FitChick Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 Interesting article about which diet is better. Results may surprise some. Link to post Share on other sites
Cakess Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 yeah, I just read that! But since there were so many variables to the study technically it could not be scientific or have any real conclusions I've read all my life that sugar is the reason for all the worlds obesity, but apparently it didn't work as well. Fat is much more natural than granulated sugar in ny opinion... 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Author FitChick Posted January 30, 2014 Author Share Posted January 30, 2014 The article proved that you need both carbs and fats but the right type of carbs and fats. People go to extremes and then fail. The beauty of this experiment was that these were twins and the only thing different was the diet. Interesting that they admitted to knowing nothing about nutrition and diet even though they are doctors. Most people don't realize that. 2 Link to post Share on other sites
GoreSP Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 It's really interesting. But this article proves nothing. It's only two people. You would need a hell of a lot more people in both groups cutting out sugar and cutting out fat. You would also need a third group of people eating normally for comparison. Basic research methods. 2 Link to post Share on other sites
GoreSP Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 This reminds me of the whole Supersize me/Fathead thing. Link to post Share on other sites
Eau Claire Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 The article proved that you need both carbs and fats but the right type of carbs and fats. People go to extremes and then fail. The beauty of this experiment was that these were twins and the only thing different was the diet. Interesting that they admitted to knowing nothing about nutrition and diet even though they are doctors. Most people don't realize that. Actually it 'proved'' nothing. Mumbo jumbo wrapped up in a bow. Anecdotal stories don't prove anything. Link to post Share on other sites
Elias33 Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 The article proved that you need both carbs and fats but the right type of carbs and fats. People go to extremes and then fail. The beauty of this experiment was that these were twins and the only thing different was the diet. Interesting that they admitted to knowing nothing about nutrition and diet even though they are doctors. Most people don't realize that. This right here. What we can assume is that modern western diets are loaded with sugar. And it doesn't hurt to go without any added sugar. Enough sugar can be found in fruits, and surely in processed foods. Fats is a different story, the good fats are actually much needed, that's why low-fat diets are more controversial than low sugar diets. Fat burns of much easier than sugars. As for sugars, our bodies haven't evolved yet to deal with such high amounts of sugar intake. And I don't think it ever will. Link to post Share on other sites
Madman81 Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 Their conclusion seems pretty decent. You need some quantity of carbs and shouldn't be terrified of fat. Avoid processed foods and beverages full of chemicals, and build your diet around unprocessed lean protein, fruits, vegetables, and whole grains. And watch your calorie intake. Link to post Share on other sites
Author FitChick Posted January 31, 2014 Author Share Posted January 31, 2014 (edited) My friend in the UK watched the whole program and sent me this: Whole battery of medical, fitness, exercise, hunger tests done at start, throughout and end, by experts. Neither diet good (!) but the fats only diet seriously bad: lost 4Kg, half from muscle. Also became prediabetic with far too high blood sugar. Genuine damage and he was shocked at results. Sugar bloke not really bad effects (and easily more fit); lost half Kg. Prog then went on to bring in lots of facts from other human and rat studies. Some main conclusions: - there are no simple “reduce one thing” answers - trying to eat all sugar (spoonful say) or all fat (e.g. butter) is not pleasant, for humans (or rats !) BUT a combination around 50/50 sugar/fat is hugely desirable, touching on addictive. (Not a great surprise!) It does bad things to our eating, hunger, processing systems, many health issues and addictive, hence so many fat people. That combination is widely found in all sorts of “nice things” – so cut them out, or to a rarity only! Otherwise eat balanced diets. If you are in the UK you can watch the whole program on BBC's iPlayer. We can only listen to BBC iRadio unfortunately. Edited January 31, 2014 by FitChick Link to post Share on other sites
gaius Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 I'll never get all the nonsense I hear when it comes to processed foods being addictive. Sometimes I think about getting a second breakfast burrito and then images of having a big fat belly the next time I talk to the cute cashier at the supermarket pop into my head and the urge magically goes away. Still having cute girls right out of their teens smiling back at you since you're in decent shape is way more addictive. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
NGC1300 Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 Their conclusion seems pretty decent. You need some quantity of carbs and shouldn't be terrified of fat. Avoid processed foods and beverages full of chemicals, and build your diet around unprocessed lean protein, fruits, vegetables, and whole grains. And watch your calorie intake. Was never a fan of those foods so I just take a multivitamin with my donuts and cola. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Els Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 It's really interesting. But this article proves nothing. It's only two people. You would need a hell of a lot more people in both groups cutting out sugar and cutting out fat. You would also need a third group of people eating normally for comparison. Basic research methods. Yep. They couldn't do a randomized controlled trial, though, it'd break the basic ethical rules for studies involving humans. Both of the extreme diets are very unhealthy in the long run. Link to post Share on other sites
thefooloftheyear Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 My dad was a 3 pack a day smoker and ate nothing but bread, pasta, donuts, cakes, etc..And he only drank Coke or Coffee(with a half a cup of sugar in it)....Never exercised.. Maintained 175 lb weight at 5'11" his entire lifetime... Its just not that simplistic... TFY Link to post Share on other sites
Emilia Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 My dad was a 3 pack a day smoker and ate nothing but bread, pasta, donuts, cakes, etc..And he only drank Coke or Coffee(with a half a cup of sugar in it)....Never exercised.. Maintained 175 lb weight at 5'11" his entire lifetime... Its just not that simplistic... TFY It would still come down to average daily calorie intake. Link to post Share on other sites
thefooloftheyear Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 It would still come down to average daily calorie intake. With all due respect, thats thats too simplistic.. I am 1000% sure he consumed more in calories than he burned(hed eat more than an entire box of donuts a day on top of everything else)-yet never gained a pound....And its the same reason that fat people who barely eat dont lose(or lose very little) weight... Individual bodies process foods differently..Now you can say that he "burned" more calories than the average person while resting, and I can accept that...My point is that you can take the same lopsided food intake he consumed on a daily basis and that person can gain several pounds a day-even people that exercise vigorously-which he never did. TFY Link to post Share on other sites
Emilia Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 With all due respect, thats thats too simplistic.. I am 1000% sure he consumed more in calories than he burned(hed eat more than an entire box of donuts a day on top of everything else)-yet never gained a pound....And its the same reason that fat people who barely eat dont lose(or lose very little) weight... Because it is simple: if you consume more calories than you burn, you put weight on. If you consume fewer calories than you burn, you lose weight. It's simple maths and works for everyone. If he had greater muscle mass (even if he didn't look muscular) he consumed more calories than you assume. If fat people barely ate, they would starve to death. The reason why they don't lose much weight is that they underestimate what they consume. Individual bodies process foods differently..Now you can say that he "burned" more calories than the average person while resting, and I can accept that...My point is that you can take the same lopsided food intake he consumed on a daily basis and that person can gain several pounds a day-even people that exercise vigorously-which he never did. TFY He probably had a more active lifestyle. Most people of previous generations did. They also ate smaller portions and had less calorie-ladden foods in general. Current lifestyle is more sedentary than it was 20-30 years ago and certainly before that. My father was skinny because he had a reasonably physical job (one that today is far less physical) and he was outside in his garden working all the time. He wasn't muscular but he was very active. Didn't drive everywhere, etc. Link to post Share on other sites
carhill Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 TBH, while it might sound cliche, the 'old' way of cooking home made meals from fresh ingredients right out of the Betty Crocker cookbook, which I happen to have a 1952 copy of, is IMO the easiest way to provide a healthy and balanced diet. Also, for the person doing the food preparation, it helps to understand the science of food and cooking, which there are both books and classes on. Any chef worth his/her salt knows the science of food. What has happened is that people have, while simultaneously enjoying some of the most remarkable advancements in convenience in human history, created an evironment for themselves which increasingly finds them more rushed, more pressed for time, do this, do that, hurry up and they don't take the time to prepare a balanced diet nor the time to eat it. That last part is important. There was a reason mom shut off the TV and instructed everyone to sit at the kitchen table and eat in the evening. It was both for family bonding and for eating a well balanced meal *slowly*, all of which contributed to emotional and physical health. Nowadays it's a free for all and people leaving McD's wrappers in their cars (never saw this until getting married and cleaning exW's car, wow!). Myself, I'll have some carbs, I'll have some fats, along with other food items, and will/do predominantly make everything from 'scratch'. It's not that hard! I do it every day. Today the main meal will be stewed tomatoes and rice with braised chicken breast. Wow, that was hard. Typing this post took more time 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Eau Claire Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Because it is simple: if you consume more calories than you burn, you put weight on. If you consume fewer calories than you burn, you lose weight. It's simple maths and works for everyone. If he had greater muscle mass (even if he didn't look muscular) he consumed more calories than you assume. If fat people barely ate, they would starve to death. The reason why they don't lose much weight is that they underestimate what they consume. He probably had a more active lifestyle. Most people of previous generations did. They also ate smaller portions and had less calorie-ladden foods in general. Current lifestyle is more sedentary than it was 20-30 years ago and certainly before that. My father was skinny because he had a reasonably physical job (one that today is far less physical) and he was outside in his garden working all the time. He wasn't muscular but he was very active. Didn't drive everywhere, etc. Yes, it is about energy in and energy out. We may have different metabolisms but that just means some go through calories quicker...although the difference is probably minimal. Also, amazing how all of these metabolisms slowed down in the last 50 years although the genes are the same. Re processed food being addictive. Somehow half the population manages to avoid the addiction...including my my boyfriend and I. Processed foods must force half the people to sit on their butt and watch TV or play video games. There are a zillion excuses to eat a cookie instead of going for a run around the block. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
thefooloftheyear Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 (edited) Yes, it is about energy in and energy out. We may have different metabolisms but that just means some go through calories quicker...although the difference is probably minimal. Also, amazing how all of these metabolisms slowed down in the last 50 years although the genes are the same. Re processed food being addictive. Somehow half the population manages to avoid the addiction...including my my boyfriend and I. Processed foods must force half the people to sit on their butt and watch TV or play video games. There are a zillion excuses to eat a cookie instead of going for a run around the block. I understand what both of you are saying...clearly...but there are clearly exceptions...Thyroid function and other hormones play heavy into how a body processes food intake(calories)... My dad lived a sedentary life..He wasnt active..He was a supervisor in a factory(when he worked-he often never worked)..When he was home all he did was sleep or watch TV...You could have taken his dietary intake and give it to a person with a VERY active life and one that trains daily...and they'd gain weight on it while he never did... I eat 5 dozen of eggs a week and more than 7 lbs of red meat weekly..When I had a recent full physical, my cholesterol reading was 139 and while I dont recall my HDL/LDL ratio, the doc said it was right in line..I do train heavily and eat clean...A buddy of mine just went on cholesterol meds because he had a reading of around 400, despite being on a pretty clean diet for about a year.. AN "ideal" weight for my height(if you believe the publicized standards)would be somewhere around 60-70 lbs less than I weigh right now...yet, I have probably only 25 lbs max that I could lose before dropping below 6/7% BF..which is pretty unhealthy, Ive been that lean when I competitively wrestled,..its unsustainable over the long term.. People are different...thats all I am saying..Food affects people in different ways so its difficult to draw conclusions or accumulate accurate data. TFY Edited February 5, 2014 by thefooloftheyear Link to post Share on other sites
Author FitChick Posted February 5, 2014 Author Share Posted February 5, 2014 My dad was a 3 pack a day smoker and ate nothing but bread, pasta, donuts, cakes, etc..And he only drank Coke or Coffee(with a half a cup of sugar in it)....Never exercised.. Maintained 175 lb weight at 5'11" his entire lifetime... How old was he when he died and what did he die of? Link to post Share on other sites
Author FitChick Posted February 5, 2014 Author Share Posted February 5, 2014 Cooking is my hobby. I have nearly fifty cookbooks, including many vintage ones from the 1940s and 1950s. Portion sizes were about half what they are today, which is why people back then were half the size people are today! As for the excuse of hormones and thyroid, that applies to very few people. Most people screw up their own hormones by getting fat and then blame the hormones. Type 2 diabetes is a lifestyle disease easily cured by changing your lifestyle. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
thefooloftheyear Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 How old was he when he died and what did he die of? 84....natural causes...Smoked like a chimney right til the very end.. TFY Link to post Share on other sites
thefooloftheyear Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Cooking is my hobby. I have nearly fifty cookbooks, including many vintage ones from the 1940s and 1950s. Portion sizes were about half what they are today, which is why people back then were half the size people are today! As for the excuse of hormones and thyroid, that applies to very few people. Most people screw up their own hormones by getting fat and then blame the hormones. Type 2 diabetes is a lifestyle disease easily cured by changing your lifestyle. Fine... Just tell me what would happen to YOU, if you ate an entire box of donuts, a 2 litre bottle of Coke, 10 cups of coffee with 4 tablespoons of sugar, a big plate of pasta with grated cheese and a half a loaf of buttered italian bread...ALl in a day-and thats only about half of what he ate on a daily basis.. Then park your behind on the couch and watch tv..My guess is you'd probably double in size in a matter of months.. He didnt gain a pound...Not trying to be argumentative, but to assume that everyone processes food the same way is silly.. TFY Link to post Share on other sites
Author FitChick Posted February 6, 2014 Author Share Posted February 6, 2014 Just tell me what would happen to YOU, if you ate an entire box of donuts, a 2 litre bottle of Coke, 10 cups of coffee with 4 tablespoons of sugar, a big plate of pasta with grated cheese and a half a loaf of buttered italian bread...ALl in a day-and thats only about half of what he ate on a daily basis.. I wouldn't gain weight because eating all that crap would make me throw up! 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Eau Claire Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 I wouldn't gain weight because eating all that crap would make me throw up! Ha!Ha! Best laugh I've had this week. But true. Sometimes my boyfriend and I will watch people at buffets. We were at a dance and one 'large ' woman was discussing health issues with us. How her knee was an issue, etc. She had more calories on her plate than my boyfriend and I combined. My boyfriend had that impish grin on his face and I had to give him the evil look to make sure he did not say anything. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts