5 ms·

I've watched Dr. Lustig's video previously, and in general its the same principles touted by Gary Taubes, but I still find it dubious. You can look at your pat

by dr_ 15y ago

I've watched Dr. Lustig's video previously, and in general its the same principles touted by Gary Taubes, but I still find it dubious. You can look at your patient population and come up with a hypothesis that would make sense from a pure biochemistry perspective, but that's really no different than what the proponents of dietary fat as a cause of heart disease did. And since when is monitoring people in a controlled lab for a few weeks at a time (likely limiting their physical activity and who knows what kind of stress to the system having your blood drawn every 30 minutes induces) considered valid scientific research when it in no way exemplifies real world situations that people are exposed to. And sugar is apparently carcinogenic because it can cause an increase in baseline insulin levels as a response, which can drive glucose into potential tumor cells allowing them to grow. That's purely speculative, and very difficult to substantiate when there are so many other reasons for people to develop cancer: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/13/health/research/red-meat-linked-to-cancer-and-heart-disease.html http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/13/health/research/red-meat-l... Personally, I'm still convinced that a calorie is a calorie. And the reason we've been gaining weight, with greater incidence of heart disease, diabetes, etc. is that we simply consume too much food, perhaps too much processed food, but in general we just eat too much. So eat less, and the best way is to consume small portions of food multiple times a day instead of large meals with large gaps in between. Trust me, it works.

Drbble 15y ago
And also to eat low calorie per ounce of weight or volume, and slow digesting foods like ruffage to give the feeling of fullness.
lukifer 15y ago
It's true that you don't lose weight without caloric deficit. But while a calorie equals a calorie, the body reacts differently to fast calories and slow calories: a steady supply of blood sugar, vs. spikes and troughs. This affects feedback loops of insulin, satiety, etc., prompting people to overeat. Side note: I'm really looking forward to future biofeedback tech. It'd be interesting to know my blood sugar level and heart rate at all times.
- aneth 15y ago
  > It's true that you don't lose weight without caloric deficit. Are you sure? I've lost plenty of weight following a low carb diet while eating tons of high calorie dark chocolate and oily meats.
  - ukdm 15y ago
    Me too. Just spent 8 weeks on a low carb diet and lost 17 pounds so far. Calories do not factor into it. Low carbs and low sugar intake lead to weight loss.
    - frou_dh 15y ago
      You can lose fat if you eat nothing but Doritos and a Coke 3 times a day. Weight loss is far more straightforward to achieve than health and fitness.
      - wpietri 15y ago
        Do you have evidence for that? The Lustig view on the biochemistry of fat creation and insulin resistance is pretty persuasive.
        frou_dh 15y ago
        Try it. I have (not that exact combo, but the same ballpark). Or find one of the many people who eat terribly but not excessively and are thin. I didn't say it was in any way a good idea - just a retort to the OP's position that short term weight loss is not about calories.
        wpietri 15y ago
        I don't think a skinny guy who eats junk food proves anything. I believe that ukdm's position is not that calories are entirely irrelevant, just that if you focus on low carbs and low sugar, then counting calories in practice doesn't matter.
BasLeijdekkers 15y ago
The red meat study from the nytimes article you link received a lot of criticism, for example: http://www.zoeharcombe.com/2012/03/red-meat-mortality-the-usual-bad-science/ http://www.zoeharcombe.com/2012/03/red-meat-mortality-the-us...
- DanBC 15y ago
  She spends a long time attacking the research. Really her problem is with how science is reported. It's frustrating that she takes quotes from the BBC R4 Programme 'Today' out of context. John Humphries is an idiot and has no clue about interviewing technical people. The researchers were careful not to overplay the research. Even though this is epidemiology and not a double blind controlled study the results are pretty clear; the research was good quality. Here's what the research said. (She quotes this.) > “Unprocessed and processed red meat intakes were associated with an increased risk of total, CVD, and cancer mortality in men and women in the age-adjusted and fully adjusted models. When treating red meat intake as a continuous variable, the elevated risk of total mortality in the pooled analysis for a 1-serving-per-day increase was 12% for total red meat, 13% for unprocessed red meat, and 20% for processed red meat.” This is a calm, cautious, undramatic statement. The problem is that risk is presented as a percentage, and most people have no idea what that means to their life expectancy; or how to compare that risk to other things. Check my math, but I think the above figures mean a decrease of one year in life expectancy over 80 years. Eg: compare Bob who doesn't eat too much red meat who lives to 80 with the same Bob who does eat too much red meat who lives to 79. (But risks unpleasant medical treatment that decreases quality of life.)
  - mizzack 15y ago
    There's a lot more wrong with how the data was interpreted, not to mention the hyperbolic statements made by the researchers themselves. "The statistics are staggering," study author Frank Hu, a professor of nutrition and epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public health, told us. "The increased risk is really substantial." http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/03/12/148457233/death-by-bacon-study-finds-eating-meat-is-risky http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/03/12/148457233/death-... That statement alone is absolutely contra-calm/cautious/undramatic. The fact that this was an observational study based on a food frequency questionnaire is dubious as well. It's well established that participants underreport foods that are perceived as being "bad" for them and overreport things that society says are "good." "Foods underestimated by the FFQs compared with the diet records (ie, the gold standard) included processed meats, eggs, butter, high-fat dairy products, mayonnaise and creamy salad dressings, refined grains, and sweets and desserts, whereas most of the vegetable and fruit groups, nuts, high-energy and low-energy drinks, and condiments were overestimated by the FFQs." http://www.ajcn.org/content/69/2/243.full http://www.ajcn.org/content/69/2/243.full
usaar333 15y ago
> Personally, I'm still convinced that a calorie is a calorie. turns out that idea violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC506782/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC506782/
127001brewer 15y ago
Personally, I'm still convinced that a calorie is a calorie. According to this New York Times article[1], a calorie is not always a calorie: A food isn’t a food — they’re all different — but since a calorie is just a measurement of energy, how can it vary? When I asked my question, Nestle’s answer was confounding: “Yes and no,” she said, adding, “It’s Talmudic.” Because calories change as they enter the body, the nine grams for fat and four for everything else turn out to be not very accurate measures at all; besides, foods are only rarely one thing or another. Here’s what is true, she said: “The studies that have measured calorie intake, that have put people on calorie-reduced diets and measured what happened, show no difference in weight loss based on composition of the diet.” When people are essentially incarcerated, when all intake is weighed and measured, they will lose weight if the calories in their diets are reduced — regardless of the composition of the diet. [1] http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/20/is-a-calorie-a-calorie/ http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/20/is-a-calorie...
Nimi 15y ago
Personally, I'm still convinced that a calorie is a calorie Do you believe that a person can subsist only on mayonnaise? According to this: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=calories+in+mayonnaise http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=calories+in+mayonnaise, it seems that 50 tablespoons of mayo will get you around 2500 calories, so that should be enough calories per day, right? Your answer might be "no, you also need vitamins". So suppose I add to this hypothetical experiment the daily recommended intake of vitamins through pills (and similarly for other things, like fiber). Would the hypothetical subject live, according to your estimation?
- DanBC 15y ago
  What a curious reply. Obviously a person needs more than calories to live. Protein, carbohydrates, fats, vitamins, minerals, and water are all essential to life. Dietary fibre is pretty handy, but being indigestible is not counted as a nutrient.
  - Nimi 15y ago
    I'm not sure I understand your reply: Protein: OK, add to the hypothetical experiment enough protein shakes. Carbohydrates: their inclusion in your list seems to suggest that a calorie is not a calorie, in the sense that one can't substitute all one's carbohydrates with fats, as long as the calories add up to the same amount. Right? Fats: Mayonnaise has quite a lot of fat. Vitamins, minerals: Take enough pills of those. Water: OK, drink water as much as you want. Would a person living on this diet be healthy? If not, and we controlled all the non-caloric variables, does that mean that the premise that "a calorie is a calorie" is false?
eli_gottlieb 15y ago
Then why is wildlife getting fatter?

by dr_ 15y ago

Drbble 15y ago

And also to eat low calorie per ounce of weight or volume, and slow digesting foods like ruffage to give the feeling of fullness.

lukifer 15y ago

It's true that you don't lose weight without caloric deficit. But while a calorie equals a calorie, the body reacts differently to fast calories and slow calories: a steady supply of blood sugar, vs. spikes and troughs. This affects feedback loops of insulin, satiety, etc., prompting people to overeat. Side note: I'm really looking forward to future biofeedback tech. It'd be interesting to know my blood sugar level and heart rate at all times.

aneth 15y ago
> It's true that you don't lose weight without caloric deficit. Are you sure? I've lost plenty of weight following a low carb diet while eating tons of high calorie dark chocolate and oily meats.
- ukdm 15y ago
  Me too. Just spent 8 weeks on a low carb diet and lost 17 pounds so far. Calories do not factor into it. Low carbs and low sugar intake lead to weight loss.
  - frou_dh 15y ago
    You can lose fat if you eat nothing but Doritos and a Coke 3 times a day. Weight loss is far more straightforward to achieve than health and fitness.
    - wpietri 15y ago
      Do you have evidence for that? The Lustig view on the biochemistry of fat creation and insulin resistance is pretty persuasive.
      - frou_dh 15y ago
        Try it. I have (not that exact combo, but the same ballpark). Or find one of the many people who eat terribly but not excessively and are thin. I didn't say it was in any way a good idea - just a retort to the OP's position that short term weight loss is not about calories.
        wpietri 15y ago
        I don't think a skinny guy who eats junk food proves anything. I believe that ukdm's position is not that calories are entirely irrelevant, just that if you focus on low carbs and low sugar, then counting calories in practice doesn't matter.

BasLeijdekkers 15y ago

The red meat study from the nytimes article you link received a lot of criticism, for example: http://www.zoeharcombe.com/2012/03/red-meat-mortality-the-usual-bad-science/ http://www.zoeharcombe.com/2012/03/red-meat-mortality-the-us...

DanBC 15y ago
She spends a long time attacking the research. Really her problem is with how science is reported. It's frustrating that she takes quotes from the BBC R4 Programme 'Today' out of context. John Humphries is an idiot and has no clue about interviewing technical people. The researchers were careful not to overplay the research. Even though this is epidemiology and not a double blind controlled study the results are pretty clear; the research was good quality. Here's what the research said. (She quotes this.) > “Unprocessed and processed red meat intakes were associated with an increased risk of total, CVD, and cancer mortality in men and women in the age-adjusted and fully adjusted models. When treating red meat intake as a continuous variable, the elevated risk of total mortality in the pooled analysis for a 1-serving-per-day increase was 12% for total red meat, 13% for unprocessed red meat, and 20% for processed red meat.” This is a calm, cautious, undramatic statement. The problem is that risk is presented as a percentage, and most people have no idea what that means to their life expectancy; or how to compare that risk to other things. Check my math, but I think the above figures mean a decrease of one year in life expectancy over 80 years. Eg: compare Bob who doesn't eat too much red meat who lives to 80 with the same Bob who does eat too much red meat who lives to 79. (But risks unpleasant medical treatment that decreases quality of life.)
- mizzack 15y ago
  There's a lot more wrong with how the data was interpreted, not to mention the hyperbolic statements made by the researchers themselves. "The statistics are staggering," study author Frank Hu, a professor of nutrition and epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public health, told us. "The increased risk is really substantial." http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/03/12/148457233/death-by-bacon-study-finds-eating-meat-is-risky http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/03/12/148457233/death-... That statement alone is absolutely contra-calm/cautious/undramatic. The fact that this was an observational study based on a food frequency questionnaire is dubious as well. It's well established that participants underreport foods that are perceived as being "bad" for them and overreport things that society says are "good." "Foods underestimated by the FFQs compared with the diet records (ie, the gold standard) included processed meats, eggs, butter, high-fat dairy products, mayonnaise and creamy salad dressings, refined grains, and sweets and desserts, whereas most of the vegetable and fruit groups, nuts, high-energy and low-energy drinks, and condiments were overestimated by the FFQs." http://www.ajcn.org/content/69/2/243.full http://www.ajcn.org/content/69/2/243.full

usaar333 15y ago

> Personally, I'm still convinced that a calorie is a calorie. turns out that idea violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC506782/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC506782/

127001brewer 15y ago

Personally, I'm still convinced that a calorie is a calorie. According to this New York Times article[1], a calorie is not always a calorie: A food isn’t a food — they’re all different — but since a calorie is just a measurement of energy, how can it vary? When I asked my question, Nestle’s answer was confounding: “Yes and no,” she said, adding, “It’s Talmudic.” Because calories change as they enter the body, the nine grams for fat and four for everything else turn out to be not very accurate measures at all; besides, foods are only rarely one thing or another. Here’s what is true, she said: “The studies that have measured calorie intake, that have put people on calorie-reduced diets and measured what happened, show no difference in weight loss based on composition of the diet.” When people are essentially incarcerated, when all intake is weighed and measured, they will lose weight if the calories in their diets are reduced — regardless of the composition of the diet. [1] http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/20/is-a-calorie-a-calorie/ http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/20/is-a-calorie...

Nimi 15y ago

Personally, I'm still convinced that a calorie is a calorie Do you believe that a person can subsist only on mayonnaise? According to this: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=calories+in+mayonnaise http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=calories+in+mayonnaise, it seems that 50 tablespoons of mayo will get you around 2500 calories, so that should be enough calories per day, right? Your answer might be "no, you also need vitamins". So suppose I add to this hypothetical experiment the daily recommended intake of vitamins through pills (and similarly for other things, like fiber). Would the hypothetical subject live, according to your estimation?

DanBC 15y ago
What a curious reply. Obviously a person needs more than calories to live. Protein, carbohydrates, fats, vitamins, minerals, and water are all essential to life. Dietary fibre is pretty handy, but being indigestible is not counted as a nutrient.
- Nimi 15y ago
  I'm not sure I understand your reply: Protein: OK, add to the hypothetical experiment enough protein shakes. Carbohydrates: their inclusion in your list seems to suggest that a calorie is not a calorie, in the sense that one can't substitute all one's carbohydrates with fats, as long as the calories add up to the same amount. Right? Fats: Mayonnaise has quite a lot of fat. Vitamins, minerals: Take enough pills of those. Water: OK, drink water as much as you want. Would a person living on this diet be healthy? If not, and we controlled all the non-caloric variables, does that mean that the premise that "a calorie is a calorie" is false?

eli_gottlieb 15y ago

Then why is wildlife getting fatter?