re: Weight loss advice

This is why I ducked out of this whole board for the most part. Too much bullshite back and forth going on.

I use to tell people to eat meat and be fricking happy. It aint complicated. Some say that's BS you need plants, and I'm all like "deuces" cuz IDGAF about plants/calories/or any other complicated BS. But whatever, every douche on this board needs a "system" to be lean...

If I was really in danger on a carnivore diet, my calcium score wouldn't be 0, my lipids would be fricked up, and my bloodwork complete shite - but all that shite is lined up in gear.


*btw, I have a request on the puttheforkdown thread to add dave feldman to the OP if you don't mind.

quote:

---

Drop all the beige crap from your diet - all desserts, bread, pasta, potatoes, etc. Eat fruits, veggies

---

bru the carbs from grain and potatoes are going to have the same effect as fruits and veggies.

now you need to look at the quality of each carb

quote:

---

I use to tell people to eat meat and be fricking happy. It aint complicated. Some say that's BS you need plants, and I'm all like "deuces" cuz IDGAF about plants/calories/or any other complicated BS. But whatever, every douche on this board needs a "system" to be lean...

---

You seem very angry considering the whole "eat meat and be fricking happy" mantra.

quote:

---

You seem very angry considering the whole "eat meat and be fricking happy" mantra.

---

Tell me where I am wrong in the science.

"deuces"

quote:

---

I said you were hangry. You want to eat meat go ahead. Some people like an apple every once in while.

---

So you couldn't, thanks.

Yall get all offended when told that isn't a natural food. So brainwashed into mainstream thoughts of what's healthy. That apple - is so far beyond what it was even 300 yrs ago, and out of season of its natural production period when humans could have natural access to it. Loaded with sugar - enabling addiction.

quote:

---

So you couldn't, thanks.

Yall get all offended when told that isn't a natural food. So brainwashed into mainstream thoughts of what's healthy. That apple - is so far beyond what it was even 300 yrs ago, and out of season of its natural production period when humans could have natural access to it. Loaded with sugar - enabling addiction.

---

You said you were done posting. Don't be like OweO on the OT and do what you say. Your contributions, or lack there of, will not be missed.

quote:

---

Your contributions, or lack there of

---

Says the guy who never provides studies/insight/knowledge and just calls people names.

quote:

---

There is a new study out not to long ago that 90% or so of the improvements made in health markers come from weight loss. Especially true for those considered obese or very over weight

---

Something I happen to agree with. But did you even read your own studies?

quote:

---

Brother, i literally just posted why you are wrong on this and told you where to find the studies. Just one page ago, one damn paste.

---

So let's have a look at them

quote:

---

the mean 12-month macronutrient distributions were 48% vs 30% for carbohydrates

---

Really? This is a "lower carb" study, not a low carb study. Table 2 shows the lowest mean carbohydrate intake was 96g, really?

Not only was the weight drop was higher on the lower carb group. But a lot of heath markers improved better on the lower carb group than high carb. HDL increased more, LDL dropped more. Trigs (this was huge) dropped a mean 9.95 on HC vs 28.2 on HF. Blood pressure decreased more as well. Only two, insulin and glucose were not better. All of this information was on Table 3.

A solid study, but by no means a low carb study. I'd call it moderately low carb.

Similar story on the 2009 study, not a true low carb study.

quote:

---

20% fat, 15% protein, and 65% carbohydrates (low-fat, average-protein); 20% fat, 25% protein, and 55% carbohydrates (low-fat, high-protein); 40% fat, 15% protein, and 45% carbohydrates (high-fat, average-protein); and 40% fat, 25% protein, and 35% carbohydrates (high-fat, high-protein)......The four diets also allowed for a dose–response test of carbohydrate intake that ranged from 35 to 65% of energy.

---

But anyway, that 2006 meta analysis...

quote:

---

trials were required to use a randomized controlled design comparing the effects of a low-carbohydrate diet (defined as a diet allowing a maximum intake of 60 g of carbohydrates per day) without energy intake restriction vs a low-fat diet (defined as a diet allowing a maximum of 30% of the daily energy intake from fat) with energy intake restriction in individuals with a body mass index (calculated as weight in kilograms divided by the square of height in meters) of at least 25.

---

So the 60g is getting somewhere, unlike the earlier studies, but still not low enough. Why is it always low carb without restriction vs high carb with restriction? BTW, all of these studies but ONE started with a sufficient restriction of carb (20g) but then allowed to increase after some weeks to 50-60g. The one that did not allow an increase of carbs was totally limited to 30g (Table 1). I get it, this is the original Atkins with the induction phase, but it really does confound the results.

Figure 2 - most favored low carb on weight loss. Table 2, Every study showed a higher completion % of participants on the LC diet...probably because it is easier to do. Table 3, body weight difference....I'm seeing a trend....I skipped over Blood presser and Total Cholesterol and LDL-C because of time and not really important. HDL on Table 7 highly in favor of LC. Trig changes in Table 8, highly in favor of LC.

Let me repeat the fact that these were calorie unrestricted vs calorie restricted.

quote:

---

So the whole “LOW carbohydrate diets are best for weight loss because they regulate insulin and insulin regulates fat mass” is complete an utter BS. Any research somebody claims to have is meaningless statistically. Why look no further than DIT as I explained above. Essentially low carb diets work for weight loss if they cause someone to adhere to a caloric deficit, period.

---

This statement is inherently wrong, as the "low" carb studies weren't true low carb. They never are. These studies have 30-35% carbohydrate with 96g? When low carb, keto, advocates say no more than 20g? You are stating these are the same when they truly are not. More happens at a ketogenic level, where I argue, than at a low carb level.

This is why I am LMAO at this whole deal. Anyone who dove into those studies could find out that "Low" was 30-35% of energy, even still really did lose a more, albeit small, and usually unrestricted in energy expenditure....all the while increasing the carbohydrate after 2-3 weeks in to end that portion of the study with 50-60 grams so that confound the results.

Quit reading the abstract and conclusions and dive into the how. This is why I grow tired of it, it is always the same thing.

quote:

---

Junky

---

Doing a ketosis study on humans for general eating is nearly impossible to get done in the United States because it goes against what the United States has said is a proper diet. You can't do a study because you can't purposefully harm people.

So you only get studies done in regards to illnesses. Like seizures. Or you are starting to get them in regards to cancer. Or how beneficial ketosis is for stroke victims compared to a regular diet. How high fat diets improve your hormones compared to other diets. The anti-inflammation that happens with ketosis diets. Etc... But unfortunately it is nearly impossible in the U.S. to get a "legit" study comparing actual ketosis diet to other diets for just general health since ketosis is not in line with what has been approved as healthy eating.

quote:

---

RickfromArizona

---

What I've Learned is a great youtube channel using studies to break down how health really works while not becoming an overburden of info. See how that goes for you and good luck getting to where you are going.