War On Fat

Um, by someone other than Taubes.
Actual scientific research articles.

Are you looking for proof that discredits the "fat makes you fat" hypothesis?

Gary Taubes

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

Taubes gained prominence in the low-carb diet debate following the publication of his 2002 New York Times Magazine piece "What if It's All Been a Big Fat Lie?". The article, which questioned the efficacy and health benefits of low-fat diets, was seen as defending the Atkins diet against the medical establishment, and it became extremely controversial. Some scholars interviewed for this article complained that Mr. Taubes misinterpreted their words or treated them out of context.[6] Taubes himself stated: "[E]ven though I knew the article would be the most controversial article the Times Magazine ran all year, [the reaction] still shocked me."[7] The Center for Science in the Public Interest published a rebuttal to the Times article in its November 2002 newsletter.

Taubes includes information and studies which indicate that physical exercise increases appetite to a degree that makes it an inefficient tool in weight loss.

ORLY???

Hmmmm … sounds like a bit of a charlatan.

As long as we're linking articles -[HTML_REMOVED] http://www.cspinet.org/nah/11_02/bigfatlies.pdf

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-jbDwkHzlI

Kn.

Wait, what? As an obesity researcher (involved in "current, leading edge research"), that's news to me…

Care to share some of this research you're referring to?

Penny I have a question for you?

As a physically active mid 40's male who is obese. 290-300Lb these days. Seems my metabolism has ground to halt. I am not a binge junk food eater. I eat fairly healthy. I don't drink pop, juice or beer very often. Maybe a couple of times a month. My doctor is disappointed every time I get a physical that everything comes up good and all he can say is your fat loose, some weight. I put the hurt on a lot of skinny mountain bikers at the intermediate level. So what I am asking is, why the hell am I fat?

Um, by someone other than Taubes.
Actual scientific research articles.

:google:

http://www.endingthefoodfight.com/Research.htm

Penny I have a question for you?

As a physically active mid 40's male who is obese. 290-300Lb these days. Seems my metabolism has ground to halt. I am not a binge junk food eater. I eat fairly healthy. I don't drink pop or juice very often. Maybe a couple of times a month. My doctor is disappointed every time I get a physical that everything comes up good and all he can say is your fat loose, some weight. I put the hurt on a lot of skinny mountain bikers at the intermediate level. So what I am asking is, why the hell am, I fat?

I'd be curious to hear what your average daily food intake looks like and the frequency/intensity/duration of your workouts (riding or whatever else).

our evolutionary biology which didn't involve refined sugars and carbs

Fruits, vegetables, nuts, wild grains, seeds, legumes and tubers/roots are all sources of carbohydrates that humans have been known to exploit in the distant past.

The notion that our diet is a genetic adaptation is speculative at best. If that was strictly true, chimpanzees and humans (who share 98+% DNA) should have similar "correct/proper" diets. The diets of living things are very often an interplay of environment, opportunity and genetics. Chimpanzees occasionally eat meat. Could they thrive if given the opportunity for a lifetime meat-rich diet? Possibly. Many organisms are extremely adaptable when it comes to diets. Examples would be alien fauna that has thrived when transported away from their natural habitat (like red deer and brown trout in New Zealand or cane toads and rabbits in Australia).

Human examples can be found in the study of modern hunter-gatherer societies (wikipedia)

_"The specific plant to animal food ratio in the Paleolithic diet is also a matter of some dispute. The average diet among modern hunter-gatherer societies is estimated to consist of 64–68% of animal calories and 32–36% of plant calories,[63][89] with animal calories further divided between fished and hunted animals in varying proportions (most typically, with hunted animal food comprising 26–35% of the overall diet). As part of the Man the Hunter paradigm, this ratio was used as the basis of the earliest forms of the Paleolithic diet by Voegtlin, Eaton and others. To this day, many advocates of the Paleolithic diet consider high percentage of animal flesh to be one of the key features of the diet.

However, great disparities do exist, even between different modern hunter-gatherer societies. The animal-derived calorie percentage ranges from 25% in the Gwi people of southern Africa, to 99% in Alaskan Nunamiut.[90] The animal-derived percentage value is skewed upwards by polar hunter-gatherer societies, who have no choice but to eat animal food because of the inaccessibility of plant foods. Since those environments were only populated relatively recently (for example, Paleo-Indian ancestors of Nunamiut are thought to have arrived in Alaska no earlier than 30,000 years ago), such diets represent recent adaptations rather than conditions that shaped human evolution during much of the Paleolithic. More generally, hunting and fishing tend to provide a higher percentage of energy in forager societies living at higher latitudes. Excluding cold-climate and equestrian foragers results in a diet structure of 52% plant calories, 26% hunting calories, and 22% fishing calories.[89] Furthermore, those numbers may still not be representative of a typical Stone Age diet, since fishing did not become common in many parts of the world until the Upper Paleolithic period 35-40 thousand years ago,[91] and early humans' hunting abilities were relatively limited,[dubious – discuss] compared to modern hunter-gatherers, as well (the oldest incontrovertible evidence for the existence of bows only dates to about 8000 BCE,[92] and nets and traps were invented 20,000 to 29,000 years ago)."_

So it is quite likely that the "Paleo diet" is itself habitat adaptation, and not some kind of genetic destiny.

I'm not saying there is no basis for healthy eating, but there can be problems with being too dogmatic about what constitutes a "healthy diet". One example would be "humans have only been drinking the milk of domesticated animals for less than 10,000 years. Ergo milk=bad." Is all milk bad? If not, is goat's milk healthier than cows milk? These tend end up being rhetorical questions. And really, at the end of the day, if you enjoy a glass of wine (fermented fruit juice - totally "un-Paleo") once in a while, is it really going to do you harm in the long run? Maybe, but that's a chance I'm willing to take.

Fthere can be problems with being too dogmatic about what constitutes a "healthy diet".

Oh hell yeah!

Kn.

My favourite dietary fail is assuming that because a certain strategy worked for one person that it's ideal for everyone. Carl Lewis being a vegan is a classic example.

Hmm…. since we are bringing up less evolved diets or best to call non Western civilization North American diets….

It should be noted that while it is focused on running the diet is still about what the average Kenyan will eat.

http://www.active.com/running/articles/eating-practices-of-the-best-endurance-athletes-in-the-world

http://runnersconnect.net/running-nutrition-articles/diet-of-kenyan-runners/

I'd be curious to hear what your average daily food intake looks like and the frequency/intensity/duration of your workouts (riding or whatever else).

I new that would come up.

I own a landscape maintenance company. So that has me moving most days.

During the summer I ride 2 days a week at least and one long distance ride on the weekend. Intensity depends on who I am riding with. My kids or friends. With a bit of hiking mixed in.

Winter consist of snow shoeing 1 to 2 days a week with a shorter ride mixed in. Hiking is in there some place as well. Depending on the weather, a long ride is in there as well.

I eat fair amount of fruit. Up to 6 apples a day. Thats my snack food.

Light breakfast and lunch. Dinner is meat and potatoes. Dinner could be smaller. I don't allow junk food in the house. I have no impulse control.

I know there is room for improvement in there, but basically all I need to do is look at food and I gain weight and considering how much I move, the weight doesn't make sense.

I eat fair amount of fruit. Up to 6 apples a day. Thats my snack food.

Light breakfast and lunch. Dinner is meat and potatoes. Dinner could be smaller. I don't allow junk food in the house. I have no impulse control.

I know there is room for improvement in there, but basically all I need to do is look at food and I gain weight and considering how much I move, the weight doesn't make sense.

I'm not a dietary expert, but I can tell you that apples (which over the generations have tended to be bred to be sweeter and sweeter) can contain 2 or 3 teaspoons of sugar (~10 g). Good on you eating fruit (lots of fibre etc), but high-sugar apples may be too much of a good thing. I know its confusing, but its kind of the weird way that our modern world's collision between mass marketing and science has co-opted what we think we know.

Can't say anything about your diet (don't know enough), but the amount you eat does matter, and you may be gifted with a metabolism/endocrine system that squirrels away calories as fat when times were good and lets you wait out the lean times. It may have served your ancestors well 300 or 3000 years ago, but becomes a cruel joke in an age when you can have food, on-demand, any place at any time.

I new that would come up.

Quantifying how many calories you are taking in is the first, and most important step you need to take.

Sure, spinach is super healthy, but if I found a way to get 10,000 calories of it in my system, I'd be a lard ass regardless of how super it is.

champions eat mcdonalds
http://ftw.usatoday.com/2013/11/usain-bolt-ate-1000-mcnuggets-at-the-beijing-olympics/

I'm not a dietary expert, but I can tell you that apples (which over the generations have tended to be bred to be sweeter and sweeter) can contain 2 or 3 teaspoons of sugar (~10 g). Good on you eating fruit (lots of fibre etc), but high-sugar apples may be too much of a good thing. I know its confusing, but its kind of the weird way that our modern world's collision between mass marketing and science has co-opted what we think we know.

Can't say anything about your diet (don't know enough), but the amount you eat does matter, and you may be gifted with a metabolism/endocrine system that squirrels away calories as fat when times were good and lets you wait out the lean times. It may have served your ancestors well 300 or 3000 years ago, but becomes a cruel joke in an age when you can have food, on-demand, any place at any time.

My genetics are not helping me in the fat storage and slightly nuts department thats foresure. The one thing my genetics are good for, is my people are long lived. Backing off on the apples would be a good thing.

As far as calories go. I was on Weight Watchers a a couple a months ago for a couple of months and I ate under the calories allowed with no real weight loss. No my math was not off either.