Unhealthy Food, Healthy Food

[Mr Flibble]

People DO lose weight on it ... and I can't see a reasonable reason for it.

Ketosis.

The build-up of ketone bodies in your blood stream, produced in your liver as it is starved of glucose to provide a substitute. Your body begins to metabolise ketone in the way it used to metabolise glucose. The body's main source of energy switches from carbohydrate to fat, very basically. This is the mechanism through which low carbohydrate diets facilitate weight loss.

Not everyone will manage to induce a state of ketosis just by altering their diet (they sell strips you can pee on apparently to check your urine for ketone).

[big brother]

You make some good points, Darth. The cheat day is definitely necessary for any healthy lifestyle. Take someone who loves ice cream. They may know they shouldn't eat it if they're trying to lose weight, but in the long run, it's impossible for them not to eat it (nobody wants to diet forever). So instead of binging and feeling guilty, it's better to allow yourself a designated time to slip (and eat it in moderation). Also, it actually helps fat reduction if you can zig-zag your calorie intake so you're not burning more than you're eating every day.

Lifting in the morning is a better idea than lifting later on in the day. In the morning, your testosterone levels are at their peak. You should also be rested from a night's sleep. In addition, for the rest of the day you'll be using those muscles you worked out to some extent, compounding the fatigue and stimulating the hypertrophy, especially for the slow-twitch fibers.

I think of my diet as part of a lifestyle choice. If you're trying to lose weight quickly so you can go back to eating junk food, you've got a surprise coming. It's best to settle on a diet you're comfortable with in the long-term. The Atkins diet is like running a car solely on gasoline fumes to lower costs. The car may still be able to drive and you will save on gas, but it's not good for the engine and you can expect the car to stall frequently. To make the comparison more valid, let's say you can't buy a new car if the one you have breaks down.

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

Based on observation, I've seen the Atkins diet work primarily for very active people (weightlifters, runners, exercise fans) who actually make use of the massive protein intake.  For the average, mildly active person, Atkins is a major disaster just waiting to happen. 

[Nikolas]

I'm 194 (like Darth) but weight a couple of stones more atm! (106 kgms).

I'm on a nutrition consultation (meaning I visit a specialist every couple of weeks and we talk, provides advice for what to eat, program, etc). It's not a diet, since I pretty much do what I want, but there's some limits.

I excersize quite a lot by cycling around town (Athens... brrr...). On occasions I've done 50 km with my bicycle, which, Nacho, is quite a lot for me!

I quit drinking too much beer, but now over the summer I picked it up again (I love beer). Don't crave a lot of things really anymore, apart from the occasional pizza and cheese. No more chocolates, no more icecream, etc. I just don't mind. I was given the opportunity to have one sweet per week, but I found out I didn't need it. I spent it on beer instead!

[Nacho]

50 kilometres is a perfect cypher for anyone, in "health" terms (Of course, you won' t win the Tour of France training 2 hours per session, but it' s okay). 

Of course, you must do those 50 kms. as many times as you can! 

[RickJ]

This is what perplexes me about the Atkins Diet though. People DO lose weight on it (whether it's unhealthy or not, the fact remains that they still lose bloody loads of weight), and I can't see a reasonable reason for it. It's not just water weight. I understand what water weight is, and they did not just lose water weight - they lost about 30lbs of actual, visible weight... and very quickly.

Consumption of carbohydrates stimulates the production of insulin, a hormone which is used by the body to store excess glucose as fat.   Consumption of proteins does not generate glucose and so stimulates the production of  glucagon, a hormone used by the body to retrieve energy from fat cells.  The body is practically always in one of these two states.  

Clearly weight loss only occurs when the body is in the glucagon stimulated state and this can only be achieved through a carbohydrate restricted diet, strenuous exercise or some combination of the two.  The Atkins diet works because it restricts the consumption of carbohydrates and satisfies the appetite by allowing liberal consumption of high protien low carb foods.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glucagon

Glucagon helps maintain the level of glucose in the blood by binding to glucagon receptors on hepatocytes, causing the liver to release glucose - stored in the form of glycogen - through a process known as glycogenolysis. As these stores become depleted, glucagon then encourages the liver to synthesize additional glucose by gluconeogenesis. This glucose is released into the bloodstream. Both of these mechanisms lead to glucose release by the liver, preventing the development of hypoglycemia. Glucagon also regulates the rate of glucose production through lipolysis ... Lipolysis is the breakdown of fat stored in fat cells.

.

Low fat diets are pretty much rubbish and counter productive.   Low fat diets are necessarily high in carbohydrates and low in protein.  A person on such a diet would spend most of the time in the insulin stimulated state and would not be able to lose weight.

=========================

Just out of curiosity, I was wondering, in countries such as the UK, that have nationalized health care systems, who decides what is healthy and what is not?   What happens if they, the deciders, are wrong?   If one makes a decision for himself, he must accept responsibility for that decision and live with the consequences, whatever they may be.   If one is compelled by law to allow others to decide for him then who is responsible for the decision and who should bear the burden of the consequences?

[Mr Flibble]

...Who decides what is healthy and what is not?[...] If one is compelled by law to allow others to decide for him then who is responsible for the decision and who should bear the burden of the consequences?

Nationalised healthcare doesn't penalise people who don't follow health and safety guidelines. They are just that, guidelines, usually proposed by doctors or nutritionists and not necessarily government mandated even if the advice comes from a government department. The government advice is always the same as mainsteam medical advice, which is to eat a balanced diet and not over-indulge. I can't really imagine that advice being incorrect. The implications of giving incorrect advice would be quite devestating, which is why they're so conservative in their views.

But yeah the NHS will still care for people who smoke and drink and over-eat and cut themselves and overdose. That's what it's there for.

[RickJ]

But yeah the NHS will still care for people who smoke and drink and over-eat and cut themselves and overdose. That's what it's there for.

Apparently this isn't as true as you would like to believe...

http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2008/01/truth-in-advertising.html

... First some background. For years, there has been growing documentation of NHS (National Health Service) patients being denied care and suffering, even dying, as a result. The elderly, smokers and fat people were increasingly the targets of rationing. Back in 1999, the BBC reported that 20% of doctors questioned had known patients who had died as a result of being denied care on the NHS.

Over recent years, for instance, fat people have been denied transplants to joint replacements, under the reasoning: “NHS resources are finite, and, unpopular though the idea is, some degree of rationing is a fiscal necessity.” In the Scotland on Sunday, Dani Garavelli wrote an editorial critical of the NHS policies and the political correctness behind them. Fat people are wrongly perceived as “greedy pariahs who refuse to exercise any self control,” Garavelli wrote, and as a result they’ve become a repressed group that “accepts the abuse they suffer in silence.” They already fare worse in receiving healthcare and are marginalized when it comes to their health. Ruling them out of fairly routine operations on the grounds of weight stigmatizes them further, Garavelli said, concluding:

When making these difficult judgments, it is important for primary care trusts to remember that fat people pay taxes too. After all, it is one thing to insist everyone should be required to give a portion of their income to fund services they may not use (such as education or improved transport networks), it is quite another to demand people pay for a service they will be denied when they need it.

And if we decide the best way to cut costs is to punish people for “self-inflicted" conditions, where is the blame game going to stop? Could we see health authorities refusing to treat people who are sexually promiscuous for STDs or those who use sunbeds for skin cancer? Perhaps those in the throes of a heart attack should be interrogated on their diet before an ambulance is dispatched and anyone who fails to do pelvic floor exercises after childbirth should surely have to thole that self-inflicted prolapse. Indeed, if fat people are refused treatment for fat-related conditions, why shouldn't sports fanatics be denied treatment for sports-related injuries?

The point is, we are all fallible: we all make choices every day that impact on our health, from eating junk food to having children. And unless we are willing to sacrifice our own right to NHS treatment when the time comes, we should not be so hasty in judging other people's lifestyles, and finding them wanting.

And there is also this ...
Doctor's Keep Cancer Drugs Quiet

which may have something to do with this ...
June 2006, The NHS deficit in England has reached £512m - more than double the amount last year.

[edit]
Mr Flibble, thanks for your reply. I apologize if this comes across as being (or is) a harsh response.   I am sincerely curious about how such difficulties in the UK system since it seems our Obma is hell bent on duplicating the same over here.  Upon refelection, I guess I should apologize getting off topic.

[Mr Flibble]

Ratioing care isn't quite the same as automatically denying it. The slippery slope argument at the end of the section you quoted is exactly what isn't allowed to happen.

I take your point though, at the minute you can get any treatment you want as long as you're willing to pay for it. The problems the NHS has must make universal health care sound hideous to you, but it's an ethical thing really. Consider if the American government gave everyone free health insurance, that's pretty much what the NHS is for us.

On a side note related to that, do health insurance companies ever refuse to pay up when the illness could be considered self-inflicted? Like with weight problems?

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

'Free health care' isn't free, though; tax dollars are still paying for it (you and yours) while the overall quality declines sharply, availability takes a performance hit, and innovation and research take a backseat to status quo and mass availability.  Bureaucratic medicine propped up by greedy pharms in the US is a failure, but nationalized health care is no less a failure.  Both systems have some pretty bad trade-offs, so why not try a third option and make physicians compete for your dollars in a producer/consumer arrangement just like any business?  I mean, it couldn't be any less of a failure than the current systems.  More government involvement is never the correct answer in citizen affairs and leads to a loss of personal freedoms, historically.

Edit:  I've probably pushed this book before, but Dr. David Gratzer provides some real firsthand insights into socialized medicine as a Canadian doctor for many years, and he goes over the many issues with it as any kind of longterm solution in his book The Cure: How Capitalism Can Save American Healthcare.

[Misj']

Both systems have some pretty bad trade-offs, so why not try a third option and make physicians compete for your dollars in a producer/consumer arrangement just like any business?  I mean, it couldn't be any less of a failure than the current systems.

Hmm...I remember those TV-shows showing failed plastic surgeries that left the client looking like a freak. Often during these shows we find that these people went to see the cheapest surgeon around.

Capitalistic competition (where patients become clients) stops being great when it leads to cutting corners...and in the real world it often does (largely due to the fact that as long as many people are seduced by a bargain, while others will deceive them for a quick buck).



Ps. Just my two cents...people can discuss about this for ages (and actually have), and will probably never see eye to eye. So I wanted to share my view, but don't think there's any point in cluttering this thread with this.

[Mr Flibble]

I know universal health care has its problems (in spades) but for me it's an ethical issue. Even if it isn't the most efficient system, it's the only system that means you can receive health care no matter how much money you have. It's one of those things like water or air, it's above money and things.

[Meowster]

The discussion seems to have turned to free vs non-free medical healthcare. I'm too depressed to read all the posts at the moment since my life just fucked up a bit, but anyway, I never understood about arguments against the NHS. In the UK you can opt for private medical insurance just like in the US - in fact, most decent jobs afaik offer private dental and healthcare. What the NHS insures is that all people regardless of who they are or how much money they have - everyone will be treated. And despite horror stories about the NHS, I've always had pleasant dealings with them and been treated fairly quickly.

All the horror stories about people being denied care etc - these stories also happen in the US so I don't quite understand why they're used as arguments against the NHS. These people allegedly being denied care (though I've personally never encountered a story like this with myself or anyone I know) could still have been on private healthcare if they had so wished. Anyone can, same as the US. The difference is that even though who do not have private health insurance, have something to fall back on.

[rharpe]

Two years ago I started a very strict diet that consisted of cutting sweets completely out, the bread was limited, and same for pastas, (pizza, lasagna, spaghetti, etc.) I ate more fruits and vegetables and drank more water than a fish.

From February to March I tried to run the treadmill and/or weight lift at least 3 times a week.

This lasted from November 26 2007 where I was at 215lbs and went on until March 16 2008 where I made it to my goal weight of 185lbs.

Now after hitting that goal, I slid back into the same bad eating habits and lazy regime I was accustomed to and went right back up to 206lbs where I'm at today. Now I'm going to try and get back down using this program called p90X which I've heard many good things about. 

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

Yeah, the term diet in itself means a short term thing, or 'quick fix'.  It isn't a permanent solution; for that you need to learn to eat in a way that best promotes your health and happiness.  There's no way you'll stay on a regimen that taxes your reserves and makes you crave things you really want, which is why diets are ultimately doomed to failure if you want lasting results -- unless there's some diet I haven't heard of where you just eat whatever you like without worrying about it.  There are pills that exist to promote fat loss and such, and of course there are different methods of messing about with your stomach (cutting it apart, sticking a band around it) to forcibly limit your hunger, but probably the best way is just to try to find a range of low-fat foods you actually enjoy and designing a steady meal plan around them.  One of the healthiest things anyone can do is to eat three balanced meals a day to prevent their bodies from entering starvation mode where your body aggressively stores fat at the cost of muscle.  I think this is one of the biggest issues with Americans in general due to hectic days and such, many of my friends will eat once a day and be starving from morning until evening waiting for a meal, or worse, will snack on garbage all day.

[big brother]

Three meals a day is bullshit. Keep your metabolism high by eating a little bit every few hours (adjust the protein and carbs depending on what you plan to do in then ext few hours).

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

I don't see what's 'bullshit' about it, aside from you saying so.  Most people can maintain an active metabolism by eating 3 balanced meals, as I said.  For those that have slower metabolisms in-between meal snacks that provide good energy (fruits, vegetables) can keep the body revved up, but not everyone needs this.

[big brother]

Hahaha, do a little research. I know mama always said three meals a day, but sometimes you have to look at the science. I'm kind of an expert.

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

I guess it's easy being the best, afterall!  

Seriously though, I take it you don't agree with anything Lyle McDonald says in The Protein Book, then?  I'll summarize from one of his articles I found in case you haven't read any of his stuff:

Meal frequency per se has essentially no impact on the magnitude of weight or fat loss except for its effects on food intake. If a high meal frequency makes people eat more, they will gain weight. Because they are eating more. And if a high meal frequency makes people eat less, they will lose weight. Because they are eating less. But it’s got nothing to do with stoking the metabolic fire or affecting metabolic rate on a day to day basis...

I personally consider 3-4 meals/day a workable minimum for most, 3 meals plus a couple of snacks works just fine too. High meal frequencies may have benefits under certain conditions but are in no way mandatory. And, in case you missed it the first time through: eating more frequently does NOT, I repeat DOES NOT, ’stoke the metabolic fire’.

I think a lot of researchers on the subject are coming around to this line of thinking, but again, so much of what works and doesn't work varies from person to person that the 'science' is far from exact.

[big brother]

Here are a few random quotes from published experts, if my word won't suffice.
Believe what you want, but it's actually a very researched area. Maybe you can bounce "The Protein Book" off your rock-hard, six-pack abs. Hahahahahah

"There is a myth that your digestive system needs to "rest," that you shouldn't eat too often because it somehow overwhelms your ability to digest food efficiently. Actually, the opposite is true. In the early days of human evolution people often grazed during the day--that is, they ate periodically whenever they found the appropriate plants or fruit, or happened upon an opportunity to get some animal protein. Your body handles a lot of small meals better than a few big ones. Three meals a day is good, 4 meals a day is better... Eating fairly often is a good strategy when it comes to weight control, assuming your total calories for the day remain under control, since you rarely get extremely hungry eating this way and the body has little reason to store a lot of your food intake as body fat..." (The Encyclopedia of Modern Bodybuilding)

"...a study published over 20 years ago measured weight loss and resting metabolic rate in 38 obese patients. 3 Subjects were fed 800 calories/day (known as a very low calorie diet or, VLCD). For one week all subjects were initially fed three meals per day in which 13% of total calories were from protein. On weeks two and three of the study, groups of subjects were fed either 10% or 15% of total calories as protein. A slightly higher protein diet where several smaller meals are consumed throughout the day is better for preserving muscle mass when simultaneously attempting to lose weight. Subjects' in these groups ate three meals per day. Another group of subjects was fed a diet providing 13% of total calories from protein. These groups consumed either one or five meals per day. Finally, the last group of subjects was fed 15% of total calories from protein as five meals per day or 10% of total calories from protein as one meal per day. While that may seem confusing, remember that subjects in every group received the same total number of calories divided up differently throughout the day (i.e., one, three or five meals). In addition, there was a slight difference in the total amount of protein in each diet. Now that we have that straightened out, let's take a look at the results. Not surprisingly, when protein levels were held constant at 13% of total calories, nitrogen losses were significant (i.e., it wasn't enough protein to meet the needs of the individual). In addition, it was determined that those who had a higher percentage of their diet coming from protein (15%) and were fed more frequent meals (5/day) had a better preservation of lean body mass."
(Christopher R. Mohr, PHD Physiology)

"One of the most important and simplest things you can do to lose fat easily is to eat smaller, more frequent meals. This means eating six or seven small meals a day instead of the usual three big ones. Each time you eat, you stimulate your metabolism, which burns more calories. Eating this way also allows your body to make more efficient use of the nutrients you are putting in rather than trying to deal with a whole bunch of nutrients all at once. The process of digestion actually burns calories with protein (the building block of muscles - found in foods such as meat, eggs, soy, beans, dairy, etc.) requiring the greatest amount of energy to digest. By eating smaller, more frequent meals, your body will become a fat-burning machine!"
(Nick Nilsson)