

You can advertise what works for you all you want. We all do that. But, in my opinion, trying to convince people that calories don't matter is like trying to convince us that the sun shines at night.

And going on and on about how what you do is the absolute best can get old really fat. I kept trying to go from 154 to 130 by eating a healthy balanced diet and I kept giving up. This time I managed to go from 253 to 145 because I allowed myself to eat junk. Should I go around insisting that people eat junk food or they won't lose weight? That's what worked for me, so it must be the one true method, right? Come on now.

diamondgeog
04-13-2014, 11:53 AM
I do forget Mars that in our society fat is bad and low carb is a fad are drummed into us...by everyone. Government, vast majority of doctors, American heart association, American diabetes assoc.

So I know very well a Dr. Can mean nothing.

All carbs are not bad. The heart of my diet and Paleo and Primal are non-starchy vegetables.

However. People have carb thresholds. They do differ. People can choose to believe this or not. Go over yours and weight loss will be neigh impossible. And you are putting yourself at risk for diabetes, heart disease, cancer, dementia, arthritis, etc.

For some a couple pieces of fruit a day are fine. For others it would put them in ill health and cause them to gain weight.

diamondgeog
04-13-2014, 11:59 AM
My argument is focusing on calories first until you get your macros right, insulin right, and fat burning in your body right is a losing battle for most people.

And well look up Sam Feltham. He did 5,700 calories a day of high fat for 28 days. I think he gained like 3-4 pounds but lost inches on his waist. He did same amount of calories on high carb. He gained 16 lbs and 3 or 4 inches on his waist.

Even with the high calories, the high fat was 'instructing' his body to burn fat. Btw if you just did calories in calories out the results make no sense. But his body was doing different things with them. Does anyone here believe our bodies treat every calorie the same? If so why do must people fear fat? I totally completely admit I fear sugar and non-veg carbs. But then again I don't believe all calories and food are the same.

You guys do what you want, just presenting the info, many more people read than post. Sam is at SmashtheFat.

mars735
04-13-2014, 12:11 PM
I do forget Mars that in our society fat is bad and low carb is a fad are drummed into us...by everyone. Government, vast majority of doctors, American heart association, American diabetes assoc.

So I know very well a Dr. Can mean nothing.

All carbs are not bad. The heart of my diet and Paleo and Primal are non-starchy vegetables.

However. People have carb thresholds. They do differ. People can choose to believe this or not. Go over yours and weight loss will be neigh impossible. And you are putting yourself at risk for diabetes, heart disease, cancer, dementia, arthritis, etc.

For some a couple pieces of fruit a day are fine. For others it would put them in ill health and cause them to gain weight.

diamondgeog: I basically eat as you do, re grain free and low carb, but stick to fairly low fat and avoid processed foods as much as possible. I found it by a lot of trial and error. As above folks have posted, different things work for different people. Any of us don't know if we will gain back, or if we end up with disease. That's for the numbers crunchers. Mostly, sharing our individual experiences allows others to try out what resonates.

When I asked you for evidence, maybe I should have been more clear. By evidence, I mean a link to the your source so that I can read and decide for myself if I buy it. That's a very basic & standard expectation when someone is advocating a health practice such as diet.

Remember the diet pyramid? It was concocted in response to growing rates of obesity, just like low carb. I would stick with repeatable studies that are published in peer-reviewed journals before telling anyone what will work for them.

Now I'm really going to yoga. May I not tip over in shoulder stand!

diamondgeog
04-13-2014, 12:19 PM
Seriously? There was no obesity or diabetes crisis UNTIL the food pyramid came in. The food pyramid was to sell grains and vegetable oils from grains. Excellent new book called Death by Food Pyramid explains this. Recommended diet is just what makes livestock fat and sick. I prefer not to be fed like sick, fat, and dying livestock.

Where is your evidence for anything you post Mars? I post links frequently. Did you listen to the hour long podcast? The two interview posts?

Here is a shorter post with lots of links to studies. I do point out the first study the countries with less heart disease are generally wealthier so it doesn't prove anything.

Enjoy yoga. I already did my three mile run. It felt awesome.

http://authoritynutrition.com/6-graphs-the-war-on-fat-was-a-mistake/

Suzanne 3FC
04-13-2014, 12:48 PM
The fad diet comment, oh boy. There has been one time in human history that we have gone low fat high carbs. The last 50 years. How's that working out for us? Let's see. People dropping like flies from diabetes, heart disease, cancer. Dementia soaring. The low fat diet is the fad.

We actually have data for millennium on high fat¦ what happened? nonexistent or rare type 2, cancer, heart disease. The Inuit, very healthy when they eat their traditional diet. Did you know in the early 1900s graduating doctors were told never go into cardiovascular medicine¦ too few patients.

With all due respect, doctors probably didn't go into cardiovascular medicine because it was such a new field and the technology barely existed. There were many fields of medicine that were just beginning and only advanced later, as our knowledge and technology advanced. You need to think about the type of access people had to doctors back then, or had money for doctors, and how diagnoses were made without medical tests. I'm pretty sure that a lot of people went to their barbers for medical advice - and dental work :lol:

Also, the average life span in the early 1900s was about 48 to 50. I'm sure you are aware that the symptoms of heart disease and many other diseases usually don't appear until later in life, especially now that we have the technology to diagnose them. Now that we are living longer, we are living long enough to see the effects of our diets and lifestyles. We can afford medical tests. How many people in the early 1900s were having their arteries scanned?

I agree that we are eating things that we should not put in our bodies, such as highly processed foods. And we eat to excess, like everything else in modern life. But I don't believe that reasonable amounts of whole grains caused the type of influx in disease that you seem to insist happened. There are a lot of populations in the world that have eaten grains for centuries, and lived long and healthy lives. Healthier than the Inuits. Even Inuits that had access to plant foods lived longer than Inuits who didn't.

Suzanne 3FC
04-13-2014, 12:52 PM
Seriously? There was no obesity or diabetes crisis UNTIL the food pyramid came in. The food pyramid was to sell grains and vegetable oils from grains.

I don't think she was promoting the pyramid. Please read her post again:)

But on that note, did anyone ever really follow the pyramid? Other than pushing cheap meals in school lunches, I don't think I've ever seen anyone really follow it :dunno:

kaplods
04-13-2014, 01:00 PM
To get at the truth, you have to look at all the evidence without filtering it through your own assumptions. That's nearly impossible to do without formal training and not much easier with formal training. The distinction between drawing conclusions and jumping to conclusions is a fine one.

Once people "pick a side," they tend to dismiss, ignore, and refute all and any evidence to the contrary.

The challenge is in looking at all the evidence, new and old, with an open eye and most people, even the experts in the field, are unable or unwilling to do that.

In general, materials aimed at the general public are nearly worthless as a source of unbiased information. They're predominantly persuasive pieces, and only evidence that advances the author's theory and agenda is presented. Evidence that doesn't fit gets eliminated.

It's getting harder and harder for me to respect and trust the modern paleo, anti-grain authors, because of the amount of b.s. that is being passed along as factual information is on a steep increase.

What frustrates me most, is the accusation that I am pro-grain, anti-paleo, anti-low carb. I am not (quite the opposite). I just believe that a lot more solid research needs to be done to convince me that everyone needs to give up grains or be on a high fat, low-carb diet (even as there's growing evidence that I need to).

Facts have become unimportant, and anyone who questions even the most implausible arguments or for a moment considers the merits of conflicting evidence, is seen as an ignorant naysayer, refusing to see the obvious truth.

Saying "Tigers are not venomous," does not mean I advocate keeping big cats as pets. And a lot of people saying, "tigers are venomous" doesn't make it true.

There's a lot of "venomous tigers" in the mainstream sources of anti-grain and low-carb literature. Anyone who claims to have lost weight or improved their health with such a diet is considered an "expert" just for writing a book or blog.

Demanding accurate and unbiased information shouldn't be seen as a radical act.

yoyoma
04-13-2014, 01:17 PM
Seriously? There was no obesity or diabetes crisis UNTIL the food pyramid came in...
http://authoritynutrition.com/6-graphs-the-war-on-fat-was-a-mistake/

I believe you misunderstood Mars' post. I believe her use of the word "concocted" was intended to indicate that the folks who came up with that had their hearts in the right place, but came up with poor one-size-fits-all advice on the basis of insufficient evidence (Mars, correct me if I'm wrong!).

Regarding how many links people post, if people are just sharing their experience, there's no need for them to post a link.

Early humans did need to dramatically increase their calorie intake (over the amount required by proto-humans) to develop and fuel their large energy-intensive brains. More humans began hunting and some sub-populations ate high amounts of animal products but but others ate high carb (e.g. wild yams and other tubers) and some switched depending upon availability. The amount of animal-derived calories that was fat vs protein also probably varied (those eating more snail and mussels as their animal sources not getting much fat from them). In addition to adding more animal products to their diets (relative to pre-human predecessors), some ancient humans also employed cooking and pre-agricultural plant management to increase available calories.

Here's a stat regarding modern hunter-gatherers, which people used as a proxy for ancient diets:
"According to recent analyses by Loren Cordain of Colorado State University, contemporary hunter-gatherers derive, on average, 40 to 60 percent of their dietary energy from animal foods (meat, milk and other products)." (from: http://docencia.med.uchile.cl/evolucion/2002sciamdieta.pdf).

40 -60% is an average, and includes both fat and protein. I'm sure that even today there are hunter-gatherer cultures that fall far outside that range, particularly for periods of time. There would also be some additional fat in the non-animal sources, but I see no reason to think that all early humans ate a high fat diet.

Here's a quote about what was known about Middle Eastern diet just before the advent of the agricultural revolution:
"Foods known to be gathered during the Mesolithic period in the Middle East were root vegetables, wild pulses (peas, beans, etc.), nuts such as almonds, pistachios, and hazelnuts, as well as fruits such as apples. Seafoods such as fish, crabs, molluscs, and snails also became common during this time.[60]"
(From: http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w/hb/hb-interview1c.shtml, this isn't a research paper, but at least it provides a source reference.)

Tai
04-13-2014, 01:25 PM
Let's play nice and not get a flame war going, peeps. Remember it's not just what you say, it's mostly how you say it.


If there is a statistic that only 5% of people are successful at calorie counting I'd want to know two things:
1) What defines success? Does it include a time frame? Amount of weight kept off?

2) Using the same criteria and methods, what % of people are successful on low carb programs? I suspect it might be equally low for a variety of reasons. Among them, lots of people try different weight loss method and leave the ones that don't work for them. Many try calorie counting and it doesn't work for them. Many try low carb and it doesn't work for them. Another reason has to do with how our hormones change once we become obese and seems to make it easier for us to regain later. A third reason would be that keeping up with ANY method of eating over time is difficult at best.

For full disclosure, I lost 125 pounds calorie counting 9 years ago, but have regained more than 1/2 of it. Is that a success or not?

I also believe in a plurality of weight loss methods. And I do know that when I cut sugar out my cravings are reduced, but I haven't been able to keep it up indefinitely.


Heather, it's so good to see you again! Of course you're a success. :hug:

diamondgeog
04-13-2014, 01:25 PM
The ironic thing is this: has anyone ever 'proven' grains are healthy? That the nutrients in whole grains improve nutrient profiles in people?

There are high rates of diabetes in most Asian countries.

I guess I find the research view of anti-grain folk amusing for the following reason. The anti-grain high fat people had to go against entrenched dogma. I find these communities full of research. Mark Sisson for one and Chris Kesller for another question everything. And even do many posts where they say I was wrong.

These 'movements' are by far the most research, science, based movements I've ever come across in nutrition. By far.

And Suzanne I think there is evidence but so far back in time hard to tell for sure but human health has declined since grains.

Also your argument on age is flawed. The pool of people the percent was smaller living to 70 or 80 or 90. But they existed and were not getting heart disease.

Tai
04-13-2014, 01:43 PM
Seriously? There was no obesity or diabetes crisis UNTIL the food pyramid came in. The food pyramid was to sell grains and vegetable oils from grains. Excellent new book called Death by Food Pyramid explains this. Recommended diet is just what makes livestock fat and sick. I prefer not to be fed like sick, fat, and dying livestock.

Where is your evidence for anything you post Mars? I post links frequently. Did you listen to the hour long podcast? The two interview posts?

Here is a shorter post with lots of links to studies. I do point out the first study the countries with less heart disease are generally wealthier so it doesn't prove anything.

Enjoy yoga. I already did my three mile run. It felt awesome.

http://authoritynutrition.com/6-graphs-the-war-on-fat-was-a-mistake/

This is only my personal experience but obesity and diabetes have been around much longer than the food pyramid in my family. My grandmother's and many cousins were obese and a few diabetic. They were born in the late 1800's!

Desiderata
04-13-2014, 02:23 PM
Let's play nice and not get a flame war going, peeps. Remember it's not just what you say, it's mostly how you say it.


Too true. :) The following is in the spirit of bluntness, not flaming.

Diamondgeog, I tend to lean in your direction as far as nutrition is concerned. But the way you engage on this topic borders on zealotry. If anything, it only hurts the ideas you're trying to promote and turns people off completely. I only recently took you off my ignore list. I had put you there not because I fundamentally disagree with you, but because your combative posts have a certain fervor to them that isn't appealing.

If you're trying to spread the gospel of paleo/primal-esque research findings, you're hurting more than helping.

Editing just to add -- to be clear, I'm not trying to attack you here. And I don't think you should change your views. All I'm trying to convey is part of the reason you engender the type of responses you get.

Suzanne 3FC
04-13-2014, 02:56 PM
I'm going to close this thread now. Thanks :)