|
FSMC posted:Actually they do. In a blind test, in groups allowed to eat normally those that are given diet coke actually end up consuming more calories in total than those who had normal coke. Zero calorie beverages include tea, coffee, and this new invention you may not have heard of, I think it's called Wah-Terr. The review you linked after being an rear end with the lmgtfy link is full of painful correlations like the first graph comparing artificial sweeteners with overweight in America, as though the increase in sweetener use might not be attributable to people noticing the obesity and doing something about it. I wasn't specifically defending diet coke, but the data on it at best shows an increase in craving, which, if true, simple awareness may be sufficient to overcome. Artificial sweeteners are in no way the proximate cause of anyone's weight gain.
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2015 05:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 04:39 |
|
|
Trent posted:Zero calorie beverages include tea, coffee, and this new invention you may not have heard of, I think it's called Wah-Terr. Yeh, sorry I read zero calorie as diet, my mistake.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2015 05:50
|
|
|
A reminder that a literature review isn't the same thing as a meta-analysis, which is a specific set of statistical procedures for combining prior effect sizes and loading them onto a general hypothesis. The linked review is, um, kinda garbage and selective in scope. It begins with its conclusion and works backwards from there. As Trent points out the presentation of the data isn't exactly evenhanded. Trent posted:I wasn't specifically defending diet coke, but the data on it at best shows an increase in craving, which, if true, simple awareness may be sufficient to overcome. Artificial sweeteners are in no way the proximate cause of anyone's weight gain. Even that finding's pretty heavily contested. At this point we're looping back around to my reading nutrition research post- a lot of folks in this area try to argue from animal model studies. Behavioral measures data in this area is massively inconsistent, because the phenomena are likely influenced by pretty much every other system in the body, small and large timescale. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 06:44 on Dec 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2015 06:35
|
|
|
I was reading a bit about the obesity paradox, and I was wondering if anybody had any insight on it? I read this article, and the woman who wrote that has written other stuff concerning weight that seems to be of a HAES slant. I don't really know how to sort the crap from the truth when I read stuff put out by HAES people, does anybody have suggestion s for good resources to cross reference them against? Here's an excerpt from her book, which argues about a lot of familiar topics such as yo-yo dieting and BMI problems. khwarezm fucked around with this message at 07:58 on Dec 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2015 07:51
|
|
|
Being overweight is different from being obese. There is no benefit to being obese, you will always die younger and you will always be a useless fat lump of poo poo. Overweight people are not who we're talking about when we talk poo poo about fat people, or at least not when I do. Being overweight is and has always been (in my lifetime, at least) considered way healthier than being underweight, and it's really not that big of a deal for most people. These fat shits always cherry pick and leave out information to support their dumb poo poo. ChairMaster fucked around with this message at 09:07 on Dec 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2015 09:05
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:I was reading a bit about the obesity paradox, and I was wondering if anybody had any insight on it? I read this article, and the woman who wrote that has written other stuff concerning weight that seems to be of a HAES slant. Oh hey, it is Brown again? *checks* yup. The "obesity paradox" and the other empirical claims she makes were discredited within weeks of their initial discovery, but that hasn't hurt her ability to continue getting the same openly false claims published for years now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2015 11:33
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The "obesity paradox" and the other empirical claims she makes were discredited within weeks of their initial discovery, Do you have any more information on this?
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2015 16:45
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:Being overweight is different from being obese. There is no benefit to being obese, you will always die younger and you will always be a useless fat lump of poo poo. Yeah the obesity paradox poo poo has been discredited time and again. What you have to remember though is that when we leave aside the 400lb tumblrinas arguing obesity isn't a health problem, most of the people complaining about standards of beauty and unwarranted concern trolling about health are talking about people who are only like 20lbs overweight. The scientific literature might be clear on underweight vs mildly overweight, but personally speaking I got a lot more questions about my weight when I weighed 140lbs (not even in the "overweight" BMI for my height, but chubby-looking) than I do down at 105lb ("underweight" according to BMI). I wish there was some way to separate the wheat from the chaff when speaking about this topic.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2015 22:04
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:Do you have any more information on this? Going down the list would be difficult, but the basic observational claim of the obesity paradox- that people who were overweight/obese seemed to have lower mortalities compared with normal and underweight- ignored reverse causation. It turns out that a lot of diseases that kill you in hospitals also cause you to lose a lot of weight- like, say, cancer. Variants of this basic explanation- that other conditions and circumstances can effect weight rather than it being unidirectional- explain the "paradox" in a variety of datasets. There are additional statistical wrinkles (it turns out your weight might not be determinative of all diseases, and it turns out familywise error rate accumulation is still a thing that exists), but that's the simple response. It took the scientific community like 2 minutes to notice the causal assumption problem. Harriet Brown is sometimes alleged to be funded by industry, but I think the more likely explanation is that she's a crank who has coincidentally found a pathological belief that the public want to hear. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 22:23 on Dec 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2015 22:16
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Going down the list would be difficult, but the basic observational claim of the obesity paradox- that people who were overweight/obese seemed to have lower mortalities compared with normal and underweight- ignored reverse causation. It turns out that a lot of diseases that kill you in hospitals also cause you to lose a lot of weight- like, say, cancer. Variants of this basic explanation- that other conditions and circumstances can effect weight rather than it being unidirectional- explain the "paradox" in a variety of datasets. There are additional statistical wrinkles (it turns out your weight might not be determinative of all diseases, and it turns out familywise error rate accumulation is still a thing that exists), but that's the simple response. It took the scientific community like 2 minutes to notice the causal assumption problem. That reminds me of people criticizing the Atkins diet because Atkins was a huge fat guy when he died. Completely ignoring that Robert Atkins was a 70 year old guy with heart disease when he died. Heart disease can make you gain a ton of water weight. And aside from that the guy was loving 70. Having health problems at 70 doesn't disprove the diet he came up with.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2015 22:28
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:That reminds me of people criticizing the Atkins diet because Atkins was a huge fat guy when he died. To be fair, Atkins was a colossal rear end in a top hat who died rich after profiting from promoting a pseudoscientific bullshit diet against the recommendations of more qualified nutrition researchers and agencies, one which almost certainly got people killed or caused harm to their bodies over time. His "product" continues to mislead and delude people to this day. The real shame is that he didn't die in an autoerotic asphyxiation accident, wearing a Klan hood.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2015 22:39
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:To be fair, Atkins was a colossal rear end in a top hat who died rich after profiting from promoting a pseudoscientific bullshit diet against the recommendations of more qualified nutrition researchers and agencies, one which almost certainly got people killed or caused harm to their bodies over time. His "product" continues to mislead and delude people to this day. The real shame is that he didn't die in an autoerotic asphyxiation accident, wearing a Klan hood. Valid point. Still, "Atkins died fat" doesn't disprove his diet. Oh sure other things did but the thing I heard about the most was "if his diet was so good why did he die a fat guy?" Logic and information aren't what convinces people and those aren't what get used for proof. Same goes for which diets do get popular. Science, proof, actual data? gently caress that, let's rely on sensationalism and bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2015 22:46
|
|
|
Lyle McDonald, The Ketogenic Diet posted:"The largest increase in public awareness of the ketogenic diet as a fat loss diet was due to “Dr. Atkins Diet Revolution” in the early 1970’s (16). With millions of copies sold, it generated extreme interest, both good and bad, in the ketogenic diet. Contrary to the semi-starvation and very low calorie ketogenic diets which had come before it, Dr. Atkins suggested a diet limited only in carbohydrates but with unlimited protein and fat. He promoted it as a lifetime diet which would provide weight loss quickly, easily and without hunger, all while allowing dieters to eat as much as they liked of protein and fat. He offered just enough research to make a convincing argument, but much of the research he cited suffered from methodological flaws.For a variety of reasons, most likely related to the unsupported (and unsupportable) claims Atkins made, his diet was openly criticized by the American Medical Association and the ketogenic diet fell back into obscurity (17). Additionally, several deaths occurring in dieters following “The Last Chance Diet” - a 300 calorie-per-day liquid protein diet, which bears a superficial resemblance to the Protein Sparing Modified Fast diet - caused more outcry against ketogenic diets. From that time, the ketogenic diet (known by this time as the Atkins diet) all but disappeared from the mainstream of American dieting consciousness as a high carbohydrate, lowfat diet became the norm for health, exercise performance and fat loss." Contrary to Discendo Vox's hyperbole, the diet never did anyone demonstrable harm (because it is perfectly safe), and although the methodological basis may have been insufficient (and god knows that at least makes it no worse than the AMA guidelines), the real damage was done by association. Atkins was by no means the only researcher interested in ketogenic diets, and others found their reputations and careers damaged even though they had a much stronger case for ketogenic diets. A simple wikipedia search is enough to dispel any hearsay that his death was in any way caused or contributed to by his diet, whether or not he was even following it himself quote:"Dr. Atkins died On April 17, 2003, at the age of 72. Atkins official death certificate states the cause of death as "Blunt impact injury of head with epidural hematoma".[17] Nine days prior to his death, Atkins fell and hit his head on an icy New York pavement. At New York's Weill Cornell Medical Center, where he was admitted on April 8, he underwent surgery to remove a blood clot from his brain but went into a coma and died from complications. He spent nine days in intensive care before dying on April 17, 2003.[18][19]
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 02:34
|
|
|
Wikipedia is claiming he gained 29 kg in nine days ? 29 litres of water retention - in nine days. Did someone stick a hose up his arse and turn the tap on ? I actually went and checked and the only citation to support that ludicrous water retention claim is a link to a New York times article which has a quote from " Dr. Stuart Trager, chairman of the Atkins Physicians Council, a group of physicians who work as consultants to the Atkins organisation" So bullshit in other words. jre fucked around with this message at 03:02 on Dec 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 02:53
|
|
|
Remember in the old low-carb thread where someone was told to get off atkins by his doctor because his organs were failing, and the low-carb morons told him to just find a new doctor because Low Carb Can Never Hurt You? Good times.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 03:00
|
|
|
jre posted:Wikipedia is claiming he gained 29 kg in nine days ? 29 litres of water retention - in nine days. Did someone stick a hose up his arse and turn the tap on ? Whereas evidence to suggest his death was related to the Atkins diet is ... nothing. On balance, the fact he smashed his head on an icy pavement sufficient to generate a blood clot in his brain is pretty convincing as far as cause of death is concerned. Who gives a gently caress about whether you think 29kgs of water retention is 'ludicrous' frankly. Flaky fucked around with this message at 03:13 on Dec 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 03:10
|
|
|
Flaky posted:Whereas evidence to suggest his death was related to the Atkins diet is ... nothing. On balance, the fact he smashed his head on an icy pavement sufficient to generate a blood clot in his brain is pretty convincing as far as cause of death is concerned. Who gives a gently caress about whether you think 29kgs of water retention is 'realistic' frankly. He was obese and had heart disease, which was a bit awkward for people relying on the cash cow he created. So they trot out their pet doctor and the best he can come up with is that Atkins blew up like a literal balloon man in 6 days and gained nearly half his weight again in water. Here's the article that wiki you posted links to http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/11/nyregion/just-what-killed-the-diet-doctor-and-what-keeps-the-issue-alive.html?_r=0 quote:Dr. John McDougall, a member of the Physicians Committee and an internist who had debated Dr. Atkins, said there was no doubt that Dr. Atkins had lost weight after his cardiac arrest, but before that was a different story. ''I knew the man,'' he said. ''He was grossly overweight. I thought he was 40 to 60 pounds overweight when I saw him, and I'm being kind.'' quote:Dr. Neal Barnard, president of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, stressed that it was not Dr. Atkins's health alone that interested him. ''I'm concerned about the Atkins machine trying to play the card that Atkins was healthy and thin into old age,'' he said. In his view, the Atkins diet ''is an imminent public health threat.''
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 03:19
|
|
|
You'll find that his death is 'trotted out' by the same morons in charge of public health policy with agendas of their own. http://lowcarbdiets.about.com/od/atkinsdiet/a/dratkinsdeath.htm This is a massive and shameful beat-up and you're making yourself look silly with your poor reading comprehension, selective quotations and pretending that the circumstances of his death (from, and I can't stress this enough, blunt head trauma) have any bearing on the effectiveness of the diet he popularised.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 03:34
|
|
|
Also, citing the PCRM? It's just a vegan propaganda group.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 05:56
|
|
|
Flaky posted:You'll find that his death is 'trotted out' by the same morons in charge of public health policy with agendas of their own. Straight from the very reputable lowcarbdiets.com website. Surely they don't have skin in the game.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 06:28
|
|
|
The only important thing about Robert Atkins' death is that it happened too late to spare countless victims like Flaky from the brain damage induced by a low carb lifestyle.Coylter posted:Straight from the very reputable lowcarbdiets.com website. Surely they don't have skin in the game. The problem isn't the website in this case(though about's not a great source), it's the individual author. That said, again, Atkins' cause of death isn't meaningful. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 07:35 on Dec 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 07:16
|
|
|
The other thing with the Atkins diet is that most people got it extremely wrong. You started at very low carbs but you didn't stay there. Completely eliminating carbs in the long term isn't the best idea but that was never what you were supposed to do with that diet.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 09:46
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:To be fair, Atkins was a colossal rear end in a top hat who died rich after profiting from promoting a pseudoscientific bullshit diet against the recommendations of more qualified nutrition researchers and agencies, one which almost certainly got people killed or caused harm to their bodies over time. His "product" continues to mislead and delude people to this day. The real shame is that he didn't die in an autoerotic asphyxiation accident, wearing a Klan hood. it's worth noting that this is a fact about persuasion: incompetent or uninformed people tend to find a nuanced and justified argument less convincing than a just-so. That's why I now skip all attempts at public information and go directly to repeatedly calling wrong people idiots.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 10:35
|
|
|
Flaky posted:You'll find that his death is 'trotted out' by the same morons in charge of public health policy with agendas of their own. On one side we have people who's agenda is making the public healthier, on the other people who stood to lose millions if the public lost faith in their fad diet. Yet you believe the shill's story that he magically gained 30kg in 9 days rather than the reality that he was obese. A worse source than a wikipedia article quoting an Atkins spokesman , that's impressive quote:This is a massive and shameful beat-up and you're making yourself look silly with your poor reading comprehension, selective quotations and pretending that the circumstances of his death (from, and I can't stress this enough, blunt head trauma) have any bearing on the effectiveness of the diet he popularised. His cause of death is not what makes his diet look useless , it's the fact he was obese and had a long history of heart disease. jre fucked around with this message at 12:33 on Dec 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 12:30
|
|
|
jre posted:His cause of death is not what makes his diet look useless , it's the fact he was obese and had a long history of heart disease. Even so, he is just one man. This argument is a welcome derail to those arguing in favor of low-carb, since it distracts from the actual issue and is statistically meaningless.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 13:19
|
|
|
Flaky I don't know anything about ketosis but your hard line against caloric restriction doesn't do you rhetorical favours when your advocated alternative is a more psychologically sustainable method of caloric restriction. Don't say 'limiting calories doesn't work' when you mean 'telling people "limit calories" and nothing else doesn't work'. It makes you sound much wackier than you actually are because you're perpetually one poorly chosen phrase away from claiming something physically impossible.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 23:50
|
|
|
jre posted:His cause of death is not what makes his diet look useless , it's the fact he was obese and had a long history of heart disease. No, it really doesn't. Diets are not evaluated by the n=1 of their authors. The Pritikin diet for example did not cause it's inventor to become depressed and commit suicide, even though that is how he died. To attack a diet based on the physiology of the inventor is patently ludicrous.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 00:06
|
|
|
Peel posted:Flaky I don't know anything about ketosis but your hard line against caloric restriction doesn't do you rhetorical favours when your advocated alternative is a more psychologically sustainable method of caloric restriction. Even if that was the extent to which a low-carb diet is beneficial, that would actually be a very substantial and perhaps decisive factor in support of it. There are numerous other benefits however, almost all related to removing the inflammatory effect of excessive blood glucose. The important point is precisely to emphasise that the diet be low in carbohydrates, because it just doesn't matter how hard you try, you wont get fat on a low-carb diet. You don't have the insulin response which drives triglycerides into adipose tissue, so it is physiologically next to impossible to get fat. The only source of glucose is through gluconeogenesis via protein in the diet, or by digesting body protein (which doesn't happen with sufficient protein intake, 1.5-1.85g/kg lean mass). It is very difficult or impossible to eat the amount of protein required to generate any significant insulin response. Studies have been conducted where blood sugar was lowered to <20mg/dl in keto-adapted individuals with huge insulin injections (which would put a regular person into a coma) and the individuals are fine. Every cell in your body with the exception of red blood cells can use free fatty acids or ketones as fuel. Heart muscle prefers ketones. They are an insanely healthy substrate. I can't really say enough good about the diet. My sister has lost 8kgs, I have lost 6kgs, we were both already in the healthy range when we started. And we aren't keto adapted, we just dont eat very much carbs (ie. bacon and eggs for breakfast, and no pasta, rice or bread). You can talk ill-informed poo poo all you like, but I have a degree in bioscience and it makes sense to me. I can absolutely believe that our dietary guidelines are determined more by industry than health. Numerous elite athletes have admitted they are on the diet. I highly recommend you all read up about it, because it isn't snake oil, and especially stop perpetuating untrue and confusing statements like 'a calorie is a calorie' and 'fruit juice is healthy because fruit!' or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 00:33
|
|
|
It is very much snake oil, that low carb works consistently better than other caloric restriction diets, no matter how much you love bacon.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 00:36
|
|
|
You guys should go over and talk to the people at You Look Like poo poo. I'm sure what you are all saying will be well received and none of you will be banned from that subforum.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 01:10
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:The other thing with the Atkins diet is that most people got it extremely wrong. You started at very low carbs but you didn't stay there. Completely eliminating carbs in the long term isn't the best idea but that was never what you were supposed to do with that diet. The problem there is that if you don't want to end up gaining back all the weight you lose (as is disturbingly common among people who attempt any weight loss strategy), you need to change your diet to something you can stick with for the rest of your life. Did any of the Atkins literature ever offer any advice in that area?
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 01:29
|
|
|
Cockmaster posted:The problem there is that if you don't want to end up gaining back all the weight you lose (as is disturbingly common among people who attempt any weight loss strategy), you need to change your diet to something you can stick with for the rest of your life. Did any of the Atkins literature ever offer any advice in that area? If they offered that advice there wouldn't have been seven or so "new" versions of the diet available in book form over the course of his career.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 02:43
|
|
|
Cockmaster posted:The problem there is that if you don't want to end up gaining back all the weight you lose (as is disturbingly common among people who attempt any weight loss strategy), you need to change your diet to something you can stick with for the rest of your life. Did any of the Atkins literature ever offer any advice in that area? Like any diet it is supposed to be something you can live with forever. There is no reason why you can't. The guy who posted earlier mentioned that he was taking a slow release calcium/magnesium supplement, and this is advised in some cases because people who are trying to get into very low carb ranges often limit consumption of milk. Magnesium is available from red meats and green vegetables, but people might be limiting their intakes to improve their fat:protein ratio. Even then, specific supplementation is unnecessary assuming a sufficient sodium intake, because the kidneys will excrete more electrolytes in general when in ketosis, and if sodium is not available then potassium and magnesium from muscle will be excreted, leading to the common perception of muscle weakness or keto-flu that people talk about. If sufficient sodium is available for secretion, the other electrolytes are spared. Most people are totally fine eating 100g of carbs a day and will lose weight, and attain a healthy weight if they continue to eat in this fashion. There is no need to enter ketosis to lose weight. Today I ate 300g of frozen yogurt with fruit and passionfruit topping. Flaky fucked around with this message at 10:18 on Dec 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 10:08
|
|
|
Cockmaster posted:The problem there is that if you don't want to end up gaining back all the weight you lose (as is disturbingly common among people who attempt any weight loss strategy), you need to change your diet to something you can stick with for the rest of your life. Did any of the Atkins literature ever offer any advice in that area? That's a problem with diets in general but that's a mix of the diet industry wanting to keep selling you new diets and people in general being idiots about dieting. There is no such thing as "you can do this diet and then go back to your awful ways." That's another conversation I've had with a ton of people; if you want to keep the weight off you need to change your base eating habits. As for Atkins if memory serves you were supposed to track calories, carbs, protein, etc. and figure out the equilibrium point where you neither gained nor lost weight. Akins also advocated eating more vegetables and fewer calories so it wasn't all bad. But then the miracle diet that worked for me when I was starting to pork up was "quit eating so drat much cake you dumb poo poo." I changed my eating habits to be healthier (less meat, less junk food, no cake, no soda, little candy, more vegetables) and have been non-fat ever since. Really when it comes to dieting a lot of people are looking for something that just plain doesn't exist but the only diets that ever seem to be profitable are "lose 20 pounds in a month and keep it off forever! WOW!!!" For better or for worse Americans just don't want somebody to tell them "lay off the junk food and eat some drat carrots then go for a walk."
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 11:57
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:But then the miracle diet that worked for me when I was starting to pork up was "quit eating so drat much cake you dumb poo poo." I changed my eating habits to be healthier (less meat, less junk food, no cake, no soda, little candy, more vegetables) and have been non-fat ever since. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOyebcrVWb4
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 13:32
|
|
|
The real solution to weight loss is malt liquor
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 15:47
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:For better or for worse Americans just don't want somebody to tell them "lay off the junk food and eat some drat carrots then go for a walk." I don't think that's a case of American exceptionalism: permanently changing any habit is hard, what you eat and what you do are composed of many habits. I've noticed most good "diet" books I read nowadays seem to be built around tricking the reader into practicing skills and habits that will stay with them: cooking, guessing the weight/calories of things, portion control, etc.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 17:16
|
|
|
Until companies start selling portion control quantities of food for the same price as non portion control bags this will be an issue. Theres no reason a smaller amount should cost nearly double per ounce
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 21:24
|
|
|
CalmDownMate posted:Until companies start selling portion control quantities of food for the same price as non portion control bags this will be an issue. Weird how you don't believe in economies of scale.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 21:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 04:39 |
|
|
CalmDownMate posted:Until companies start selling portion control quantities of food for the same price as non portion control bags this will be an issue. if only there was some way for people to do their own portion control and not eat the entire contents of a bag at once
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 22:31
|
|
