187 replies to this topic

[TheFountain]

Stop being so condescending, it's obvious you condescend upon CR and raw veganism because you consider them unmanly, own up to it, all of you.

TheFountain, your gender dysphoria is showing. Again. (Not to mention here and here.)

I don't think so. I mean I think there is a difference between androgyny/aesthetics and gender dysphoria. Diet can play a significant role in how masculine or androgynous one is perceived. And I find most young cultured prefer a little androgyny over the typical homophobic shaven headed military cadet types. Note though, I said cultured females, not typical females. I have no desire to appeal to an average female.

Edited by TheFountain, 30 January 2010 - 01:32 AM.

[Luna]

Stop being so condescending, it's obvious you condescend upon CR and raw veganism because you consider them unmanly, own up to it, all of you.

TheFountain, your gender dysphoria is showing. Again. (Not to mention here and here.)

I don't think so. I mean I think there is a difference between androgyny/aesthetics and gender dysphoria. Diet can play a significant role in how masculine or androgynous one is perceived. And I find most young cultured prefer a little androgyny over the typical homophobic shaven headed military cadet types. Note though, I said cultured females, not typical females. I have no desire to appeal to an average female.

Here is what people here want you to realize.
Masculine != Homophobic

If you can't realize that, we will have to start calling all of the styles you support Androphobic, fear of man or in this case, what might symbol a man by definition.

People don't like your posts because you are the one being aggressive around here and you are the one spreading anti-something in your posts. The posts which were anti long hair or something which you tried to advocate in the manners of styles were minor, most people simply didn't care, said they prefer something else and you called them gay.

So no, I don't have a problem with you telling me not to talk to you over MSN, I don't even want to talk to you over MSN. My problem is with you being ridicolous in your arguements and attacking everyone thinking you are some superior intelligent being.
Your MSN nickname could very well point to some of YOUR psychological issues "Hyper intelligent boy" or whatever it was.

[JLL]

TheFountain needs to cut back on his soy intake.

[EmbraceUnity]

TheFountain needs to cut back on his soy intake.

You need to cut back on the trolling.

[TheFountain]

Stop being so condescending, it's obvious you condescend upon CR and raw veganism because you consider them unmanly, own up to it, all of you.

TheFountain, your gender dysphoria is showing. Again. (Not to mention here and here.)

I don't think so. I mean I think there is a difference between androgyny/aesthetics and gender dysphoria. Diet can play a significant role in how masculine or androgynous one is perceived. And I find most young cultured prefer a little androgyny over the typical homophobic shaven headed military cadet types. Note though, I said cultured females, not typical females. I have no desire to appeal to an average female.

Here is what people here want you to realize.
Masculine != Homophobic

If you can't realize that, we will have to start calling all of the styles you support Androphobic, fear of man or in this case, what might symbol a man by definition.

People don't like your posts because you are the one being aggressive around here and you are the one spreading anti-something in your posts. The posts which were anti long hair or something which you tried to advocate in the manners of styles were minor, most people simply didn't care, said they prefer something else and you called them gay.

So no, I don't have a problem with you telling me not to talk to you over MSN, I don't even want to talk to you over MSN. My problem is with you being ridicolous in your arguements and attacking everyone thinking you are some superior intelligent being.
Your MSN nickname could very well point to some of YOUR psychological issues "Hyper intelligent boy" or whatever it was.

Excuse me but I do not recall a an anti-long hair post. I recall a post in which I discussed how most men mistakenly think that most women do not care about how men do their hair. This is an obvious falsehood when speaking to cultured females. Cultured females are tired of shaven headed military types. They are tired of the overly testosterone driven personas. More and more, especially amongst european and asiatic females, the aesthetics of androgyny are being accepted and pursued in males. It is patristic cultures, such as yours, america, puerto rico, etc where this is not happening. It is because such cultures are less evolved than the forementioned ones and seem to rely on an archaic revival mentality, where women play dumb and men play monkey. Cultured males and females are simply getting sick of it.

Well I have since changed my MSN handle. It is no longer 'hyper intelligent boy' it is now 'mega-intelligent man'. But alas, I asked you to stop speaking to me there because I found your typical approach to humanity boring and familiar. I have essentially heard everything you have said a thousand times over so it kind of struck me as a caricature of other people. I prefer originality to a lack thereof. Otherwise I have nothing personal against you, it is just a matter of lack of compatability.

Edited by TheFountain, 30 January 2010 - 05:21 PM.

[Luna]

TheFountain, it is not even related about our MSN contact. I don't care that you don't want to talk to me over MSN, my conversations with you are just "nonsense.. can I try to make it stop somehow? can he be convinced otherwise?".

Me, typical approach? funny :D

"Females", what's wrong with women btw? tired of shaved men? umm.. not so much, everyone has their taste, I know plenty who like either and mostly don't care, it's the person most care about it.

Do realize you are speaking nonsense, over-generalizing and biased.

There is not just one way and this is what you fail to realize. People may tend to look more masculine, more feminine or maybe in the middle, there is not just one way which is the right way and you keep attacking people because they have short hair! While those very same people might not even care that other people have long hair like you might suggest. People sometimes genuinely prefer short hair and are not homophobic, can you believe it?

Calling everyone GAY just because they are different than you is just ego, and stupid type of ego too if you take under consideration the fact that you way is not better, it's simply a choice.

You keep saying everyone is "psychologically conditioned" over and over again just proves how ignorant you are.

But hey, telling you all of this is not going to change anything, so why even bother? I am in the camp who doesn't care if a guy has shaved hair, short hair, medium hair or long hair and just for fun even super super long hair.
You are in the camp of those who hate everyone who isn't like them because "they are like the others", even do others might be 32584635843 different groups of people, seems it's more like "they are not like me".

And allow me to use YOUR psychological thinking on you once:
TheFountain says that people who have shaved hair are homophobic, they call people gay because they are gay and afraid to admit it. Calling people gay is apparently an act done by a gay person afraid to admit being gay.
TheFountain calls people gay, pretty much everyone who doesn't admit being gay seems to be called gay by TheFountain. That could mean that TheFountain is gay but afraid to admit it, therefore he blames everyone else for being gay.
TheFountain calls everyone gay to convince himself that being gay is alright so he can feel comfortable with himself as once he is convinced that the entire world is gay, being gay is fine and TheFountain needs not to worry being unusual because being gay is just normal.

Please stop calling everyone gay.

[TheFountain]

TheFountain, it is not even related about our MSN contact. I don't care that you don't want to talk to me over MSN, my conversations with you are just "nonsense.. can I try to make it stop somehow? can he be convinced otherwise?".

Me, typical approach? funny :D

"Females", what's wrong with women btw? tired of shaved men? umm.. not so much, everyone has their taste, I know plenty who like either and mostly don't care, it's the person most care about it.

Do realize you are speaking nonsense, over-generalizing and biased.

There is not just one way and this is what you fail to realize. People may tend to look more masculine, more feminine or maybe in the middle, there is not just one way which is the right way and you keep attacking people because they have short hair! While those very same people might not even care that other people have long hair like you might suggest. People sometimes genuinely prefer short hair and are not homophobic, can you believe it?

Calling everyone GAY just because they are different than you is just ego, and stupid type of ego too if you take under consideration the fact that you way is not better, it's simply a choice.

You keep saying everyone is "psychologically conditioned" over and over again just proves how ignorant you are.

But hey, telling you all of this is not going to change anything, so why even bother? I am in the camp who doesn't care if a guy has shaved hair, short hair, medium hair or long hair and just for fun even super super long hair.
You are in the camp of those who hate everyone who isn't like them because "they are like the others", even do others might be 32584635843 different groups of people, seems it's more like "they are not like me".

And allow me to use YOUR psychological thinking on you once:
TheFountain says that people who have shaved hair are homophobic, they call people gay because they are gay and afraid to admit it. Calling people gay is apparently an act done by a gay person afraid to admit being gay.
TheFountain calls people gay, pretty much everyone who doesn't admit being gay seems to be called gay by TheFountain. That could mean that TheFountain is gay but afraid to admit it, therefore he blames everyone else for being gay.
TheFountain calls everyone gay to convince himself that being gay is alright so he can feel comfortable with himself as once he is convinced that the entire world is gay, being gay is fine and TheFountain needs not to worry being unusual because being gay is just normal.

Please stop calling everyone gay.

lol what the hell are you talking about?

I do not call everyone gay. I simply make the quite psychologically feasible suggestion that men who dart insults at other men for being fashionable, having long hair, caring about their face, etc are more than likely homophobes because they are repressed homosexuals themselves who are either directly or indirectly threatened by men who take care of their appearance or who have 'feminine' characteristics, which is resultant of their own hidden attraction for such men. I never once called a man a homosexual out of nowhere. And the only men I have suggested might be homosexual are those who show insecurity about their own sexuality by being threatened by other men, particularly fashionable, well groomed men. I think you should relax, take a deep breath and think things over here. Because this is far off topic.

[DukeNukem]

Relevant links:

"A calorie is a calorie" violates the second law of thermodynamics

Some quotes from the above link:

The principle of "a calorie is a calorie," that weight change in hypocaloric diets is independent of macronutrient composition, is widely held in the popular and technical literature, and is frequently justified by appeal to the laws of thermodynamics...Here, we propose that a misunderstanding of the second law accounts for the controversy about the role of macronutrient effect on weight loss and we review some aspects of elementary thermodynamics. We use data in the literature to show that thermogenesis is sufficient to predict metabolic advantage. Whereas homeostasis ensures balance under many conditions, as a general principle, "a calorie is a calorie" violates the second law of thermodynamics.

A review of simple thermodynamic principles shows that weight change on isocaloric diets is not expected to be independent of path (metabolism of macronutrients) and indeed such a general principle would be a violation of the second law. Homeostatic mechanisms are able to insure that, a good deal of the time, weight does not fluctuate much with changes in diet – this might be said to be the true "miraculous metabolic effect" – but it is subject to many exceptions. The idea that this is theoretically required in all cases is mistakenly based on equilibrium, reversible conditions that do not hold for living organisms and an insufficient appreciation of the second law. The second law of thermodynamics says that variation of efficiency for different metabolic pathways is to be expected. Thus, ironically the dictum that a "calorie is a calorie" violates the second law of thermodynamics, as a matter of principle.

And, just posted by Dr. Eades on this very topic:

AC anti-metabolic advantage dismemberment

[Shepard]

That paper has been touted around for a while, and it's pretty much the pinnacle of the low-carb theorizing. They do good work in that.

But when theory clashes with reality, which one is at fault?

Anyway, all that they attribute the advantage to is only important during the first couple weeks of low-carbing. After that, they go away.

[niner]

Anyway, all that they attribute the advantage to is only important during the first couple weeks of low-carbing. After that, they go away.

Why would that be? I have to say that that hasn't been my experience; I don't think I'm low carb enough to really qualify as "low carb", but after shifting a decent fraction of my diet from carbs to fat, my weight has been lower and stable for a long time. Is that because I'm not losing weight, so the metabolic advantage doesn't come into play? People make too big a deal of weight loss. With the right diet, you should never need to lose weight.

[Shepard]

Anyway, all that they attribute the advantage to is only important during the first couple weeks of low-carbing. After that, they go away.

Why would that be? I have to say that that hasn't been my experience; I don't think I'm low carb enough to really qualify as "low carb", but after shifting a decent fraction of my diet from carbs to fat, my weight has been lower and stable for a long time. Is that because I'm not losing weight, so the metabolic advantage doesn't come into play? People make too big a deal of weight loss. With the right diet, you should never need to lose weight.

Energy wasted during gluconeogenesis. Now, if Skot is correct in his position of gluconeogenesis increasing significantly, this opens up new doors. I'm still operating on the opinion that most tissues continue to utilize FFA for fuel.

[rwac]

Anyway, all that they attribute the advantage to is only important during the first couple weeks of low-carbing. After that, they go away.

Wait, aren't you assuming perfect insulin sensitivity here?

[Shepard]

Wait, aren't you assuming perfect insulin sensitivity here?

I'm not entirely sure what perfect insulin sensitivity means, or if it's even necessarily desirable.

But, yeah, I'm not going to discount the idea of differing phenotypes within the population. I think it's been shown well enough in the literature that certain patterns of insulin sensitivity correlate with greater results on particular approaches.

[Nigel Kinbrum]

That paper has been touted around for a while, and it's pretty much the pinnacle of the low-carb theorizing. They do good work in that.
But when theory clashes with reality, which one is at fault?
Anyway, all that they attribute the advantage to is only important during the first couple weeks of low-carbing. After that, they go away.

Referring to Nonequilibrium thermodynamics and energy efficiency in weight loss diets by Richard D Feinman and Eugene J Fine, on a low-carb diet, dietary fat cannot be stored as body fat due to a lack of glycerol-3-phosphate produced by glycolysis (due to non-raised serum insulin). This is a cornerstone of the Carbohydrate Hypothesis.

My theory says that this is incorrect. To quote my (not yet published) response to Eades:-

"Your comment is awaiting moderation.
mreades said…
“As I understand your hypothesis, you’re saying in the presence of low insulin levels, the glycerol molecules stripped from dietary fat can be used to form the glucose required to make the glycerol that forms the “backbone” of fat (triglycerides) in the fat cells. Have I got this right?”

Not exactly. What I’m saying is that adipocytes can take in glucose from the blood to produce as much glycerol-3-phosphate as they need even when serum insulin isn’t raised as (and this is where I differ slightly from James Krieger) either Glu-T4 transporters are up-regulated due to lack of substrate downstream (me), or Glu-T1 transporters are up-regulated (him), or both.

The liver (& also kidneys) maintain blood glucose by converting the glycerol stripped from serum TriacylGlycerols by LipoProtein Lipase into blood glucose. They also use Lactate, Pyruvate & glucogenic Amino Acids as required.

Nige."

EDIT: See my blog post Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes for more information.

Edited by Nigeepoo, 10 February 2010 - 12:21 PM.

[mongfu]

Now i am so confused!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I just want to be the most healthy, strong, muscular, and lean I can be. What do I eat???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
What are the best Carbs?
What are the best Fats?
What are the best Proteins?
What is the best Macronutrient Ratio?

Damn!!

[Matt]

I believe that people who do CR have a Puritan mentality, that they believe that it's necessary to suffer now for some potential later benefit (live longer).

NO It's not 'suffering'. Suffering is starving in africa, having no access to water or food. It's not suffering! look at my post 'dont you feel hungry'
http://matts-cr.blogspot.com/ and it has a picture of just one of my meals.

Edited by Matt, 10 February 2010 - 02:54 PM.

[Nigel Kinbrum]

Now i am so confused!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I just want to be the most healthy, strong, muscular, and lean I can be. What do I eat??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? I'd cut down on the question marks if I were you. Too many of those is bad for you!
What are the best Carbs? Best for what?
What are the best Fats? Best for what?
What are the best Proteins? Best for what?
What is the best Macronutrient Ratio? There isn't one.

Damn!!

Without having a long & expensive test to measure your RER at rest & while exercising at various intensities, it's down to guesswork as to what percentage of energy you want from Proteins, Carbs & Fats. It's not that critical as RER can vary somewhat to adapt to different macro ratios.

My recommendations: Eat foods that haven't been buggered-about with too much, make sure you get a reasonable amount of EFAs & Vitamin D, work out properly, rest properly and you shouldn't go far wrong. Also, stop worrying about it so much!

[niner]

Now i am so confused!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I just want to be the most healthy, strong, muscular, and lean I can be. What do I eat???????????????????????????????????[snip]
What are the best Carbs?
What are the best Fats?
What are the best Proteins?
What is the best Macronutrient Ratio?

Damn!!

Mwa Ha Ha! Our diabolical plan is working!

Seriously, if you want the absolute perfectly best possible, it will depend on your genome and I don't think anyone knows how to answer that question anyway. If you are looking for some good advice that will most likely give you what you want, the answer is: Best carbs are low GI complex carbs. Best Fats are SAFA and MUFA. Best Proteins are... oh, jeez, probably a lab-created protein that restricts certain AAs. If you really want to play that game you could research it. Realistically, just try to get a reasonable balance of essential AAs so you don't need to consume too much protein in order to get all the EAAs that you need. Best macronutrient ratio? Protein below ten % is too little, above 30% is too much. Lower amounts favor longevity, higher amounts favor muscle. You decide where you want to be on that continuum. After that, you just have to split the rest of the calories between carbs and fat. Don't go crazy in either direction, and be sure to construct a diet that is enjoyable and has the micronutrients and phytochemicals that you need. In other words, you want to admit a variety of vegetables and berries. Large fruits are up to you- they cost you because of fructose but many large fruits also have good things in them. So that's it. Just keep your fructose (including sucrose), PUFA, and gluten grains consumption low, and you'll be good to go. Don't stress out over it, and don't be fanatical.

[e Volution]

Seriously, if you want the absolute perfectly best possible, it will depend on your genome and I don't think anyone knows how to answer that question anyway. If you are looking for some good advice that will most likely give you what you want, the answer is: Best carbs are low GI complex carbs. Best Fats are SAFA and MUFA. Best Proteins are... oh, jeez, probably a lab-created protein that restricts certain AAs. If you really want to play that game you could research it. Realistically, just try to get a reasonable balance of essential AAs so you don't need to consume too much protein in order to get all the EAAs that you need. Best macronutrient ratio? Protein below ten % is too little, above 30% is too much. Lower amounts favor longevity, higher amounts favor muscle. You decide where you want to be on that continuum. After that, you just have to split the rest of the calories between carbs and fat. Don't go crazy in either direction, and be sure to construct a diet that is enjoyable and has the micronutrients and phytochemicals that you need. In other words, you want to admit a variety of vegetables and berries. Large fruits are up to you- they cost you because of fructose but many large fruits also have good things in them. So that's it. Just keep your fructose (including sucrose), PUFA, and gluten grains consumption low, and you'll be good to go. Don't stress out over it, and don't be fanatical.

This is seriously the best all-round advice you will find anywhere! The only thing that many individuals (myself included) would differ on is to favour fat (MUFA and SAFA) over complex carbohydrates but this then essentially becomes an evolutionary/paleo approach to diet. The only way to know where you stand on the complex carbs vs fat debate is to read all of the available information, because right now it seems more a matter of opinion, two people can read the same literature and still be on different sides of the fence.

[tunt01]

This is seriously the best all-round advice you will find anywhere!

seconded, good advice.

[Sillewater]

That is the best 252 word paragraph regarding nutrition I have read so far.

[Nigel Kinbrum]

I think people here are mostly confusing healthy and weight control.
There was a video shown by duke, it was kind of to support the fat or sugar avoidance.
What it mainly said was three things:
1. A calorie isn't a calorie.
2. People who eat fructose are usually fat.
3. Fructose is causing unhealthy reactions in tee body.
Now after watching the all of the videos of the lecture, I came to the conclusion that a calorie is still a calorie in regard of weight control.
The problem is that according to the video fructose is making people eat more due to some reactions in the body.
Another problem is that fructose leaves some waste in the body which most people don't burn out and it then builds up in the liver and some other places. About glucose, it didn't say much.

That's an interesting point. Fructose fills liver glycogen stores. When the liver is full, the liver can't stop fructose from entering it, so it disposes of the excess by converting it into triglycerides. This is because fructose enters liver cells via Glu-T5 transporters which are insulin-independent. Therefore, an excessive intake of fructose produces high serum TGs, Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease, high VLDL-c & small, dense LDL-c which leads to CVD.

Glucose (or starches, which hydrolyse into glucose) also fills liver glycogen stores. When the liver is full, it down-regulates Glu-T2 transporters which are insulin-dependent. This effectively makes the liver insulin-resistant. This stops further glucose from entering the liver. Is this a better thing to have than fructose overload? No. An insulin-resistant liver secretes glucose even when serum insulin is high. This results in hyperglycaemia, which causes gradual glycation damage to just about everything.

Eating too many kcals of fats makes cells insulin-resistant. See above.

Eating too many kcals of proteins is a bit too complicated for me to go into right now.

Basically, chronically eating too many kcals of anything is bad.

Edited by Nigeepoo, 19 February 2010 - 10:51 PM.

[oehaut]

Anthony Colpo respond to Dr. Eades.

I would say that, again, except the way he has of saying things, he still makes a good case against the MAD... and maybe hurt Eades credibility a bit?

http://www.anthonyco...010_Part_1.html

[frederickson]

i have learned three things over the past decade of nearly 100 personal training clients and finishing up a nutrition-related phd.

1.) experiment and do what works for YOU. people respond differently to different diets, so your own experimentation (as well-controlled as possible) is the ultimate test of what diet works best for you. provided you consume ample calories, macronutrient experimentation in the short/medium term will almost definitely not hurt you. so try different approaches for a few weeks at a time... atkins, south beach, keto, paleo, low-fat, etc.

2.) most nutrition research is utter bullshit. i know this sounds cynical, but this is coming from a researcher himself who knows how research is funded. when you are entirely grant-funded (usually from the nih) and completely rely on such grants to further your career and ultimately pay your mortgage, you will generally tell the funding bodies what they want to hear. you step out of line with controversial ideas (saturated fats may be healthy, grains are unhealthy, etc.), you will not get funded, you will not get tenured, and you will ultimately lose your job. consequently, most researchers play the game... and i really can't blame them. nutrition research outside of the united states is a little less subject to the grain and dairy industry influence, so look there for your better, cutting-edge papers.

3.) for the vast majority - i would say 90% - of my personal training clients/friends, a lower-carbohydrate/high fat (mufa, sfa)/moderately high protein diet is the best choice for a.) body composition and b.) all measurable biomarkers of heart disease, metabolic syndrome, etc.. i have referred many of my "high risk" clients to some of my physician colleagues over the years, and serum lipids, blood pressure, inflammatory cytokines, hba1c. etc. almost always improve with a low-carb approach. those who follow a raw-vegetable laden, paleo style diet with a macronutrient breakdown described above seem to fare the best.

[RickSantos]

Anthony Colpo respond to Dr. Eades.

I would say that, again, except the way he has of saying things, he still makes a good case against the MAD... and maybe hurt Eades credibility a bit?

http://www.anthonyco...010_Part_1.html

Gary Taubes presents an overwhelmingly strong and absolutely devastating case against the caloric model of obesity. (The only problem is his insulin hypothesis is also wrong because blood insulin levels are the same everywhere in the body, so that can't explain why in those photos of the victims of lipodystrophy that they had obese lower bodies and rail thin upper bodies).


All Anthony Colpo and Lyle McDonald et al have ever done is point out that the insulin theory is not complete. Which they are correct about.

HOWEVER , they have NEVER addressed Gary Taubes' and Dr. Robert Lustig's OVERWHELMINGLY STRONG evidence against the caloric model of true medical obesity:


*Anthony Colpo and Lyle McDonald have NEVER addressed why we have a world wide epidemic of obese 6 month olds


*Why we have extreme povery and malnutrition and obesity going hand in hand . The classic caloric model of obesity CANNOT explain these observations.

The classic caloric model of obesity completely ignores the above data.



Gary Taubes' and Dr. Robert Lustig's case against the conventional caloric theory of obesity is extremely strong.

Anthony Colpo and Lyle McDonald don't like this and are upset by it. They are anything but unbiased. I just can't figure out why they cling so desperately to the classic caloric model and do not really want to get the bottom of obesity. Obesity is ungodly complex. There is far more we don't know about obesity than we know.

This is not a critism of Taubes. Gary Taubes has done an awesome job. His main contribution to obesity is the STRONG evidence he shows that the caloric model is a failure and does not explain the data. No one really has provided an alternative hypothesis. Science is moving very slow on this because it is funded by the industry - and the industry LOVES the classic caloric model of obesity.

http://dhslides.org/...gr060509f/f.htm


For guys ( Colpo and McDonald) who brag about how intelligent they are , it seems all they can do is call Taubes a "retard".

Edited by RickSantos, 10 March 2010 - 03:35 PM.

[RickSantos]

Anthony Colpo respond to Dr. Eades.

I would say that, again, except the way he has of saying things, he still makes a good case against the MAD... and maybe hurt Eades credibility a bit?

http://www.anthonyco...010_Part_1.html

Gary Taubes presents an overwhelmingly strong and absolutely devastating case against the caloric model of obesity. (The only problem is his insulin hypothesis is also wrong because blood insulin levels are the same everywhere in the body, so that can't explain why in those photos of the victims of lipodystrophy that they had obese lower bodies and rail thin upper bodies).


All Anthony Colpo and Lyle McDonald et al have ever done is point out that the insulin theory is not complete. Which they are correct about.

HOWEVER , they have NEVER addressed Gary Taubes' and Dr. Robert Lustig's OVERWHELMINGLY STRONG evidence against the caloric model of true medical obesity:


*Anthony Colpo and Lyle McDonald have NEVER addressed why we have a world wide epidemic of obese 6 month olds

*Why we have extreme povery and malnutrition and obesity going hand in hand . The classic caloric model of obesity CANNOT explain these observations.

The classic caloric model of obesity completely ignores the above data.



Gary Taubes' and Dr. Robert Lustig's case against the conventional caloric theory of obesity is extremely strong.

Anthony Colpo and Lyle McDonald don't like this and are upset by it. They are anything but unbiased. I just can't figure out why they cling so desperately to the classic caloric model and do not really want to get the bottom of obesity. Obesity is ungodly complex. There is far more we don't know about obesity than we know.

This is not a critism of Taubes. Gary Taubes has done an awesome job. His main contribution towards understanding obesity is the STRONG evidence he shows that the caloric model is a failure and does not explain the data. No one really has provided an alternative hypothesis. Science is moving very slow on this because it is funded by the industry - and the industry LOVES the classic caloric model of obesity.

http://dhslides.org/...gr060509f/f.htm


For guys ( Colpo and McDonald) who brag about how intelligent they are , it seems all they can do is call Taubes a "retard".

Edited by RickSantos, 10 March 2010 - 04:16 PM.

[Nigel Kinbrum]

Anthony Colpo respond to Dr. Eades.

I would say that, again, except the way he has of saying things, he still makes a good case against the MAD... and maybe hurt Eades credibility a bit?

http://www.anthonyco...010_Part_1.html

Gary Taubes presents an overwhelmingly strong and absolutely devastating case against the caloric model of obesity. (The only problem is his insulin hypothesis is also wrong because blood insulin levels are the same everywhere in the body, so that can't explain why in those photos of the victims of lipodystrophy that they had obese lower bodies and rail thin upper bodies).

All Anthony Colpo and Lyle McDonald et al have ever done is point out that the insulin theory is not complete. Which they are correct about.

HOWEVER , they have NEVER addressed Gary Taubes' and Dr. Robert Lustig's OVERWHELMINGLY STRONG evidence against the caloric model of true medical obesity:

*Anthony Colpo and Lyle McDonald have NEVER addressed why we have a world wide epidemic of obese 6 month olds

*Why we have extreme povery and malnutrition and obesity going hand in hand . The classic caloric model of obesity CANNOT explain these observations.

The classic caloric model of obesity completely ignores the above data.

Gary Taubes' and Dr. Robert Lustig's case against the conventional caloric theory of obesity is extremely strong.

Anthony Colpo and Lyle McDonald don't like this and are upset by it. They are anything but unbiased. I just can't figure out why they cling so desperately to the classic caloric model and do not really want to get the bottom of obesity. Obesity is ungodly complex. There is far more we don't know about obesity than we know.

This is not a critism of Taubes. Gary Taubes has done an awesome job. His main contribution towards understanding obesity is the STRONG evidence he shows that the caloric model is a failure and does not explain the data. No one really has provided an alternative hypothesis. Science is moving very slow on this because it is funded by the industry - and the industry LOVES the classic caloric model of obesity.

http://dhslides.org/...gr060509f/f.htm

For guys ( Colpo and McDonald) who brag about how intelligent they are , it seems all they can do is call Taubes a "retard".

Taubes has made a blunder in his insistence that dietary fat cannot be stored in the absence of dietary carbohydrate. I have blogged about why this is wrong. See my post above.
Kurt Harris has written a couple of blog posts explaining why Taubes is wrong as well. See Insulin is a doorman at the fat cell nightclub, not a lock on the door and Where are the fat carnivores?

Lustig has made a blunder, too. See The bitter truth about fructose alarmism and A retrospective of the fructose alarmism debate.

See also Determinants of the Variability in Human Body-fat Percentage.

[VesperLynd]

So.... the bottom line here is that no one has been able to prove what exactly causes humans to increase or decrease body fat - neither through overall calorie intake NOR manipulation of the macronutrient components of the diet?


VL

[Nigel Kinbrum]

So.... the bottom line here is that no one has been able to prove what exactly causes humans to increase or decrease body fat - neither through overall calorie intake NOR manipulation of the macronutrient components of the diet?
VL

Hi Lyn. We humans are so damned complicated!
Body weight is determined by calorie balance which is controlled by our appetites (unless we're locked-up), also water balance which is affected by a few things.
Body composition is determined by a few factors, most outside our control (e.g. genetics, illness, enforced sedentaryness) and some within our control (resistance training, leptin manipulation). Extreme P/C/F proportions also have an effect.

One thing is for certain. Humans are not rats.

[blackbox]

Animal fat is profoundly important in our health. I once seriously restricted fat intake and became seriously ill. Doctors couldn't figure out why and pills after pills doctors gave me made me worse. What finally cured me was Mary Enig's fat diet. Eat lots of animal fat. Fat does body good.

Edited by blackbox, 28 March 2010 - 03:18 PM.