4 ms·

Taken at face value this only invites the question Why are people eating more? I think a good answer is reduced dietary fat, which sates, and increased starch

Taken at face value this only invites the question Why are people eating more? I think a good answer is reduced dietary fat, which sates, and increased starch and sugar intake, which screw up insulin levels leading to regular hunger pangs.

thras 17y ago
Indeed. I take it you've read Gary Taubes' "Good Calories Bad Calories"? Overfeeding studies show that it's very hard to get people to gain weight on protein diets. Carbohydrate overfeeding, on the other hand, can get up to 10,000 calories a day, and people will still complain about feeling hungry. Our ancestors had lots of dietary fat. They didn't have any simple carbohydrates at all.
- sergeo 17y ago
  A recent multi-year study published in The New England Journal of Medicine (abstract: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/360/9/859 http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/360/9/859 , full text is also available there) concludes that "Reduced-calorie diets result in clinically meaningful weight loss regardless of which macronutrients they emphasize." 811 overweight adults were randomly assigned to one of four diets: percentages of energy derived from fat, protein, and carbohydrates were 20, 15, and 65%; 20, 25, and 55%; 40, 15, and 45%; and 40, 25, and 35%. By 2 years, weight loss remained similar in all four groups - about 7 lbs. Among the 80% who completed the trial, the average weight loss was 4 kg; 14 to 15% of the participants had a reduction of at least 10% of their initial body weight. Satiety, hunger, satisfaction with the diet, and attendance at group sessions were similar for all diets. Attendance of counseling groups was strongly associated with weight loss (0.2 kg per session attended). Bottom line: 1. It's all about eating less - eat what you like (so you can stick to it for life). As long your calories are reduced (to lose a pound of fat you need to lose 3,500 calories) and you stay within healthy nutrient ranges you will lose weight. 2. Consider participation in some sort of community (or even online groups), for support, motivation and accountability.
  - latortuga 17y ago
    Their conclusion that "Reduced-calorie diets result in clinically meaningful weight loss regardless of which macronutrients they emphasize." seems to neglect the fact that they did not assign any low-carbohydrate diets. You'd think that in a study of diets emphasizing different levels of nutrients they'd at least include one that induces ketosis.
    - dhimes 17y ago
      I'm not sure that many medically qualified researchers would advocate a diet based on ketosis (a la Atkins). You can have low carb and not go that low.
  - thras 17y ago
    No you're 100% wrong. How do I know? Because I lost weight on a low-calorie diet. They are a terrible thing to do to oneself and your brain will fight your new weight forever. I became a good-looking normal weight man after having been 150 pounds overweight all of my adult life. It took about a year. But I was starving every moment of every day. I have tremendous willpower, but in the end I couldn't keep it up for the following years. Losing the weight through low-calorie starvation techniques had destroyed by muscle. My brain thought I was emaciated. I thought about food constantly while on the diet and after. Like 99% of the people who lose weight by following a low-calorie diet, I gained it back within the next couple of years. Now, since December, I've lost 40 pounds by kicking the carbohydrates out of my diet. I eat huge quantities of fat and protein. I'll probably go home and have a whole chicken for dinner tonight -- or maybe a pound or two of pork loin. I'm less hungry now than I was. And my muscle -- it's still there, in fact I'm getting stronger. I can't tell you how amazing it is to have my bench press and dead lift stay the same while I'm dieting. I'm losing weight more slowly than low-calorie allows, but it all seems to be fat that I'm losing instead of fat + muscle. What explains it? The calorie theory is bankrupt. Fat accumulation is regulated by insulin which is driven by carbohydrate consumption. Yes, you will lose body weight by eating less. By why not attack the real problem instead? Obesity is a disease of fatty accumulation caused by the hormone insulin, not a disease of willpower.
JabavuAdams 17y ago
Don't underestimate upward drift in what's considered a normal portion. When I travel to the US, it feels like they're serving way to much food, from an urban Canadian perspective. The portions just look huge to me, but apparently this is considered normal. When I eat with my parents-in-law (who are perfectly fit), their portions look small and unsatisfying to me. I'm about 20 pounds overweight. When I eat their portion size, I don't get hungry -- it just feels like I'm being shorted. We need to re-calibrate.
- davidw 17y ago
  When my wife and I went there from Italy, we had a rule where we always split entrees at restaurants - otherwise we got way too much food.
- Psyonic 17y ago
  I feel exactly the same way and I've lived in the US all my life. I often take home enough to have a complete meal the next day. I don't really know why restaurants serve such gigantic proportions... I guess there are enough people that eat it all to make it worthwhile.
  - jsdalton 17y ago
    Sadly, I think it comes down to simple economics. The marginal costs to a restaurant of a small amount of additional food on your plate is minimal. The downsides aren't that great either...assuming the price to the customer of a bit of extra food is the same, the people who want extra food will be happy, and those that don't just don't have to eat it. Now ask that same restaurant to start serving smaller portions, in comparison with their competition. They haven't really cut too much in costs, but suddenly they're the guys with wimpy portion sizes, while the restaurant next door serves up a full, satisfying meal. I think we're just seeing the result of a market that's catering to the unfortunate preferences of us, the consumers.
    - davidw 17y ago
      Yeah, restaurants/grocery stores definitely compete more on quantity than quality, at least for some things, in the US, than in "Europe" (meaning that corner of Europe that I'm familiar with), where people will discriminate amongst products and buy the better ones.
tallanvor 17y ago
Well, saying that people are eating more is not necessarily the best way to put it. The problem is that companies that manufacture food products want to sell as much of it as they can. To do that, they make it more appetizing, which generally means increasing the fat and/or sugar content (of course, they also use lower quality ingredients to keep the costs down, which also often increases calorie content). So it's not so much that people are physically eating more, rather that they are consuming foods that have a higher concentration of calories.
lena 17y ago
You cannot seriously suggest that people nowadays actually eat a diet low in dietary fat. As said in other comments, people that live in countries with very low obesity rates thrive on diets that are high in starches (rice or potatoes, mostly).

thras 17y ago

Indeed. I take it you've read Gary Taubes' "Good Calories Bad Calories"? Overfeeding studies show that it's very hard to get people to gain weight on protein diets. Carbohydrate overfeeding, on the other hand, can get up to 10,000 calories a day, and people will still complain about feeling hungry. Our ancestors had lots of dietary fat. They didn't have any simple carbohydrates at all.

sergeo 17y ago
A recent multi-year study published in The New England Journal of Medicine (abstract: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/360/9/859 http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/360/9/859 , full text is also available there) concludes that "Reduced-calorie diets result in clinically meaningful weight loss regardless of which macronutrients they emphasize." 811 overweight adults were randomly assigned to one of four diets: percentages of energy derived from fat, protein, and carbohydrates were 20, 15, and 65%; 20, 25, and 55%; 40, 15, and 45%; and 40, 25, and 35%. By 2 years, weight loss remained similar in all four groups - about 7 lbs. Among the 80% who completed the trial, the average weight loss was 4 kg; 14 to 15% of the participants had a reduction of at least 10% of their initial body weight. Satiety, hunger, satisfaction with the diet, and attendance at group sessions were similar for all diets. Attendance of counseling groups was strongly associated with weight loss (0.2 kg per session attended). Bottom line: 1. It's all about eating less - eat what you like (so you can stick to it for life). As long your calories are reduced (to lose a pound of fat you need to lose 3,500 calories) and you stay within healthy nutrient ranges you will lose weight. 2. Consider participation in some sort of community (or even online groups), for support, motivation and accountability.
- latortuga 17y ago
  Their conclusion that "Reduced-calorie diets result in clinically meaningful weight loss regardless of which macronutrients they emphasize." seems to neglect the fact that they did not assign any low-carbohydrate diets. You'd think that in a study of diets emphasizing different levels of nutrients they'd at least include one that induces ketosis.
  - dhimes 17y ago
    I'm not sure that many medically qualified researchers would advocate a diet based on ketosis (a la Atkins). You can have low carb and not go that low.
- thras 17y ago
  No you're 100% wrong. How do I know? Because I lost weight on a low-calorie diet. They are a terrible thing to do to oneself and your brain will fight your new weight forever. I became a good-looking normal weight man after having been 150 pounds overweight all of my adult life. It took about a year. But I was starving every moment of every day. I have tremendous willpower, but in the end I couldn't keep it up for the following years. Losing the weight through low-calorie starvation techniques had destroyed by muscle. My brain thought I was emaciated. I thought about food constantly while on the diet and after. Like 99% of the people who lose weight by following a low-calorie diet, I gained it back within the next couple of years. Now, since December, I've lost 40 pounds by kicking the carbohydrates out of my diet. I eat huge quantities of fat and protein. I'll probably go home and have a whole chicken for dinner tonight -- or maybe a pound or two of pork loin. I'm less hungry now than I was. And my muscle -- it's still there, in fact I'm getting stronger. I can't tell you how amazing it is to have my bench press and dead lift stay the same while I'm dieting. I'm losing weight more slowly than low-calorie allows, but it all seems to be fat that I'm losing instead of fat + muscle. What explains it? The calorie theory is bankrupt. Fat accumulation is regulated by insulin which is driven by carbohydrate consumption. Yes, you will lose body weight by eating less. By why not attack the real problem instead? Obesity is a disease of fatty accumulation caused by the hormone insulin, not a disease of willpower.

JabavuAdams 17y ago

Don't underestimate upward drift in what's considered a normal portion. When I travel to the US, it feels like they're serving way to much food, from an urban Canadian perspective. The portions just look huge to me, but apparently this is considered normal. When I eat with my parents-in-law (who are perfectly fit), their portions look small and unsatisfying to me. I'm about 20 pounds overweight. When I eat their portion size, I don't get hungry -- it just feels like I'm being shorted. We need to re-calibrate.

davidw 17y ago
When my wife and I went there from Italy, we had a rule where we always split entrees at restaurants - otherwise we got way too much food.
Psyonic 17y ago
I feel exactly the same way and I've lived in the US all my life. I often take home enough to have a complete meal the next day. I don't really know why restaurants serve such gigantic proportions... I guess there are enough people that eat it all to make it worthwhile.
- jsdalton 17y ago
  Sadly, I think it comes down to simple economics. The marginal costs to a restaurant of a small amount of additional food on your plate is minimal. The downsides aren't that great either...assuming the price to the customer of a bit of extra food is the same, the people who want extra food will be happy, and those that don't just don't have to eat it. Now ask that same restaurant to start serving smaller portions, in comparison with their competition. They haven't really cut too much in costs, but suddenly they're the guys with wimpy portion sizes, while the restaurant next door serves up a full, satisfying meal. I think we're just seeing the result of a market that's catering to the unfortunate preferences of us, the consumers.
  - davidw 17y ago
    Yeah, restaurants/grocery stores definitely compete more on quantity than quality, at least for some things, in the US, than in "Europe" (meaning that corner of Europe that I'm familiar with), where people will discriminate amongst products and buy the better ones.

tallanvor 17y ago

Well, saying that people are eating more is not necessarily the best way to put it. The problem is that companies that manufacture food products want to sell as much of it as they can. To do that, they make it more appetizing, which generally means increasing the fat and/or sugar content (of course, they also use lower quality ingredients to keep the costs down, which also often increases calorie content). So it's not so much that people are physically eating more, rather that they are consuming foods that have a higher concentration of calories.

lena 17y ago

You cannot seriously suggest that people nowadays actually eat a diet low in dietary fat. As said in other comments, people that live in countries with very low obesity rates thrive on diets that are high in starches (rice or potatoes, mostly).