Evidence debunking low sodium diet

[Slade]

Will your advice to your patients vary based on their particular situation? For example, will you suggest that pre-diabetic kid (of which you'll have many) continue to eat a diet of 80% carbs? Should that pre-diabetic kid eat differently than your lean insulin/leptin-sensitive patient?

Of course not, kids are robots and I will order them to eat exactly as I do

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[SpecterGT260]

You ignored what I wrote. But you kind of had to, because it's a death blow to your argument.

For one week, ear nothing but meat and vegetables, and TRY to overeat.

You can't.

Because when you eat Paleo, when you eat the foods we evolved to eat, you let homeostasis take over, and your appetite regulates itself.

this is inappropriately over-romanticised, and very possibly downright false. IIRC fats are a potent hunger suppressor (G cells? can't remember....). But yeah, don't go throwing "homeostasis" out there like it actually means something in this context. It quite literally doesnt nor do you have any evidence that it does. This is just a fancy buzzword used by granola-heads. You imply that somehow these other foods throw you out of homeostasis. The best part of this argument is it uses evolution as a foundation as what is right and wrong in order to combat change. The irony is mind blowing.

 

[CaptainSSO]

this is inappropriately over-romanticised, and very possibly downright false. IIRC fats are a potent hunger suppressor (G cells? can't remember....). But yeah, don't go throwing "homeostasis" out there like it actually means something in this context. It quite literally doesnt nor do you have any evidence that it does. This is just a fancy buzzword used by granola-heads. You imply that somehow these other foods throw you out of homeostasis. The best part of this argument is it uses evolution as a foundation as what is right and wrong in order to combat change. The irony is mind blowing.

I don't have a clue what you are talking about, except for some reason you're upset because I used the word "homeostasis."

You didn't even make an argument--all you said was "homeostasis is a buzzword!!" and "this is false," while providing no evidence of your own. I am quite aware of what "homeostasis" means, and I appropriately used it in this context.

You can look around and see that people have been thrown out of homeostasis by the fact that something like 30%+ of our population is obese. Homeostasis is simply "dynamic equilibrium," and if someone's weight is steadily increasing, I would certainly call that a disruption of equilibrium. Maybe you wouldn't. Super. I disagree. You must be using a different definition of "homeostasis" if you think developing metabolic syndrome is part of the normal maintenance of the internal environment.

What is difficult to understand about the evolution argument? The majority of the early human diet consisted of animal products, and grains/sugar are a relatively new addition to our diet. A large percentage of our population is obese/overweight, whereas historically this was not a problem.

I guarantee you I could sit down right now and eat a large pizza by myself. For fun, we will look this up on WolframAlpha. A rough estimate, but whatever. This is n=1, but again, whatever. Fly over to my apartment and bring 10 friends and I'll do the experiment myself. A large pizza is roughly 2100 calories. Put a 12 oz. ribeye in front of me, and I will have trouble finishing it, roughly 800 calories. It would be impossible for me to eat 24 oz. of ribeye, which would be 1600 kcal. Anyway, like I said, anecdotal evidence, but there you go.

I'm sure you learned about the "caloric set point" at some point. Appetite should be finely regulated and in tune with caloric consumption. The higher your caloric consumption at Point A, the longer the interval between Point A and your next meal, at Point B. So what's going on with people's consumption of food that this is totally out of control and they're packing on an extraordinary amount of weight?

As far as appetite regulation, cholecystokinin, among its many other roles, is a satiety hormone. Released from the L cells of the duodenum, particularly in response to amino acids and lipids. Peptide YY is also released from L cells of the gut, particularly in response to protein.

"Research done in 2006 showed that consumption of protein boosts PYY levels,
therefore some benefit was observed in experimental subjects in terms of
reducing hunger and promoting weight loss.[10] This would help explain the
weight-loss experienced with high-protein diets."

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

Two guys at the University of Vermont did a study (they were pro-carb, by the way) in which they found that the "nutrient composition of the diet seemed to affect profoundly the desire to to consume calories to excess." These guys were trying to get people to overeat on meat (1,000 extra kcal/day), and the volunteers wouldn't do it. They refused to do it. However, when carbohydrates were added, they could eat upwards of 7,000 extra kcal a day just fine.

That was from Good Calories, Bad Calories. Seems to jive pretty well with my own personal experience of being able to easily down a large pizza while I would never have a hope of eating the equivalent amount of calories with steak.

 

[n8henrie]

What is difficult to understand about the evolution argument? The majority of the early human diet consisted of animal products, and grains/sugar are a relatively new addition to our diet. A large percentage of our population is obese/overweight, whereas historically this was not a problem.

Are you trying to diagnose our population with a lizard deficiency? You do realize that the anthropologic estimates suggest a much higher CHO intake than the paleo advocates would have you believe... With a huge variability across populations. Thousands of calories per day in pure honey in some demographics. Not as clear cut as the people writing diet books and authoring those studies might have you believe.

Two guys at the University of Vermont did a study (they were pro-carb, by the way) in which they found that the "nutrient composition of the diet seemed to affect profoundly the desire to to consume calories to excess." These guys were trying to get people to overeat on meat (1,000 extra kcal/day), and the volunteers wouldn't do it. They refused to do it. However, when carbohydrates were added, they could eat upwards of 7,000 extra kcal a day just fine.

I've logged my intake to the gram for months on end. It doesn't work like this in the long term. The largest failure of most diet studies (esp. the pro low CHO ones) is inadequate accountability for accurate reporting. The second is short duration. The best, prospective evidence consistently says calories are still king, no matter what Taubes says.

That was from Good Calories, Bad Calories. Seems to jive pretty well with my own personal experience of being able to easily down a large pizza while I would never have a hope of eating the equivalent amount of calories with steak.

GCBC had great criticisms but awful recommendations. I recommend everybody in medicine read it to learn about the disservices Ancel Keys did to dietary science, and the weak points in the cholesterol hypothesis of heart disease... but I recommend that nobody take it too seriously. (Did I hear someone asking for in-text citations for specific claims?)

 

[CaptainSSO]

Are you trying to diagnose our population with a lizard deficiency? You do
realize that the anthropologic estimates suggest a much higher CHO intake than
the paleo advocates would have you believe... With a huge variability across
populations. Thousands of calories per day in pure honey in some demographics.
Not as clear cut as the people writing diet books and authoring those studies
might have you believe

.

Lizard deficiency? I don't know what you mean.

Thousands of calories a day in pure honey if they could get it. Which was rare. It's not like there were paleolithic beekeepers. I just can't believe that there were any demographics which sustained themselves long term with honey. But if you have a link, I would like to see it. There were definitely some groups with diets that weren't primarily low carb. But they weren't eating tons of refined grains/sugar, like we do in the developed world. Paleo is definitely not a perfect solution for everyone. But for most people, I would say it can be.

I've logged my intake to the gram for months on end. It doesn't work like
this in the long term. The largest failure of most diet studies (esp. the pro
low CHO ones) is inadequate accountability for accurate reporting. The second
is short duration. The best, prospective evidence consistently says calories
are still king, no matter what Taubes says.

This is n=1, just like my own ribeye and pizza example. There is always the possibility individuals can vary from the norm. A Paleo diet will not work for everyone. For the majority of people, I believe it does. But nevertheless, I would be interested to see the constituents of your diet, percentages, etc., as well as the time period of your measurements, and your body weight for each.

Edit: Actually, I don't quite understand what you are trying to say here. It doesn't work like what, exactly, in the long term? You are saying that over the long term you would be able to overconsume meat?

 

[Perrotfish]

.

Lizard deficiency? I don't know what you mean.

Thousands of calories a day in pure honey if they could get it. Which was rare. It's not like there were paleolithic beekeepers. I just can't believe that there were any demographics which sustained themselves long term with honey. But if you have a link, I would like to see it. There were definitely some groups with diets that weren't primarily low carb. But they weren't eating tons of refined grains/sugar, like we do in the developed world. Paleo is definitely not a perfect solution for everyone. But for most people, I would say it can be.

It is tough to figure out. The truth is that our estimates of what our ancestors ate are still primarily based on the diets of modern (circa 1950s) hunter gather populations. That's how we reached the conclusion that our ancestors ate mostly meat. The problem is that those populations tend to live in remote and inhospitable areas, which is why civilization hasn't overrun them. The perpetual summer of the north african/middle eastern enviornment that we likely evolved in might have presented us a much more diverse diet. Grains might not have existed before farming, but tubers, fruit, and honey all have similar effects on your insulin level and they all could have been common. To the best of my (limited) knowledge we honestly don't know what our ancestors really ate.

In any event we don't need to have this argument based on anything as circituitious as the normal diet of our distant ancestors. We have plenty of studies about the effect of high fat, high protein diets on weight gain. Everything I've seen is very favorable towards a pure atkins (i.e. ketogenic) diet as both a short and long term solution to weight gain. However a more moderate increase in dietary fat, protein, and glycemic index doesn't seem to have any significant effect on weight gain vs. a traditional high carb diet with limited processed sugars. To me that suggests that there is something about ketosis, rather than insulin response, that makes the Atkins diet effective.

 

[SpecterGT260]

I don't have a clue what you are talking about, except for some reason you're upset because I used the word "homeostasis."

You didn't even make an argument--all you said was "homeostasis is a buzzword!!" and "this is false," while providing no evidence of your own. I am quite aware of what "homeostasis" means, and I appropriately used it in this context.

You can look around and see that people have been thrown out of homeostasis by the fact that something like 30%+ of our population is obese. Homeostasis is simply "dynamic equilibrium," and if someone's weight is steadily increasing, I would certainly call that a disruption of equilibrium. Maybe you wouldn't. Super. I disagree. You must be using a different definition of "homeostasis" if you think developing metabolic syndrome is part of the normal maintenance of the internal environment.

What is difficult to understand about the evolution argument? The majority of the early human diet consisted of animal products, and grains/sugar are a relatively new addition to our diet. A large percentage of our population is obese/overweight, whereas historically this was not a problem.

I guarantee you I could sit down right now and eat a large pizza by myself. For fun, we will look this up on WolframAlpha. A rough estimate, but whatever. This is n=1, but again, whatever. Fly over to my apartment and bring 10 friends and I'll do the experiment myself. A large pizza is roughly 2100 calories. Put a 12 oz. ribeye in front of me, and I will have trouble finishing it, roughly 800 calories. It would be impossible for me to eat 24 oz. of ribeye, which would be 1600 kcal. Anyway, like I said, anecdotal evidence, but there you go.

I'm sure you learned about the "caloric set point" at some point. Appetite should be finely regulated and in tune with caloric consumption. The higher your caloric consumption at Point A, the longer the interval between Point A and your next meal, at Point B. So what's going on with people's consumption of food that this is totally out of control and they're packing on an extraordinary amount of weight?

As far as appetite regulation, cholecystokinin, among its many other roles, is a satiety hormone. Released from the L cells of the duodenum, particularly in response to amino acids and lipids. Peptide YY is also released from L cells of the gut, particularly in response to protein.



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

Two guys at the University of Vermont did a study (they were pro-carb, by the way) in which they found that the "nutrient composition of the diet seemed to affect profoundly the desire to to consume calories to excess." These guys were trying to get people to overeat on meat (1,000 extra kcal/day), and the volunteers wouldn't do it. They refused to do it. However, when carbohydrates were added, they could eat upwards of 7,000 extra kcal a day just fine.

That was from Good Calories, Bad Calories. Seems to jive pretty well with my own personal experience of being able to easily down a large pizza while I would never have a hope of eating the equivalent amount of calories with steak.

none of this "you didnt make an argument" crap. That is literally the poor man's rebuttal (poor now being equivalent to talking out of ones rectum). There is no supporting evidence for an argument of "you made that up". The only thing to be done here is for you to show some (any) evidence that homeostasis is only maintained with a paleo diet and that it is disturbed while eating non-paleo foods. Nothing about this statement is true, and nothing about my statement makes it not an argument

I made a point - that point was that your post was based largely on nothing at all, had no meaningful data to support it, and had a fancy word tacked onto it like a bar graph in an herbal supplement infomercial (in case you didn't catch the meaning there - entirely meaningless as used). My point, and the defending argument, was that you are approaching this position from one that is highly romanticized and adhering to lines of thought before you have evidence for them. Such people tend to work to fit data to their point of view rather than form a point of view from data.

Aside from that, if you were unable to extract my point (although I think you did just fine, you just attempted to negate it with other irrelevancies) then.... you know... I probably wouldn't advertise that fact too loudly

 

[Perrotfish]

none of this "you didnt make an argument" crap. That is literally the poor man's rebuttal (poor now being equivalent to talking out of ones rectum). There is no supporting evidence for an argument of "you made that up". The only thing to be done here is for you to show some (any) evidence that homeostasis is only maintained with a paleo diet and that it is disturbed while eating non-paleo foods.

Sure, I'll bite.

First, to start with, you need to understand that you're asking someone to post a book-length argument in an internet post. The answer you're looking for is basically the entire content of Taubes's 'why we get fat'. He reviews retrospective population studies, prospective cohort studies, and the science behind the underlying physiology. It takes a bit, though its a fast read, a fast read still takes half a day. In any event I'll try to hit the highlights.

The argument from the Taubes/Atkins/Paleo camp is thats your weight is not regulated by a conscious intake of calories and a conscious output of activity. Rather your intake (appetite) and output (basal metabolic rate and energy level) are strictly regulated by your endocrine system, particularly insulin, which is what is meant by homeostasis. We know this from simple observation: people with physically active jobs naturally, drastically increase their caloric intake to compensate for it. Taubes likes to use the example of lumberjacks, who naturally take in nearly 4 times as many calories as an average white collar american (approximately 8,000 calories/day). It strains belief that they would consciously know to quadrouple their diet to maintain their weight, rather than quintoupling it to get fatter or just trippling it and wasting away. Furthermore, we also know that when body isn't eating, say when someone is on a low cal diet, it compensates with a decreased metabolic rate. Every Pediatrician knows this: that's why the AAP advises that children, even overweight children, to eat breakfast every morning: we know it has positive effects on both cognition and, wierdly, it even curbs weight gain. If you view people as bomb calorimeters that makes no sense: they have more than enough nutrients in reserve that a mornings fast shouldn't affect performance, and if overating is regulated by behavior then adding more food in the morning certainly shouldn't curb someone's eating behavior in the afternoon. But it does. We also know that these adjustments take place FAST: if you make someone perform physically strenuous activity they will change their diets to compensate for their increase calorie needs overnight, which again makes NO SENSE if you view our diets primarily as behavioral constructs. So there is such a thing as homeostasis.

So what's causing the disregulation? Why are we part of the fatest generation in human history when previous generations, even in subpopulations that had unlimited access to food, managed to maintain their weight? Taubes argues that its insulin resistance, and that insulin resistance is caused by dumping insulin into our bodies postprandially in quantities that we were not built to handle, which is what happens when we eat carbs. There is absolutely no dispute that when we eat simple carbs we see a massive 'dump' of insulin into our systems that rapidly tapers, as oppsed to the slower action of more complex carbs or the MUCH slower rise in insulin with fats and proteins. The anti carb camp argues that this overexposure to insulin makes our tissues resistant to insulin. Our lean tissue gets resistant to insulin at a faster rate than our fat tissue, which makes sense since obesity goes hand in hand with metabolic syndrome (insulin resistance). The insulin that we dump into our system leads to insulin resistance in our muscles. That causes our muscles to scream for more insulin than usual just so they can take up enough sugar to survive and function. But that extra insulin acts on the fat cells, which are NOT resistant, which makes them take up way more sugar than normal. Which makes us get fatter, and which also makes the muscle cells scream for even MORE insulin because now there's less sugar around and which upregulates our appetite. It's a viscious circle that all starts w/ overexposure to insulin. It makes sense from a theoretical physiologic standpoint. We also know that direct exposure to insulin (say at a diabetic's injection site) causes fat hypertrophy, so it makes sense that the same thing can happen systemically when we increase our carb content and have a post prandiadal insulin dump.

So where's the evidence? Taubes does this well: for the first part of his book he goes into population studies, noting multiple nativie populations (he goes on at length about a tribe called the Pima) that were documented to be thin before integrating into our society, that almost exclusively work in high caloric output (manual labor) jobs, that are so poor that there is a significant incidence of malnutrition and even starvation, but which still have enormous problems with obesity now that they're integrated into American society. The difference in population after population is that they switched from a high protein, high fat (atkins) diet to an incredibly high glycemic index diet based mainly around corn and flour. There is also definitive evidence that an Atkins diet, which does not call for calorie restriction or exercise, is more effective than a traditional combination of exercise and low calorie diet. That seems like a good support for the Taubes hypothesis. We have retrospective studies that show that introducing more carbs to a population makes it fatter (even in starving populations that exercise more than any of our sedentary, wealthy white collar workers), we have prospective studies showing that a high protein diet works, and we have a good physiologic basis for the entire theory.

It's not definitive, but its definitely evidence based. Its not CAM, its good science.

I'd really recommend reading Taubes's book.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Sure, I'll bite.

First, to start with, you need to understand that you're asking someone to post a book-length argument in an internet post. The answer you're looking for is basically the entire content of Taubes's 'why we get fat'. He reviews retrospective population studies, prospective cohort studies, and the science behind the underlying physiology. It takes a bit, though its a fast read, a fast read still takes half a day. In any event I'll try to hit the highlights.

The argument from the Taubes/Atkins/Paleo camp is thats your weight is not regulated by a conscious intake of calories and a conscious output of activity. Rather your intake (appetite) and output (basal metabolic rate and energy level) are strictly regulated by your endocrine system, particularly insulin, which is what is meant by homeostasis. We know this from simple observation: people with physically active jobs naturally, drastically increase their caloric intake to compensate for it. Taubes likes to use the example of lumberjacks, who naturally take in nearly 4 times as many calories as an average white collar american (approximately 8,000 calories/day). Furthermore, we also know that when body isn't eating, it compensates with a decreased metabolic rate. Every Pediatrician knows this: that's why the AAP advises that children, even overweight children, to eat breakfast every morning: we know it has positive effects on both cognition and, wierdly, it even curbs weight gain. If you view people as bomb calorimeters that makes no sense: they have more than enough nutrients in reserve that a mornings fast shouldn't affect performance, and if overating is regulated by behavior then adding more food in the morning certainly should curb someone's eating behavior in the afternoon. But it does. We also know that these adjustments take place FAST: if you make someone perform physically strenuous activity they will change their diets to compensate for their increase calorie needs overnight, which makes NO SENSE if you view our diets primarily as behavioral constructs. So there is such a thing as homeostasis.

So what's causing the disregulation? Why are we part of the fatest generation in human history? Taubes argues that its insulin resistance, and that insulin resistance is caused by dumping insulin into our bodies postprandially in quantities that we were not built to handle, which is what happens when we eat carbs. There is absolutely no dispute that when we eat simple carbs we see a massive 'dump' of insulin into our systems that rapidly tapers, as oppsed to the slower action of more complex carbs or the MUCH slower rise in insulin with fats and proteins. The anti carb camp argues that this overexposure to insulin makes our tissues resistant to insulin. Our lean tissue gets resistant to insulin at a faster rate than our fat tissue, which makes sense since obesity goes hand in hand with metabolic syndrome (insulin resistance). The insulin that we dump into our system leads to insulin resistance in our muscles. That causes our muscles to scream for more insulin than usual just so they can take up enough sugar to survive and function. But that extra insulin acts on the fat cells, which are NOT resistant, which makes them take up way more sugar than normal. Which makes us get fatter, and which also makes the muscle cells scream for even MORE insulin because now there's less sugar around and which upregulates our appetite. It's a viscious circle that all starts w/ overexposure to insulin. It makes sense from a theoretical physiologic standpoint. We also know that direct exposure to insulin (say at a diabetic's injection site) causes fat hypertrophy, so it makes sense that the same thing can happen systemically when we increase our carb content and have a post prandiadal insulin dump.

So where's the evidence? Taubes does this well: for the first part of his book he goes into population studies, noting multiple nativie populations (he goes on at length about a tribe called the Pima) that were documented to be thin before integrating into our society, that almost exclusively work in high caloric output (manual labor) jobs, that are so poor that there is a significant incidence of malnutrition and even starvation, but which still have enormous problems with obesity. The difference in population after population is that they switched from a high protein, high fat (atkins) diet to an incredibly high glycemic index diet based mainly around corn and flour. There is also definitive evidence that an Atkins diet, which does not call for calorie restriction or exercise, is more effective than a traditional combination of exercise and low calorie diet. That seems like a good support for the Taubes hypothesis. We have retrospective studies that show that introducing more carbs to a population makes it fatter (even in starving populations that exercise more than any of our sedentary, wealthy white collar workers), we have prospective studies showing that a high protein diet works, and we have a good physiologic basis for the entire theory.

It's not definitive, but its definitely evidence based. Its not CAM, its good science.

I'd recommend reading Taubes's book.

I am aware of the studies. My point was that he has taken some preliminary associations and correlations and turned them into gospel.

 

[Perrotfish]

I am aware of the studies. My point was that he has taken some preliminary associations and correlations and turned them into gospel.

It's really not that preliminary. The ATOZ trial that I linked was a massive multimillion dollar, year long trial published in JAMA that had spectacularly clear results. Taubes's retrospective population reviews involve an enormous number of diverse populations reviewed over decades. If we had data like that for a pharmacologic therapy we generally view that as an adequate basis for making medical recommendation. Definitive doesn't mean there can't be further studies, of course (nothing in science is ever that definitive) but it should mean that we make recommendations for a low carb, high fat diet in the meantime. When the scientific establishment continues to call these results 'preliminary' and continue to back a low fat, low cal diet that has NO evidence behind it, and which is in conflict with our fundamental knowledge of human physiology, it makes you wonder just how much evidence we would need to actually change our recommendations.

 

[facetguy]

it's really not that preliminary. The atoz trial that i linked was a massive multimillion dollar, year long trial published in jama that had spectacularly clear results. Taubes's retrospective population reviews involve an enormous number of diverse populations reviewed over decades. If we had data like that for a pharmacologic therapy we generally view that as difinitive. Definitive doesn't mean there can't be further studies, of course (nothing in science is ever that definitive) but it should mean that we make recommendations for a low carb, high fat diet in the meantime. When the scientific establishment continues to call these results 'preliminary' and continue to back a low fat, low cal diet that has no evidence behind it, and which is in conflict with our fundamental knowledge of human physiology, it makes you wonder just how much evidence we would need to actually change our recommendations.

ftfy.

 

[Perrotfish]

ftfy.

Editied

 

[SpecterGT260]

It's really not that preliminary. The ATOZ trial that I linked was a massive multimillion dollar, multi year trial published in JAMA that had spectacularly clear results. Taubes's retrospective population reviews involve an enormous number of diverse populations reviewed over decades. If we had data like that for a pharmacologic therapy we generally view that as difinitive. Definitive doesn't mean there can't be further studies, of course (nothing in science is ever that definitive) but it should mean that we make recommendations for a low carb, high fat diet in the meantime. When the scientific establishment continues to call these results 'preliminary' and continue to back a low carb, low cal diet that has NO evidence behind it, it makes you wonder just how much evidence we would need to actually change our recommendations.

so.... paleo is not low carb now?

Telling our patients to restrict themselves to nuts, berries, and the occasional fish and root for dessert isnt really practical or necessarily going to prove beneficial.

I am aware of a physician who has claimed to cure herself and others of MS using a paleo diet. What I am saying is not that we need to cast these things off as witchcraft, but rather not charge head first into scientific uncertainty full of false promises and the potential for patient harm. Thousands if not millions of people have controlled their weight using the standard accepted means, and the "paleo prophets" smack of the same gimmicks as body cleanses, crystal therapy, and chiro...er... uh.... detox drinks (facetguy, just messing with you buddy )

The "homeostasis" processes you talk about can be exactly mirrored using other means. There are several pretty well established tricks for cutting appetite.

I did NOT say that homeostasis was not a thing. What I said was that applying it in the argument as he did was meaningless. It was only rhetoric. Homeostasis is not disturbed when eating a donut, nor is "level of appetite suppression" a measure of homeostasis.

All of your points about breakfast and the lot are also not counterpoints. The initial argument was "calories in < calories out leads to weight loss". This is always true for ever and ever. Saying that not eating will lower your metabolic rate does not change this fact. What this does, is lowers the calories out, so now by starvation dieting you have not reached "calories in <calories out". That makes any such points on paleo dieting, appetite suppression, and the lot irrelevant to the point of calories in < calories out because these are simply tricks used to achieve this.

if your own diet screws your metabolism making "calories in < calories out" unattainable, you still didnt divide by zero and defy physics. This is an unwavering rule.

 

[facetguy]

Editied

I knew immediately what you meant. It's usually pretty clear who has read things from Taubes, Attia, Eades, etc and who sticks to the ol' company line.

Speaked of Taubes and Attia, they have started a new venture that will hopefully in time shed light on a lot of these issues. They call it NuSI, or the Nutrition Science Initiative. Attia recently updated the idea on his blog:

Update on NuSI

As I mentioned above, and have alluded to in several previous posts, Gary Taubes and I co-founded the Nutrition Science Initiative (NuSI) earlier this year, and in April I took on full-time responsibility as the President. NuSI is a non-profit organization with the mission of reducing the economic and social cost of obesity and its related diseases by bringing, through facilitation and funding, the most rigorous experimental science to the field of nutrition, just as such research exists in other fields of science.
In early September, when we formally and publicly launch NuSI, I will say much more about this. However, to give you a quick idea what we’re ultimately hoping to achieve, imagine a kind of Manhattan Project of Nutrition. In one concerted, directed, well-funded effort, the best scientists in the field — all independent, all suitably skeptical — will work together to generate the evidence necessary to put to rest, one way or the other, all the major and many of the minor controversies in nutrition research.
The best part? We’ll do it for less than the cost of developing just one drug in the United States.
Gary and I have been working at breakneck pace to build a world-class team at NuSI, including our Board of Directors, Scientific Advisory Board, Board of Advisors, scientific consortium, and full-time staff. I can’t wait until we can formally introduce you to our team and collaborators.
We have already hired several positions within NuSI through standard recruiting channels and referrals, but there is one position, in particular, Gary and I thought might be worth bringing to the attention of our readers – our Research Associate. We’ve already received a few dozen tremendous applications from individuals with great credentials, but we’re wondering if one critical attribute may be missing or under-represented in our applicants so far. Beyond the tangible skills necessary for this particular role – outlined in the downloadable job posting (below) – this role requires an almost maniacal obsession with nutrition science and a passion for answering the kinds of questions we’ve all been debating in print and in our blogs. We think there’s a reasonable chance that our future Research Associate is one of you out there reading this right now.
For the full list of job responsibilities and requirements, please download the job posting, which also explains exactly how to apply. Please do not send any of the application materials to me or Gary directly. You can consider this the first test of the ability to follow simple instructions.
This position will prove to be both extremely challenging and highly rewarding. We think that we have the opportunity with this organization to change the world, and that the odds are good that we can pull it off. Such opportunities don’t come along frequently in life. We’ve already enlisted some of the best scientists in nutrition and obesity research to design and conduct the studies we’ll be funding, and you’ll get the opportunity to support them day in and day out.
One very important disclosure: This role will make the proverbial ‘drinking from a fire hose’ seem manageable. I would describe this role as more of a “calling” than a “job” which, in reality, is true of all of our roles at NuSI. If you’re interested, and I haven’t scared you off yet, please consider applying for this role, if you feel you meet the requirements.
Thank you, and I’m looking forward to sharing the progress of NuSI with all of you.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Is that quoted or are you outlining a conflict of interest here? Sorry, trying to do this while I review for a test next wed so I am not following everything 100%

 

[facetguy]

Is that quoted or are you outlining a conflict of interest here? Sorry, trying to do this while I review for a test next wed so I am not following everything 100%

Ha! Yes that's a quote. I should have used those little thingys, you know...these things " ". And I also over-pasted...disregard the info about the job posting (unless you need a job, of course).

What's the test next Wed.?

 

[SpecterGT260]

Top to bottom physical exam. Just trying to put together my outline because I havent done one in forever. So I am skimming but no thanks, don't need a job right now

 

[Perrotfish]

I did NOT say that homeostasis was not a thing. What I said was that applying it in the argument as he did was meaningless. It was only rhetoric. Homeostasis is not disturbed when eating a donut, nor is "level of appetite suppression" a measure of homeostasis.

All of your points about breakfast and the lot are also not counterpoints. The initial argument was "calories in < calories out leads to weight loss". This is always true for ever and ever. Saying that not eating will lower your metabolic rate does not change this fact. What this does, is lowers the calories out, so now by starvation dieting you have not reached "calories in <calories out". That makes any such points on paleo dieting, appetite suppression, and the lot irrelevant to the point of calories in < calories out because these are simply tricks used to achieve this.

if your own diet screws your metabolism making "calories in < calories out" unattainable, you still didnt divide by zero and defy physics. This is an unwavering rule.

homeostasis IS the way your body regulates, without your conscious input, your calories in and calories out to keep you slim. I think I just gave good evidence that eating a donut DOES throw that process out of whack. I think I've linked good evidence that a high fat does DOES keep you thin, and a low cal diet does NOT. Your conscious choice of food decides how your hormones act, your hormones decide how much food you eat and how much you move. You CAN'T just decide to change your calories in and calories out directly, it doesn't work.

I'm not sure how in the world you would classify that as a 'trick'. That's like saying that albuterol is a 'trick' we use to keep asthmatics' ariways open. Now you could say that 'the only way to breath is bring air into and out of your lungs, albuterol is just a trick you use to achieve that'. And in a sense I guess that's true, but that doesn't mean that simplly telling an asthmatic to breath more is an effective, alternative solution. It would in fact be murder. Similarly while you're right that a high fat, low carb diet is a way to 'trick' your body into eating the right amount while maintaining your basal metabolic rate, just telling someone to 'eat less and move more' isn't an effective alternative. You can't consciously overcome a physiologic process.

Again, you've seen the evidence, would you still recomend a low cal, low fat diet? If so why?

Telling our patients to restrict themselves to nuts, berries, and the occasional fish and root for dessert isnt really practical or necessarily going to prove beneficial

Its actually mostly fish, meats, and greens with the occasional nut or berry for desert. It is no more or less practical than a diet based primarily around grains (even most fish these days are farm raised) and I think we've provided a lot of good, double blinded, prospective cohort study evidence that it had aleadly proven to be benifical.

 

[SpecterGT260]

homeostasis IS the way your body regulates, without your conscious input, your calories in and calories out to keep you slim. I think I just gave good evidence that eating a donut DOES throw that process out of whack. I think I've linked good evidence that a high fat does DOES keep you thin, and a low cal diet does NOT. Your conscious choice of food decides how your hormones act, your hormones decide how much food you eat and how much you move. You CAN'T just decide to change your calories in and calories out directly, it doesn't work.

I'm not sure how in the world you would classify that as a 'trick'. That's like saying that albuterol is a 'trick' we use to keep asthmatics' ariways open. Now you could say that 'the only way to breath is bring air into and out of your lungs, albuterol is just a trick you use to achieve that'. And in a sense I guess that's true, but that doesn't mean that simplly telling an asthmatic to breath more is an effective, alternative solution. It would in fact be murder. Similarly while you're right that a high fat diet is a way to 'trick' your body into eating the right amount while maintaining your basal metabolic rate, just telling someone to 'eat less and move more' isn't an effective alternative. You can't consciously overcome a physiologic process.

Again, you've seen the evidence, would you still recomend a low cal, low fat diet? If so why?

Out of whack would be aberrant. An insulin spike after a donut is no more out of homeostasis is than a pancreatic secretion after a steak

You are having a completely different conversation I am. I never said that specific diet cannot alter your metabolism. I said the alteration to metabolism actually holds the rule that calories in equals calories out

 

[SpecterGT260]

If you eat only 1 meal per day, at 3000 calories. The rule of calories in and calories out still applies. Your calories out will be very low because you will be in starvation mode. But that in no way shape or form breaks the rule . For a number of other metabolic reasons, this is why the Atkins diet does actually work. That doesn't necessarily make it healthy, but that is another discussion. The only point I'm making is that all calories are in Sac equal and all of this evidence does not contradict the rule about calories in calories out

 

[Perrotfish]

Out of whack would be aberrant. An insulin spike after a donut is no more out of homeostasis is than a pancreatic secretion after a steak

The insulin spike breaks your bodies ability to regulate insulin. You get a rush of insulin, your lean tissue becomes resistant to insulin, so it demands more insulin after each consecutive donut. That increases your appetite. More calories in. That makes you move less. Fewer calories out. That ever increasing amount of insulin you need to get sugar into your ever more resistant lean tissue acts on your non resistant fat. Your fat takes up a greater and great percentage of everything you put into your body. Fewer calories out relative to calories in.

Decades of insulin spikes breaks your ability to use regulate the amount of sugar you take in and your ability to burn the calories you eat. Your endocrine system can no longer make your weight stay (stasis) the same (homeo), instead every meal you eat makes you fatter. Carbs break your endocrine system the same way that cigarettes break your lungs. One cigarette won't do it, but over time a lot of them definitely will.

. That doesn't necessarily make it healthy, but that is another discussion.

That's this discussion. If you think the atkins diet makes you thinner why don't you think it makes you healthy? Again, why wouldn't the Atkin's diet be your first line recommendation to your patients?

 

[SpecterGT260]

The insulin spike breaks your bodies ability to regulate insulin. You get a rush of insulin, your lean tissue becomes resistant to insulin, so it demands more insulin after each consecutive donut. That increases your appetite. More calories in. That makes you move less. Fewer calories out. That ever increasing amount of insulin you need to get sugar into your ever more resistant lean tissue acts on your non resistant fat. Your fat takes up a greater and great percentage of everything you put into your body. Fewer calories out relative to calories in.

Decades of insulin spikes breaks your ability to use regulate the amount of sugar you take in and your ability to burn the calories you eat. Your weight can no longer stay (stasis) the same (homeo), instead every meal you eat makes you fatter. Carbs break your endocrine system the same way that cigarettes break your lungs. One cigarette won't do it, but over time a lot of them definitely will.



That's this discussion. If you think the atkins diet makes you thinner why don't you think it makes you healthy?

That is true of everything. Prolonged and massive insulin spikes are obviously problematic . I don't really see your point here

 

[Perrotfish]

That is true of everything. Prolonged and massive insulin spikes are obviously problematic . I don't really see your point here

That its not true of everything. Its not true of a low carb diet, because the low carb diet doesn't cause the insulin spikes that our grain based diet does. If you do that diet forever you'll retain the ability to regulate your weight into your old age. You won't get diabetes. You won't get fat. You won't be one of our patients struggling to breath in an extra large wheelchair after 30 years of backbreaking construction work while the thin physicians who only stand up for a maximum of 4 hours a day snicker about how you should have exercised more.

So the point is that a low carb diet is better than a low cal diet, because it doesn't break your endocrine system, so your body can regulate your hormones and keep you thin. So it should be recommend to all of our fat patients.

 

[SpecterGT260]

And to your point about the Atkins diet, starvation also makes you thin.

 

[Perrotfish]

And to your point about the Atkins diet, starvation also makes you thin.

Not without compromising your ability to function. Not without eating up your muscles along with your fat. Not sustainably unless someone else is physically seperating you from food. And in some very well documented cases (like many of our patients on atypical antipsychotics) it doesn't even necessarily work then: you can eat your own organs and die before your body will burn the exess fat off your frame.

Atkins makes you thin and functional for life. It's a healthy diet that keeps your weight down. Again, why wouldn't you recomend it to all your patients?

 

[KinasePro]

It's really not that preliminary. The ATOZ trial that I linked was a massive multimillion dollar, year long trial published in JAMA that had spectacularly clear results. Taubes's retrospective population reviews involve an enormous number of diverse populations reviewed over decades. If we had data like that for a pharmacologic therapy we generally view that as an adequate basis for making medical recommendation. Definitive doesn't mean there can't be further studies, of course (nothing in science is ever that definitive) but it should mean that we make recommendations for a low carb, high fat diet in the meantime. When the scientific establishment continues to call these results 'preliminary' and continue to back a low fat, low cal diet that has NO evidence behind it, and which is in conflict with our fundamental knowledge of human physiology, it makes you wonder just how much evidence we would need to actually change our recommendations.

This is a great point. It's pretty remarkable how cautious the medical community is to recommend low carb/high fat diets, when the evidence for the AHA's beloved mediterranean diet is actually pretty underwhelming. Evidence supporting the manipulation of carb metabolism is mounting, and I won't be surprised if we see a paradigm shift in the AHA's "heart healthy" eating recommendations within the next decade.

Anecdotally, I've seen a few patients with pretty aberrant metabolisms (lifelong obesity, PCOS) finally take control of their weight and hyperlipidemias using the paleo diet. Even if the effect is largely placebo, there's something to be said about how easily people can stick to a low carb + high protein/fat lifestyle. I've dabbled in it myself, and found it much easier to hit calorie restrictions on paleo than Mediterranean. Plus paleo seems to have an activating effect on my anabolic machinery, as I've gained a lot of lean muscle in a relatively short amount of time.

Still, in my opinion the big question mark that isn't addressed well with the low carb diets is colon health. I'm worried we'll see a spike in cancers and/or diverticulosis with people eating all that red meat and less grain fibers. Stool from red meat is not friendly to the GI endothelium...

 

[Perrotfish]

This is a great point. It's pretty remarkable how cautious the medical community is to recommend low carb/high fat diets, when the evidence for the AHA's beloved mediterranean diet is actually pretty underwhelming. Evidence supporting the manipulation of carb metabolism is mounting, and I won't be surprised if we see a paradigm shift in the AHA's "heart healthy" eating recommendations within the next decade.

Anecdotally, I've seen a few patients with pretty aberrant metabolisms (lifelong obesity, PCOS) finally take control of their weight and hyperlipidemias using the paleo diet. Even if the effect is largely placebo, there's something to be said about how easily people can stick to a low carb + high protein/fat lifestyle. I've dabbled in it myself, and found it much easier to hit calorie restrictions on paleo than Mediterranean. Plus paleo seems to have an activating effect on my anabolic machinery, as I've gained a lot of lean muscle in a relatively short amount of time.

Still, in my opinion the big question mark that isn't addressed well with the low carb diets is colon health. I'm worried we'll see a spike in cancers and/or diverticulosis with people eating all that red meat and less grain fibers. Stool from red meat is not friendly to the GI endothelium...

Low Carb green veggies are a fantastic source of fiber. The red.meat toxicity question is interesting. I still think weight loss.take precedent as a health priority, though

 

[KinasePro]

Low Carb green veggies are a fantastic source of fiber.

While this is true, I think getting patients to eat the right amount of greens is probably the hardest part of the low carb diets. I'd wager the (possibly) increased risks of colon cancer would be a good tradeoff for a functioning metabolism, though.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Not without compromising your ability to function. Not without eating up your muscles along with your fat. Not sustainably unless someone else is physically seperating you from food. And in some very well documented cases (like many of our patients on atypical antipsychotics) it doesn't even necessarily work then: you can eat your own organs and die before your body will burn the exess fat off your frame.

Atkins makes you thin and functional for life. It's a healthy diet that keeps your weight down. Again, why wouldn't you recomend it to all your patients?

I've done it myself. It isnt necessarily the best diet out there because many people end up missing out on some important nutrients (from what I understand this is why it is no longer favored in the medical community).


Also, back to the homeostasis thing. Insulin spikes and whatever are homeostatic mechanisms -as defined. Your earlier point about these leading to an inability to respond to insulin is beside the point. Abuse of a system leading to problems is really not all that terribly profound.

 

[facetguy]

I've done it myself. It isnt necessarily the best diet out there because many people end up missing out on some important nutrients (from what I understand this is why it is no longer favored in the medical community).

The nutrient thing would be a very weak rationale for not considering some form of a low-carb/Paleo diet.

And with due respect, I'm not sure 'the medical community' has proven itself to be the best arbiter of sound dietary practices over the years.

 

[SpecterGT260]

The nutrient thing would be a very weak rationale for not considering some form of a low-carb/Paleo diet.

And with due respect, I'm not sure 'the medical community' has proven itself to be the best arbiter of sound dietary practices over the years.

And with the same level of respect, any other communities' attempts have been based on whatever high protein and fiber nonsense some random hippie can pull out of his ass

The medical community, from anything I have heard recently, recommends balance and moderation and exercise, which is in line with any reputable dietary anything. The only other standpoint I am aware of is "beware the gimmick". "get thin quick" schemes are everywhere, and there is simply no actual logic or higher thinking behind the notion that we need to eat like cave men. the whole "natural is better" and "what we were meant to/ evolved to do" argument is childish in both its approach and in the level of intellectual ability that brought it here. "Natural" is borderline starvation, disease, and an inability to sustain a 7 billion individual population. This is essentially what every alternativist would drag us back to if they had their way, and they would know better if they actually had the education necessary to understand the ramifications of their hip-shot demands.



and seriously, both you and parrotfish need to take a step back and stop tangenting all over the place (not a word... I know....).
This was not an argument that said that "low carb will give you cancer-AIDS and also will cause the guy who schtupped your wife to run over your dog". Ive done low carb myself because it will make it easier to lose weight. That part is very very clear. I didnt even say I condemn it. I said it isnt necessarily in the best medical favors because people start neglecting proper sources of nutrition in favor of butter slathered not-bread.

What I said (and honestly I feel like I am always repeating myself in these things because some people see an argument and are simply unable to see it as anything other than the stock counter-argument.....) NONE of your points, in any way, shape, and/or form is a valid argument to dis-prove the "calories in < calories out" theory even in the slightest bit. In fact, the mechanisms at play actually prove it. Yes, metabolic differences, the "starvation mode", the whatever - all of these are perfectly in line with the calories in and calories out theory. That is all I have been arguing aside from taking a little bit of time to address your tangents....

 

[n8henrie]

Lizard deficiency? I don't know what you mean.

I mean if you're advocating eating a diet parallel to our ancestors, we should probably eat more lizards. And insects. And the thousands of calories per day of honey was for months at a time in some societies.

But nevertheless, I would be interested to see the constituents of your diet, percentages, etc., as well as the time period of your measurements, and your body weight for each.

All varies, I've tried a large variety. My most extreme example was 16 weeks of trace carbs (glycogen) at ~300g protein per day, remainder of calories in fat. Because I'm generally monitoring and adjusting my intake and expenditure to hit a target rate of fat loss, I don't think you'd find my data particularly relevant or applicable. On the other hand, I set a goal to hit obesity (BMI > 30) first year of medical school and achieved that in a matter of months as well. Anyone that has ever successfully made an effort to gain or lose weight is evidence that you can consciously override your homeostatic pressures.

Edit: Actually, I don't quite understand what you are trying to say here. It doesn't work like what, exactly, in the long term? You are saying that over the long term you would be able to overconsume meat?

Grains might not have existed before farming, but tubers, fruit, and honey all have similar effects on your insulin level

So does protein. (Surprise!)

We have plenty of studies about the effect of high fat, high protein diets on weight gain. Everything I've seen is very favorable towards a pure atkins (i.e. ketogenic) diet as both a short and long term solution to weight gain.
...
To me that suggests that there is something about ketosis, rather than insulin response, that makes the Atkins diet effective.

Let's see those "long-term" studies. I'm only aware of a few prospective ones that were over a year in duration, and they mostly show LF = LC (< Mediterranean). Additionally, I'm only aware of two-ish prospective long-term studies on the effect of LC on mortality, both with ominous findings.

And there is something about ketosis -- losing up to 100kcal / day of them in urinary and insensible losses adds up over time.

The argument from the Taubes/Atkins/Paleo camp is thats your weight is not regulated by a conscious intake of calories and a conscious output of activity.

You forgot to mention the part where Taubes suggests you can eat unlimited calories without weight gain as long as it is low carb, and some kind of metabolic uncoupling / advantage makes up the difference.

Every Pediatrician knows this: that's why the AAP advises that children, even overweight children, to eat breakfast every morning: we know it has positive effects on both cognition and, wierdly, it even curbs weight gain.

I don't think this is (prospective) evidence supported. Retrospective evidence selects for individuals with poor habits. (The fat slob that sleeps in, skips breakfast, has a snickers and a coke instead.)

There is absolutely no dispute that when we eat simple carbs we see a massive 'dump' of insulin into our systems that rapidly tapers, as oppsed to the slower action of more complex carbs or the MUCH slower rise in insulin with fats and proteins. The anti carb camp argues that this overexposure to insulin makes our tissues resistant to insulin. Our lean tissue gets resistant to insulin at a faster rate than our fat tissue, which makes sense since obesity goes hand in hand with metabolic syndrome (insulin resistance). The insulin that we dump into our system leads to insulin resistance in our muscles. That causes our muscles to scream for more insulin than usual just so they can take up enough sugar to survive and function. But that extra insulin acts on the fat cells, which are NOT resistant, which makes them take up way more sugar than normal. Which makes us get fatter, and which also makes the muscle cells scream for even MORE insulin because now there's less sugar around and which upregulates our appetite. It's a viscious circle that all starts w/ overexposure to insulin. It makes sense from a theoretical physiologic standpoint. We also know that direct exposure to insulin (say at a diabetic's injection site) causes fat hypertrophy, so it makes sense that the same thing can happen systemically when we increase our carb content and have a post prandiadal insulin dump.

So where's the evidence? Taubes does this well: for the first part of his book he goes into population studies, noting multiple nativie populations (he goes on at length about a tribe called the Pima) that were documented to be thin before integrating into our society, that almost exclusively work in high caloric output (manual labor) jobs, that are so poor that there is a significant incidence of malnutrition and even starvation, but which still have enormous problems with obesity now that they're integrated into American society. The difference in population after population is that they switched from a high protein, high fat (atkins) diet to an incredibly high glycemic index diet based mainly around corn and flour. There is also definitive evidence that an Atkins diet, which does not call for calorie restriction or exercise, is more effective than a traditional combination of exercise and low calorie diet. That seems like a good support for the Taubes hypothesis. We have retrospective studies that show that introducing more carbs to a population makes it fatter (even in starving populations that exercise more than any of our sedentary, wealthy white collar workers), we have prospective studies showing that a high protein diet works, and we have a good physiologic basis for the entire theory.

It's not definitive, but its definitely evidence based. Its not CAM, its good science.

What a bunch of pop science baloney! The effects of mixed diets on insulin response is so different from the studies done on 100g / 1000 kJ portions that it makes them hardly applicable. There is good prospective evidence that "glycemic index" and "glycemic load" do not matter, and that they are quite different than the "insulin index" and "satiety index." Taubes forgets to mention that the in vitro effects of insulin on HSL are quite different than the in vivo effects, where basal / fasting levels inhibit HSL activity to a high degree. He also forgets to mention that central insulin action is one of the most powerful homeostatic pro-satiety factors we know about. Perhaps that's why "boiled potato" ranked highest in the "satiety index"?

You get a rush of insulin, your lean tissue becomes resistant to insulin, so it demands more insulin after each consecutive donut. That increases your appetite.

No. Insulin has potent pro-satiety effects.

If you think the atkins diet makes you thinner why don't you think it makes you healthy? Again, why wouldn't the Atkin's diet be your first line recommendation to your patients?

As I mentioned, because prospective evidence shows LC has a higher long-term mortality. And because of antagonistic pleiotropy; there is little reason to believe that something that improves reproductive success and genetic fitness necessarily improves longevity.

the evidence for the AHA's beloved mediterranean diet is actually pretty underwhelming.

Oh really? As compared to what?

Anecdotally, I've seen a few patients with pretty aberrant metabolisms (lifelong obesity, PCOS) finally take control of their weight and hyperlipidemias using the paleo diet. Even if the effect is largely placebo, there's something to be said about how easily people can stick to a low carb + high protein/fat lifestyle. I've dabbled in it myself, and found it much easier to hit calorie restrictions on paleo than Mediterranean. Plus paleo seems to have an activating effect on my anabolic machinery, as I've gained a lot of lean muscle in a relatively short amount of time.

Agreed. Not placebo -- restriction of variety and increase in protein (significantly higher TEF).

Still, in my opinion the big question mark that isn't addressed well with the low carb diets is colon health. I'm worried we'll see a spike in cancers and/or diverticulosis with people eating all that red meat and less grain fibers. Stool from red meat is not friendly to the GI endothelium...

+1 -- see my comments above.

And with due respect, I'm not sure 'the medical community' has proven itself to be the best arbiter of sound dietary practices over the years.

+1

 

[KinasePro]

He also forgets to mention that central insulin action is one of the most powerful homeostatic pro-satiety factors we know about. Perhaps that's why "boiled potato" ranked highest in the "satiety index"? [...] Insulin has potent pro-satiety effects.

There are some theories that these satiety effects are highly variable, though. I was taught that leptin and grehlin are currently thought to be the principle drivers of satiety and hunger, and even their effects are highly heterogenous.

It comes down to the question of what drives the "hunger" thermostat, and I wouldn't be surprised if we find that different signals predominate in different body types.

Oh really? As compared to what?

Studying nutrition is inherently messy, so its hard to find any of the studies very compelling, whether paleo/atkins/mediterrenean/whatever. The original mediterranean studies are suspicious for confounding by Mediterranean genotypes, and the more recent studies just don't provide good differentiation between Mediterranean and low carb. I'll admit that I'm a little biased, because my anecdotal experience has seen great success in paleo-type diets. I just won't be surprised if the Mediterranean diet fades away.

 

[CaptainSSO]

Anyone that has ever successfully made an effort to gain or lose weight is evidence that you can consciously override your homeostatic pressures.

Of course. I have never disagreed with this. What I'm saying is that it should not have to be conscious. It should regulate itself, like perrotfish mentioned with the lumberjacks and the compensatory, unconscious increase in caloric consumption. Eating Paleo allows this process to be unconscious. I know on a Paleo diet I can regulate my weight while never counting a single calorie. On a high carb diet I WILL overeat unless I consciously force myself not to.


And Specter, you are selectively responding to my points. At no point was I ever saying a single meal would throw you out of homeostasis. I am taking about years of eating a diet high in refined carbohydrates.

Homeostasis = maintaining CONSTANCY of the internal environment.

Explain to me how development of excess adipose tissue, insulin resistance, etc. fits within that context, i.e., CONSTANCY. Dynamic EQUILIBRIUM.

http://m.dictionary.com/definition/constant/?linkId=ibc5yn

http://m.dictionary.com/definition/equilibrium/?linkId=ibc5yn

Perrotfish--about the meat thing and early humans. Google a paper called "the expensive tissue hypothesis." Very interesting stuff. The gist of it is, homo sapiens would have never evolved if it weren't for a switch from a primarily plant-based diet to a meat-based one.

No. Insulin has potent pro-satiety effects.

You guys are referring to two different concepts, that are not mutually exclusive. Insulin does have pro-satiety affects. But if because due to insulin resistance glucose your glut-4 channels are not inserting into the cell membrane and glucose is not entering your cells, your body will demand more glucose. It is not all one way or all the other way. If insulin was simply a pro-satiety hormone, and that was the end of it, we wouldn't even be having this conversation, because obesity would not be so prevalent.

 

[CaptainSSO]

I've done it myself. It isnt necessarily the best diet out there because many people end up missing out on some important nutrients (from what I understand this is why it is no longer favored in the medical community).
.

This is a horrendous, patronizing argument. "Well, the peons can't do it right, so we'll just have them stick with what's wrong."

Clearly, if you reduce the amount of refined carbohydrates in someone's diet, they are going to eat nothing but bacon, right?

This argument is akin to saying, "Well, we need to reinstate Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Because if you let gays start serving in the military, they're going to stop fighting because they'll be too focused on their homosexual relationship."

This type of argument is by far the most annoying argument against paleo. That it's "too hard to do." It's complete bullsh*t. I build my meals around meat and vegetables, with occasional fruits such as berries and citrus fruit. It doesn't get much simpler than that.

You can substitute out the refined carbohydrates. Let's say I'm having 2 eggs, 2 biscuits, 2 pieces of bacon and some strawberries for breakfast. All you would have to do is add 2 more eggs and not eat the biscuits.

Let's go with lunch--a roast beef sandwich on French bread and tomato soup, with a white chocolate macadamia nut cookie for dessert. Toss the sandwich bread and eat some extra roast beef instead. Cut out the cookie and eat some macadamia nuts instead. It's that easy.

Fajitas for dinner. Nix the flour tortillas and eat more beef, peppers, and onions. Eat carrot sticks instead of chips.

You have officially eaten Paleo for the day.

Is that too romanticized for you?

 

[SpecterGT260]

This is a horrendous, patronizing argument. "Well, the peons can't do it right, so we'll just have them stick with what's wrong."

Clearly, if you reduce the amount of refined carbohydrates in someone's diet, they are going to eat nothing but bacon, right?

This argument is akin to saying, "Well, we need to reinstate Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Because if you let gays start serving in the military, they're going to stop fighting because they'll be too focused on their homosexual relationship."

This type of argument is by far the most annoying argument against paleo. That it's "too hard to do." It's complete bullsh*t. I build my meals around meat and vegetables, with occasional fruits such as berries and citrus fruit. It doesn't get much simpler than that.

You can substitute out the refined carbohydrates. Let's say I'm having 2 eggs, 2 biscuits, 2 pieces of bacon and some strawberries for breakfast. All you would have to do is add 2 more eggs and not eat the biscuits.

Let's go with lunch--a roast beef sandwich on French bread and tomato soup, with a white chocolate macadamia nut cookie for dessert. Toss the sandwich bread and eat some extra roast beef instead. Cut out the cookie and eat some macadamia nuts instead. It's that easy.

Fajitas for dinner. Nix the flour tortillas and eat more beef, peppers, and onions. Eat carrot sticks instead of chips.

You have officially eaten Paleo for the day.

Is that too romanticized for you?

if I said "it was bad for you because" you may have a point. Since I said "It isnt what the medical community recommends" (which IS based on issues of compliance, behavior, and the subjective side you refer to as being a "peon") you obviously do not have a point

and you obviously have still not figured out that I am not saying low carb is bad nor have I ever said it. You also obviously are one of those I described earlier who lacks the ability recognize an argument other than the one you anticipate seeing.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Of course. I have never disagreed with this. What I'm saying is that it should not have to be conscious. It should regulate itself, like perrotfish mentioned with the lumberjacks and the compensatory, unconscious increase in caloric consumption. Eating Paleo allows this process to be unconscious. I know on a Paleo diet I can regulate my weight while never counting a single calorie. On a high carb diet I WILL overeat unless I consciously force myself not to.


And Specter, you are selectively responding to my points. At no point was I ever saying a single meal would throw you out of homeostasis. I am taking about years of eating a diet high in refined carbohydrates.

Homeostasis = maintaining CONSTANCY of the internal environment.

Explain to me how development of excess adipose tissue, insulin resistance, etc. fits within that context, i.e., CONSTANCY. Dynamic EQUILIBRIUM.

http://m.dictionary.com/definition/constant/?linkId=ibc5yn

http://m.dictionary.com/definition/equilibrium/?linkId=ibc5yn

Perrotfish--about the meat thing and early humans. Google a paper called "the expensive tissue hypothesis." Very interesting stuff. The gist of it is, homo sapiens would have never evolved if it weren't for a switch from a primarily plant-based diet to a meat-based one.


You guys are referring to two different concepts, that are not mutually exclusive. Insulin does have pro-satiety affects. But if because due to insulin resistance glucose your glut-4 channels are not inserting into the cell membrane and glucose is not entering your cells, your body will demand more glucose. It is not all one way or all the other way. If insulin was simply a pro-satiety hormone, and that was the end of it, we wouldn't even be having this conversation, because obesity would not be so prevalent.

wait a second.... fat accumulation is a NORMAL and HEALTHY process. This is why I scoffed at you using the paleo "evolutionary" argument. Just because we live in a time of extreme excess and the accumulation is to a point that it becomes damaging doesnt make fat a bad thing. I had a friend who told me that we shouldnt drink cow's milk because anything that can make a 200lbs calf turn into a 2000lbs cow couldnt be good for you. you are now using this logic. Ouch....

 

[CaptainSSO]

wait a second.... fat accumulation is a NORMAL and HEALTHY process. This is why I scoffed at you using the paleo "evolutionary" argument. Just because we live in a time of extreme excess and the accumulation is to a point that it becomes damaging doesnt make fat a bad thing. I had a friend who told me that we shouldnt drink cow's milk because anything that can make a 200lbs calf turn into a 2000lbs cow couldnt be good for you. you are now using this logic. Ouch....

No, I am not. A SMALL amount of fat accumulation is a normal process. A PATHOLOGICAL amount of fat accumulation is not normal by any stretch of the imagination.

You are making the tired old, erroneous argument that the problem is "excess" food. It's not. It's the TYPE of food, i.e., refined carbohydrates.

Refined carbs ---> initiation of premature, severe disease processes. Like I said, if you think that's not a disruption of homeostasis, than I can't believe that you think it's even possible to disrupt homeostasis.

The irony of you claiming that I'm refuting arguments that I anticipate you making rather than arguments you're actually making while you're doing the same thing yourself is astounding.

 

[SpecterGT260]

not really... because I am attempting to get you to stop talking about carbs. I dont give a damn. Ive said many times that low-carb diets will in fact result in easier weight loss and that I have done them myself. Yet you are here arguing about carbs again. I literally cant spell this out for you any clearer...

Please re-read my posts. This whole debacle started when facetguy said that not all calories are equal and that a calorie in vs calorie out argument is insufficient. THAT is what I am debating. The cal in cal out argument is 100% accurate because anything else is in fact dividing by zero.

 

[facetguy]

Please re-read my posts. This whole debacle started when facetguy said that not all calories are equal and that a calorie in vs calorie out argument is insufficient. THAT is what I am debating. The cal in cal out argument is 100% accurate because anything else is in fact dividing by zero.

There's been a fair amount of debate in the 'blogosphere' and elsewhere regarding the validity of the 'calories in/calories out' notion, so this isn't a new debate by any means. I'd invite you to read things outside of your current sphere to get a more complete perspective, because (as someone else pointed out) you do tend to echo the standard line that's simply been repeated for decades now. I think that treating all calories as equal when it comes to human metabolism is a mistake. It's a clear fact that different macronutrients will have different metabolic impacts. To ignore this and instead focus solely on caloric content is shortsighted. I also think there is variability between people, which isn't an earth-shattering idea, and that this variability accounts for why some people can tolerate more carbs than others.

The JAMA study I mentioned earlier (http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1199154) got a lot of attention when published a few months ago because it carefully measured the 'calories out' part of the equation while keeping the 'calories in' the same across all groups (low-fat, low-glycemic and low-carb), and found the low-carb subjects burned an additional 300 kcals/day without doing anything extra. One quote from Ludwig: ""We've found that, contrary to nutritional dogma, all calories are not created equal," says Ludwig, who is also director of the Optimal Weight for Life Clinic at Boston Children's Hospital. "Total calories burned plummeted by 300 calories on the low-fat diet compared to the low-carbohydrate diet, which would equal the number of calories typically burned in an hour of moderate-intensity physical activity," he says."

It has long been argued by low-carb proponents that low-carb diets confer some "metabolic advantage". Whether this is true has been debated, but the Ludwig study findings seem to support this notion. More research will surely follow.

 

[SpecterGT260]

There's been a fair amount of debate in the 'blogosphere' and elsewhere regarding the validity of the 'calories in/calories out' notion, so this isn't a new debate by any means. I'd invite you to read things outside of your current sphere to get a more complete perspective, because (as someone else pointed out) you do tend to echo the standard line that's simply been repeated for decades now. I think that treating all calories as equal when it comes to human metabolism is a mistake. It's a clear fact that different macronutrients will have different metabolic impacts. To ignore this and instead focus solely on caloric content is shortsighted. I also think there is variability between people, which isn't an earth-shattering idea, and that this variability accounts for why some people can tolerate more carbs than others.

The JAMA study I mentioned earlier (http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1199154) got a lot of attention when published a few months ago because it carefully measured the 'calories out' part of the equation while keeping the 'calories in' the same across all groups (low-fat, low-glycemic and low-carb), and found the low-carb subjects burned an additional 300 kcals/day without doing anything extra. One quote from Ludwig: ""We've found that, contrary to nutritional dogma, all calories are not created equal," says Ludwig, who is also director of the Optimal Weight for Life Clinic at Boston Children's Hospital. "Total calories burned plummeted by 300 calories on the low-fat diet compared to the low-carbohydrate diet, which would equal the number of calories typically burned in an hour of moderate-intensity physical activity," he says."

It has long been argued by low-carb proponents that low-carb diets confer some "metabolic advantage". Whether this is true has been debated, but the Ludwig study findings seem to support this notion. More research will surely follow.

it is undebatable. I mean... you can debate it, but that would only serve to skew my opinion about certain endeavors and use of pseudoscience in a particular direction. Calories is an explicitly defined unit of measure for energy. If you eat certain foods and it alters your metabolism and causes you to burn fewer calories in you basal rate - you still have not violated this rule.


see the bold. OH GOD READ THE BOLD! THIS THIS THIS is what I am talking about. I have said at least 5 times now that low-carb diets exploit metabolic avenues to promote weight loss (I could explain them to you if you are curious... it isnt even that complicated or controversial ) but srsly u gais..... Once again you are trying to argue the validity of low-carb in altering metabolism as if that is somehow a point of contention.

Thank ye, facetgai. This helped

p.s. how are they carefully measuring the "energy out" part?

 

[facetguy]

Not exactly on topic, but I think we are seeing this notion play out in diet research right now:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/a...ientific-reasoning-more-flawed-than-you-think

"New concepts don’t replace incorrect ones: they just learn to live together."

 

[SpecterGT260]

Not exactly on topic, but I think we are seeing this notion play out in diet research right now:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/a...ientific-reasoning-more-flawed-than-you-think

"New concepts don't replace incorrect ones: they just learn to live together."

Doesn't apply

I can only assume that you are still arguing a non point.

 

[facetguy]

Doesn't apply

I can only assume that you are still arguing a non point.

Sure it applies. Watch as things evolve and 'experts' begin to admit that fats aren't evil afterall while at the same time advising everyone to continue drinking skim milk.

And I don't know what "non-point" you're talking about. To be honest, you haven't seemed yourself in this thread. You mentioned you were distracted with studying, so perhaps that's what it is.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Sure it applies. Watch as things evolve and 'experts' begin to admit that fats aren't evil afterall while at the same time advising everyone to continue drinking skim milk.

And I don't know what "non-point" you're talking about. To be honest, you haven't seemed yourself in this thread. You mentioned you were distracted with studying, so perhaps that's what it is.

I can't tell if you are just messing with me here. "Non point" as I am using it, describes you incessantly arguing a point that is not a point of contention. It is somewhere between funny and tragic that you keep making these points in response to me.

 

[facetguy]

I can't tell if you are just messing with me here. "Non point" as I am using it, describes you incessantly arguing a point that is not a point of contention. It is somewhere between funny and tragic that you keep making these points in response to me.

I still don't know what "non-point" you mean. All I was saying with my last post is that you've been a bit scattered in this thread, unlike your usual self. Heck, it's even been awhile since you posted any bar graphs or other data plots . You've made the point about the textbook definition of a calorie, but I'm not sure how you feel that applies to real people instead of bomb calorimeters.

 

[SpecterGT260]

I still don't know what "non-point" you mean. All I was saying with my last post is that you've been a bit scattered in this thread, unlike your usual self. Heck, it's even been awhile since you posted any bar graphs or other data plots . You've made the point about the textbook definition of a calorie, but I'm not sure how you feel that applies to real people instead of bomb calorimeters.

The reason I am not going to the literature or posting data is because the point you are making is simply not one of contention. I don't disagree - yet you keep insisting upon this point as if it somehow impacts the discussion.
the only point I made is that all calories are calories - end of story. That got you and the parrot all hot and bothered and you guys started talking about low-carb diets. IIRC, i said in that first post that I am aware that specific foods and diet plans can alter metabolism.... to which you guys have responded "yeah but specific foods and diet plans CAN alter metabolism!"

That is essentially what has happened here. I will just go find another thread you are in, quote what you say, post a statement that is in agreement with an aside point that you make, but phrase it in such a way that I am using it as a counterpoint to your argument. I think that then you will understand what is happening here

 

[SpecterGT260]

what I am hoping to accomplish here is to get you to understand that alterations in metabolism do not violate this rule.

If you had 2 theoretical foods both at 1000cal, one that brought your metabolism to a near complete standstill and one that boosted your metabolism to 10000000x what it is normally, this rule still applies. Your basal rate has changed- but that doesnt make the 1000cal of one food different than the 1000cal of the other. Calories is a unit of measure. You simply cannot remove it from its meaning and attempt to claim that not all calories are equal. That is like claiming that not all gallons are equal, or not all meters are equal. This is not an example of me being a stickler for the textbook definition - this is how a working understanding of these things is applied. If you want to talk about the gimmick diets and the metabolic pathways they exploit I would be happy to do so - but that wasnt the point that was being made. If you continue to address my posts by stating that food groups can alter metabolism I am forced to assume that you do not understand what is happening in this conversation and something here is over your head

 

[facetguy]

what I am hoping to accomplish here is to get you to understand that alterations in metabolism do not violate this rule.

If you had 2 theoretical foods both at 1000cal, one that brought your metabolism to a near complete standstill and one that boosted your metabolism to 10000000x what it is normally, this rule still applies. Your basal rate has changed- but that doesnt make the 1000cal of one food different than the 1000cal of the other. Calories is a unit of measure. You simply cannot remove it from its meaning and attempt to claim that not all calories are equal. That is like claiming that not all gallons are equal, or not all meters are equal. This is not an example of me being a stickler for the textbook definition - this is how a working understanding of these things is applied. If you want to talk about the gimmick diets and the metabolic pathways they exploit I would be happy to do so - but that wasnt the point that was being made. If you continue to address my posts by stating that food groups can alter metabolism I am forced to assume that you do not understand what is happening in this conversation and something here is over your head

Ah, now I understand your "non-point". As a unit of measure in a textbook, a calorie is a calorie.

But when you say that I don't understand what is happening in this conversation, that speaks to exactly what I meant when I said you seemed a bit disjointed in this thread. Nobody cares about the textbook definition of a calorie. This conversation is (or at least is currently) about real-world impacts of calories from different macronutrient sources. It's about the metabolic impact of foods, not calories. Yes, in the grand scheme calories count. But calories counting becomes more or less irrelevant if we are eating 'the right foods'.

If we are in agreement about those aspects of the conversation, that's good and means you are in good company .

 

[SpecterGT260]

Ah, now I understand your "non-point". As a unit of measure in a textbook, a calorie is a calorie.

But when you say that I don't understand what is happening in this conversation, that speaks to exactly what I meant when I said you seemed a bit disjointed in this thread. Nobody cares about the textbook definition of a calorie. This conversation is (or at least is currently) about real-world impacts of calories from different macronutrient sources. It's about the metabolic impact of foods, not calories. Yes, in the grand scheme calories count. But calories counting becomes more or less irrelevant if we are eating 'the right foods'.

If we are in agreement about those aspects of the conversation, that's good and means you are in good company .

So you forget telling a poster earlier that calories in and out doesn't work.


Interestingly, didn't captain attempt to chastise me earlier for talking in terms of expected patient behavior?