Supplements for Weight Loss

[TheSpud]

This is where I'll take some exception. Paleo is not a fad diet. Paleo is just Atkins, South Pacific, etc dressed up in another name. Low carb, high protein diets have been used as weight loss diets since the 1880s. Just because the same diet is called something else doesn't make it a fad. Again, read Gary Taubes "Why We Get Fat" and you'll see the science behind these diets. There is more science to support high protein, low carb diets than there is to support the government recommended food pyramids with their heavy emphasis on high carbohydrates, low fats, and low to moderate proteins.

I haven't read that but I'm guessing the government recommended carbs in those pyramids are all 'simple' carbs?

 

[King Boonen]

There seems to be a huge amount of nitpicking going on here guys.

Yes, simplistic calorie counting isn't the best way to loose weight fast and it's not going to work well for someone who is already reasonably fit, but judging by the OP that's not what we are talking about here. We are talking about someone who needs to make a lifestyle change and get healthy, otherwise they risk slipping back into old ways.

The easiest way to do this is to cut calorie intake and exercise more. It does not require any specific diet (no one is suggesting he get all his calories from chips and doughnuts) and is very easy to keep track of. It also means that meals can remain similar, there are no special products, cooking etc. required and will make it an easier transition.

Once the weight is down and the OP is feeling fitter and healthier, that is the time to start tailoring things to more specific goals like muscle building etc.

 

[elapid]

The easiest way to do this is to cut calorie intake and exercise more.

Nope, this is not the easiest way to lose weight. Calorie restriction is difficult and that is why most diets fail. The overweight person feels like a failure because lack of weight loss is perceived as a lack of self-will and motivation. This is often not the case - the motivation is there, but the results are lacking because of what they eat, not how much they are eating. Again, weight loss is more efficient with low carbohydrate, high protein diets. This is not a fad and has been proven over and over again. This type of diet is effective because you can make it a part of your regular every day life, not like calorie-restricted diets where you feel like you are suffering. High protein, low carbohydrate diets also make you feel full unlike high carbohydrate diets, which is also obviously better for weight loss.

 

[King Boonen]

Everyone I know who has tried high protein diets has failed, because once they have lost the weight they go back to eating what they ate before. Conversely, those who START with calorie restriction and exercise have kept the weight off. Their diets have changed after this initial method, but it's what got them on the road and keeps them there.

As I said, I'm not talking about the easiest way to drop weight, I'm talking about the easiest way to make adjustments to drop weight and keep it off.

This is from personal experience of course, I don't know of any long term studies monitoring the success of different eating habits.

Feel free to link references to this occurring with high protein diets though if they exist, i'm always willing to learn.

 

[Tapeworm]

This is where I'll take some exception. Paleo is not a fad diet. Paleo is just Atkins, South Pacific, etc dressed up in another name. Low carb, high protein diets have been used as weight loss diets since the 1880s. Just because the same diet is called something else doesn't make it a fad. Again, read Gary Taubes "Why We Get Fat" and you'll see the science behind these diets. There is more science to support high protein, low carb diets than there is to support the government recommended food pyramids with their heavy emphasis on high carbohydrates, low fats, and low to moderate proteins.

No, there's not. Recent meta-studies on diet shows the one thing which ensures a diets success is adherence to the diet - and that adherence is not universal, high fat is not a panacea for all things.

Paleo is a joke in the sense that there was never a single "paleo" diet had by our ancestors, and everything they may have eaten doesn't exist in the same form anymore and the premise that we have not adapted to more "modern" food is demonstrably wrong. (Again - our gut bacteria is highly important and has been shown to alter in less than 48hrs dependant on diet.) The exclusion of legumes from the paleo diet is just extra ***. WHY?? The reasoning is so flimsy its a joke.

What most lack who have a myopic view of diet being either low fat high carb, or high fat low carb blah blah blah - is context. In that if you ate a very high carb diet with mostly whole foods then chances are you'll lose weight, if you need to. Have the same high carb diet from fast food and highly processed sugars and see what happens. Same for high fat - not all high fats diets are created equal and anyone who thinks you can't get fat from a high fat diet lack basic physiology knowledge.


There are a lot of good scientists and nutritionist who rightly point this out, that context and nuance in diet is required but they only work in labs and print studies instead of writing popular books so their voice isn't heard by most. A counter point to the high fat crowd is Dr Garth Davies - a vegan based guy but he too has LOTS of studies showing what a very high carbs very whole plant diet can do and the issues surrounding the increased consumption of animal based products.

 

[elapid]

Everyone I know who has tried high protein diets has failed, because once they have lost the weight they go back to eating what they ate before. Conversely, those who START with calorie restriction and exercise have kept the weight off. Their diets have changed after this initial method, but it's what got them on the road and keeps them there.

As I said, I'm not talking about the easiest way to drop weight, I'm talking about the easiest way to make adjustments to drop weight and keep it off.

This is from personal experience of course, I don't know of any long term studies monitoring the success of different eating habits.

Feel free to link references to this occurring with high protein diets though if they exist, i'm always willing to learn.

My experiences are the opposite and nearly all diets that rely on restrictions will fail. I don't have the data, but it was mentioned in the documentary Fed Up. Whatever you eat/diet should become a part of your regular lifestyle. This is where a higher protein diet is effective because it is not difficult to incorporate into your regular everyday life and it provides more satiety than high carbohydrate diets. A calorie restricted diet may be effective in getting you down to your desired weight, but more often than not you go back to your bad habits and end up putting the weight back on again because the calorie restricted diet is not something you can incorporate into your regular lifestyle.

 

[elapid]

No, there's not. Recent meta-studies on diet shows the one thing which ensures a diets success is adherence to the diet - and that adherence is not universal, high fat is not a panacea for all things.

Paleo is a joke in the sense that there was never a single "paleo" diet had by our ancestors, and everything they may have eaten doesn't exist in the same form anymore and the premise that we have not adapted to more "modern" food is demonstrably wrong. (Again - our gut bacteria is highly important and has been shown to alter in less than 48hrs dependant on diet.) The exclusion of legumes from the paleo diet is just extra ***. WHY?? The reasoning is so flimsy its a joke.

What most lack who have a myopic view of diet being either low fat high carb, or high fat low carb blah blah blah - is context. In that if you ate a very high carb diet with mostly whole foods then chances are you'll lose weight, if you need to. Have the same high carb diet from fast food and highly processed sugars and see what happens. Same for high fat - not all high fats diets are created equal and anyone who thinks you can't get fat from a high fat diet lack basic physiology knowledge.


There are a lot of good scientists and nutritionist who rightly point this out, that context and nuance in diet is required but they only work in labs and print studies instead of writing popular books so their voice isn't heard by most. A counter point to the high fat crowd is Dr Garth Davies - a vegan based guy but he too has LOTS of studies showing what a very high carbs very whole plant diet can do and the issues surrounding the increased consumption of animal based products.

Sorry, misunderstood your previous post. Yes, I agree with the lack of vegetables in the Paleo diets as being silly.

 

[elapid]

I haven't read that but I'm guessing the government recommended carbs in those pyramids are all 'simple' carbs?

The preponderance of carbohydrates in our diet is a reflection of what happens when medicine is politicized, and is quite fascinating. Back in the 1950's (I think), the government was concerned about the high mortality rate associated with heart attacks. A number of large studies were conducted and the government chose one study which showed that high dietary fat was associated with heart attacks. There were many opponents to this point of view, but these were largely ignored once the political machine was set into motion. Further studies showed that low fat diets had no effect on the rate of heart attacks or mortality associated with heart attacks, and furthermore the study which started this all was later debunked. However, the government has persisted in their recommendations. The high carbohydrate diet came about because once fat was removed from the diet everything we ate tasted bland and awful. The answer was to add sugar in all of its different forms. Now everything that is packaged has sugar added to enhance its taste. The only way to avoid this is by eating whole foods and nothing processed.

 

[durianrider]

Paleo diet is a fad diet. Its why Gary Taubes, Loren Cordain and Dr Fatkins are all clinically obese. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zVxA6yipv4

People want to hear good things about their bad habits so the paleo, primal, low carb, south beach fad diets sell mega books.

Even Tim Noakes has now got diabetes along with Dave Asprey due to their high fat low carb diets but not many people care cos they think they will become lean and fast like a corn eating Kenya by eating bacon and eggs like a fat Aussie.

Ive the same BMI as the top GC riders yet I don't have to starve, take any thyroid meds etc. I just eat healthy whole plant foods and train when the weather is nice. Even Team Sky nutritionist Nigel Mitchell is overweight. No wonder so many riders these days battle with weight as they take advice from the overweight 'nutrition performance' experts.

Its like taking financial advice from someone who lives on welfare. Nothing wrong with living on welfare if you don't have the skills to manage and earn more money but Im not gonna take advice from someone as out of shape as Gary Taubes if my goal is to be lean, fast and healthy for life.

Even Mark Sission admits he has taken anabolics and severe calorie restriction to stay lean. He admits most of his diet consists of salad and when he went on McDougalls retreat (his wife is a vegetarian ironically), he lost pounds in just a week.

 

[Tapeworm]

http://journals.lww.com/nutritionto...al&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Diet review - specifically for athletes.

 

[elapid]

Diet review - specifically for athletes.

Nice summary.

The 5-2 diet is criticized for lack of scientific evidence because all the scientific evidence is for the 4-3 diet (good evidence as well), but the authors adapted this evidence to the 5-2 diet thinking that fasting 3 days a week would be too difficult for most people. I like the 5-2 diet because you can incorporate it into your regular schedule and you can eat what you normally eat. Fasting for 2 days is much easier to comply with than calorie restricting for 7 days. As for the applicability of the 5-2 diet for athletes, I recall reading in Tyler Hamilton's book about him putting crazy miles on the bike after eating lettuce for lunch in an effort to reduce weight. Timing your fasting days for your recovery/rest days would make the most sense if you're an athlete on the 5-2 diet. I need to lose weight and I've been doing nicely on the 5-2 diet.

The Paleo diet I think has merit, but not in its current form. What I like about the Paleo diet is that it emphasizes basic, non-packaged foods. As already discussed, adding fruit and vegetables would make more sense. Again, like the 5-2 diet, the Paleo diet is something that can be incorporated into your daily schedule and hence is easier to maintain.

Anything that is too radical or too restrictive usually will not be successful. I admire DR for his passion for veganism, but like raw foods this is too radical for most people. Most calorie restricted diets also fail because they are too restrictive.

 

[thehog]

The preponderance of carbohydrates in our diet is a reflection of what happens when medicine is politicized, and is quite fascinating. Back in the 1950's (I think), the government was concerned about the high mortality rate associated with heart attacks. A number of large studies were conducted and the government chose one study which showed that high dietary fat was associated with heart attacks. There were many opponents to this point of view, but these were largely ignored once the political machine was set into motion. Further studies showed that low fat diets had no effect on the rate of heart attacks or mortality associated with heart attacks, and furthermore the study which started this all was later debunked. However, the government has persisted in their recommendations. The high carbohydrate diet came about because once fat was removed from the diet everything we ate tasted bland and awful. The answer was to add sugar in all of its different forms. Now everything that is packaged has sugar added to enhance its taste. The only way to avoid this is by eating whole foods and nothing processed.

The low fat diet came from Keys "Seven country study" on diets around the world. The story goes that he actaully removed several country's from his study to achieve the desired outcome of low fat, high carb, minimum red meat. There were suggestions he was paid to come up with the results. Oddly enough at the time high protein diets were the norm and everyone knew foods like potatoes etc. made you put on weight.

The story of the Keys study is still much debated...

Even before the study had begun, there had been criticism of its methods. Yerushalmy and Hilleboe pointed out that, for an earlier study demonstrating this association, Keys had selected six countries out of 21 for which data were available. Analysis of the full dataset made the analysis between fat intake and heart disease less clear.. They also pointed out that Keys was studying a "tenuous association" rather than any possible proof of causation. Moreover, there were other factors that could have been considered. For example sugar consumption was not studied, yet might have shown a stronger correlation, and been a better candidate for dietary intervention than fat. It should be noted that the most healthy people, in Crete and Corfu, ate less than 15 pounds of sugar per person per year, and in Japan, less than 40. This can be contrasted with 60 pounds of sugar per person in England and Wales during sugar rationing in World War II.

 

[Tapeworm]

Nice summary.
The Paleo diet I think has merit, but not in its current form. What I like about the Paleo diet is that it emphasizes basic, non-packaged foods...

This is an interesting point though. Even in the supposedly "wrong" food pyramid, of the early 90's for example, has anyone every recommended anything different?

Apart from a couple of crackpots trying to sell books the consistent advice has *always* been: eat more whole fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, legumes, whole-grains, lean meats.

And the reason why the food pyramid "failed" is because no-one every ate to the *actual* recommendations (if the meta-studies are to be believed). Self-reporting of diets have been shown to be so grossly out of whack it's no wonder why people are looking at dogma to blame - they are completely clueless about *nutrition* - in every sense of the word.

For example - the above point by Mr Hog "potatoes make you fat". How? Explain the exact process by which a potato, simply cooked or steamed, makes you fat.

 

[42x16ss]

Explain the exact process by which a potato, simply cooked or steamed, makes you fat.

Because so many people slather on really healthy stuff like butter, sour cream, cheese or a tonne of mayo for a "salad". Or my favourite - slice them up, deep fry them and serve them as chips...

Just slice them, roll them in a tiny bit of pink salt and some paprika and bake in a hot oven and there's nothing wrong with them at all.

 

[thehog]

For example - the above point by Mr Hog "potatoes make you fat". How? Explain the exact process by which a potato, simply cooked or steamed, makes you fat.

Because the ingestion of carbohydrate secretes insulin. Purely hormonal than anything else. Insulin secretion stores fat.

Ingesting calories does absolutely nothing due to the fact that they don't actually exist in physical or hormonal form. Whether you have more or less makes little difference to weight.

 

[Tapeworm]

Because the ingestion of carbohydrate secretes insulin. Purely hormonal than anything else. Insulin secretion stores fat.

Ingesting calories does absolutely nothing due to the fact that they don't actually exist in physical or hormonal form. Whether you have more or less makes little difference to weight.

Yet there is no study (that I am aware of) that shows weight loss in those in a calorific surplus. And none that show weight gain in a calorific deficit. Satiety and how much of the ingested calories are actually absorbed by the body are different topics (again referring to my post above about intestinal flora playing a significant role).


Here's a tricky question for you. How much fat would you put on (ballpark) if you overfed by approximately 50% if ALL calories came from CHO?

So for a normal sedentary person that would be an overfeeding of an extra 1000 calories with all calories from carbohydrates.

 

[sittingbison]

This is an interesting point though. Even in the supposedly "wrong" food pyramid, of the early 90's for example, has anyone every recommended anything different?

Apart from a couple of crackpots trying to sell books the consistent advice has *always* been: eat more whole fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, legumes, whole-grains, lean meats....

you have these in the reverse order.

All food pyramids or plates (ie government recommended diet) since the early 50s recommended:
1. grain and soy carbs (12 serves) at the base of the pyramid
2 fruit (5 serves) and vegetables (5 serves)
3 dairy (3) and meat (3)
4 fats and oils (sparingly)

this is upside down, having disastrous effects on blood suger levels and insulin production leading to subsequent associated fat gain and vastly increasing rates of type 2 diabetes.

 

[thehog]

Yet there is no study (that I am aware of) that shows weight loss in those in a calorific surplus. And none that show weight gain in a calorific deficit. Satiety and how much of the ingested calories are actually absorbed by the body are different topics (again referring to my post above about intestinal flora playing a significant role).


Here's a tricky question for you. How much fat would you put on (ballpark) if you overfed by approximately 50% if ALL calories came from CHO?

So for a normal sedentary person that would be an overfeeding of an extra 1000 calories with all calories from carbohydrates.

How does the body absorb calories? It's not possible. The body absorbs nutrients from food.

Similar to saying the body absorbs temperature. It does not, it can not. It can only absorbs heat, sun etc.

 

[Tapeworm]

you have these in the reverse order.

All food pyramids or plates (ie government recommended diet) since the early 50s recommended:
1. grain and soy carbs (12 serves) at the base of the pyramid
2 fruit (5 serves) and vegetables (5 serves)
3 dairy (3) and meat (3)
4 fats and oils (sparingly)

this is upside down, having disastrous effects on blood suger levels and insulin production leading to subsequent associated fat gain and vastly increasing rates of type 2 diabetes.

No, I haven't got it backwards. Your simplification of the process of the release of insulin is erroneous, just because there's an insulin response to carbs doesn't mean one suddenly gets fat nor develop type 2 diabetes, the issue is far more greatly complex than carbs (and hence insulin)=diabetes. Hell, you can get 90% of your diet from carbs and very normal insulin levels. HOW you get the CHO in you is the issue.

The advice has been the same because people don't follow it, and generally never have. People simple do NOT eat the recommended (previously recommend or currently) amount of fruit and vegetables. The bit of lettuce in the hamburger does not count as a serve of vegetables, nor does the fruit juice as a serve of fruit. The hot-pocket is not a serving of meat, nor is is serving of whole-grains. The things that has consistently increased (albeit not that much) is refined sugars added to foods, and animal-based protein and fats.

^ If people *actually* ate this, there would be fewer health issues (I'll try to find the recent metastudy on this which showed that pretty much no-one followed the guidelines in the first place, and never have [populations as whole, that is]).

The studies looking at wholegrain, legumes and vegetable intake have only ever shown positive benefits - especially in the treatment of diabetes.

The pyramid is outdated, and can be improved on, but to claim this is the cause of the obesity epidemic is ludicrous.

Do you see burgers on there? How about soft-drink (frizzy drink, whatever you call it)? Think those might my more of a mitigating factor on obesity than say, brown rice or wholewheat bread?

And how many people who engage in very regular exercise (4-5 times per week) suddenly develop type 2 diabetes? A greater sedentary population is a leading cause of the rise of T2D.

 

[Tapeworm]

How does the body absorb calories? It's not possible. The body absorbs nutrients from food.

Similar to saying the body absorbs temperature. It does not, it can not. It can only absorbs heat, sun etc.

A calorie is a definition of certain amount of energy.

Calories are ingested, processed and stored in the cells via metabolic processes (chemical changes)... pretty simple concepts here.

Glucose into glycogen is the most simplest I think of. Can we eat and absorb energy? Yes, 100%. Can we utilised ingested energy? Yes we can, 100%.

What do you not understand about this process or the manner in which it is expressed?

 

[ebandit]

fact

Oddly enough at the time high protein diets were the norm and everyone knew foods like potatoes etc. made you put on weight.

is that a fact? to myself the idea that any one food type makes one fat is untruthful or at best misleading...was it potatoes that added weight............or potatoes atop enough?

imagine all those irish peasants subsistance farming potatoes and how fat they must have been?

quantity makes one fat ............the slimming industry wants consumers to think that a change of diet will achieve success...........such an idea is to sell more products...........where is the economic sense in saying 'buy less'?

remember the atkins diet.............those on the diet lost weight but when
this was investigated it was found that reduced food choice resulted in lower calorific consumption

Mark L

 

[King Boonen]

A calorie is a definition of certain amount of energy.

Calories are ingested, processed and stored in the cells via metabolic processes (chemical changes)... pretty simple concepts here.

Glucose into glycogen is the most simplest I think of. Can we eat and absorb energy? Yes, 100%. Can we utilised ingested energy? Yes we can, 100%.

What do you not understand about this process or the manner in which it is expressed?

You seem to have completely missed Hog's point. Calories are a unit of energy, it is a measurement, just like a joule is. As he said, you don't absorb degrees celcius, you absorb heat and MEASURE the change in temperature using an appropriate scale.

As such calories are not ingested, processed and stored. A vast array of simple and complex compounds are ingested, metabolised and catabolised and each of these have an associated energy gain which can simplistically be related to the calorific value of the food. It is massively simplistic and in some cases not at all relevant, hence the discussion here and how different foods will aid weight loss better, but it's been taken as a standard because the concept is easy for people to understand and generally is applicable when deciding total amounts of food to eat.

It seems a nit-picking point, but it isn't. Two foods with the same calorific value can be metabolised in a vastly different way and have a very different impact on the body.


As for metabolism being a simple concept. Errr... No.

 

[thehog]

You seem to have completely missed Hog's point. Calories are a unit of energy, it is a measurement, just like a joule is. As he said, you don't absorb degrees celcius, you absorb heat and MEASURE the change in temperature using an appropriate scale.

As such calories are not ingested, processed and stored. A vast array of simple and complex compounds are ingested, metabolised and catabolised and each of these have an associated energy gain which can simplistically be related to the calorific value of the food. It is massively simplistic and in some cases not at all relevant, hence the discussion here and how different foods will aid weight loss better, but it's been taken as a standard because the concept is easy for people to understand and generally is applicable when deciding total amounts of food to eat.

It seems a nit-picking point, but it isn't. Two foods with the same calorific value can be metabolised in a vastly different way and have a very different impact on the body.


As for metabolism being a simple concept. Errr... No.

Extremely well written.

Over time people appear to see the calorie as a chemical compound contained within food, which it is not.

My understanding the original concept for calorie was based on food rationing after the war. It was simplistic means to limit food consumption when there was little food to go around. These days people see it as an element inside food and that a 'calorie' is bad, with the more calories meaning the worse the food is for you to eat. Probably blame advertisers for that part. Manufactures frigged the caloric level of non-nutritious food for purposes to sell more product. An ingredient like aspartame has close to zero calories, was made in a lab by accident and probably causes more harm to humans that real sugar but with less calories.

Everyone forgot what we were eating and concentrated on a number which is woefully inaccurate to measure and most of the time time made up and entered into a standards table. Laughable that well educated people actually believe that a calorie is the only basis for weight gain/loss.

 

[thehog]

is that a fact? to myself the idea that any one food type makes one fat is untruthful or at best misleading...was it potatoes that added weight............or potatoes atop enough?

imagine all those irish peasants subsistance farming potatoes and how fat they must have been?

quantity makes one fat ............the slimming industry wants consumers to think that a change of diet will achieve success...........such an idea is to sell more products...........where is the economic sense in saying 'buy less'?

remember the atkins diet.............those on the diet lost weight but when
this was investigated it was found that reduced food choice resulted in lower calorific consumption

Mark L

It's the compounds within potatoes which makes you fat. Similar there are compounds within potatoes which are food good for you and vital to your well being.

If the goal is to mearly lose weight then hyper-restrictive diets can achieve that goal. If the goal is for balanced living, exercise and a good night sleep then types food selected might be different.

Then you need to throw into that equation specific human hormonal and physical make up, socioeconomic situation etc.

I think Taubes conducted a study on those who perform jobs with manual labour and why those people were for the most part, overweight. They expended more calories in the working day, had less momey to buy food but were for the most part more overweight than those whom sit at a desk, earned more money & consumed more food.

There are so many factors that make the equation. Calories in/calories out hardly covers that equation.

 

[ebandit]

heap

but i eat heaps of potatoes................not fat............never will be

Mark L

edit everyone does not know that potatoes make one fat..............i must find out more as there definitely is not

consensus