Fats for losing Weight from Mercola folks

"Dave LCHF" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I have no connection to the Mercola.com website, but I watch their YouTube
videos, and I liked this one.

Dr. Pearsall of the http://www.Mercola.com website has made a YouTube
video on using dietary fat while managing weight.
Link:

Thanks for the link. I have to say that I view anything from Mercola with
cautious scepticism, but he's on the right side of rationality some of the
time, anyway. I have the same quibble with the Enig/Fallon cabal... none of
them seem to be capable of reliably using scientific data in a fully
objective, "scientific," way.

One thing I'm sceptical about are the rather extreme claims currently being
made for coconut oil. It's a great fat... in fact, I'm kinda ticked off
because its recent popularity has made it difficult to find for a reasonable
price, in my area anyhow. I don't know anything better for stir-frying and
pan-sauteeing .

However... I'm not sure regular old animal-source saturated fats are all
that difficult for our bodies to utilize, so long as we are in reasonable
health and especially not overconsuming carbohydrates. Our bodies, after
all, were designed to run efficiently on our own fat stores, i.e.
animal-source saturated fats (in part, anyway). I'm not ready to start
paying $10+ per pound for the new "wonder" saturated fat, nor to start
adding it to my morning coffee. Ick.

I'm not that well-read on the science behind the coconut oil claims, though.
Early on, I was seeing a lot of in-vitro and animal studies that were being
extrapolated (inappropriately) into grandiose benefits for human health.
What do you guys think?

HG

Hannah Gruen said:

"Dave LCHF" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I have no connection to the Mercola.com website, but I watch their
YouTube
videos, and I liked this one.

Dr. Pearsall of the http://www.Mercola.com website has made a YouTube
video on using dietary fat while managing weight.
Link:

Thanks for the link. I have to say that I view anything from Mercola with
cautious scepticism, but he's on the right side of rationality some of
the
time, anyway. I have the same quibble with the Enig/Fallon cabal... none
of
them seem to be capable of reliably using scientific data in a fully
objective, "scientific," way.

One thing I'm sceptical about are the rather extreme claims currently
being
made for coconut oil. It's a great fat... in fact, I'm kinda ticked off
because its recent popularity has made it difficult to find for a
reasonable
price, in my area anyhow. I don't know anything better for stir-frying
and
pan-sauteeing .

However... I'm not sure regular old animal-source saturated fats are all
that difficult for our bodies to utilize, so long as we are in reasonable
health and especially not overconsuming carbohydrates. Our bodies, after
all, were designed to run efficiently on our own fat stores, i.e.
animal-source saturated fats (in part, anyway). I'm not ready to start
paying $10+ per pound for the new "wonder" saturated fat, nor to start
adding it to my morning coffee. Ick.

I used to do that. It's really not that bad. Plus, I used to eat rice
cakes when I was low fat. A little oil added to coffee is better than a
rice cake.

Quoted message said:

I'm not that well-read on the science behind the coconut oil claims,
though.
Early on, I was seeing a lot of in-vitro and animal studies that were
being
extrapolated (inappropriately) into grandiose benefits for human health.
What do you guys think?

HG

I think you're right. Some of the coconut oil claims are a bit
overhyped. I also think that lard (if you can find it without partially
hydrogenated oils, that is) would be just as good from a cooking
standpoint.

I do think coconut oil's properties are interesting, though. I wish there
were a truly unbiased source of dietary information. Alas, we have to
wade through multiple sources, each as biased as the last.

--
Bob in CT

It is unfortunate that we live in an era where the results of studies seem
to depend on who is paying for the study. I gather part of this comes from
adjusting the methods used in the study. I'm told that medical studies
often pre-screen candidates. If they suspect a drug has a problem after 1
year, then they do a 6 month study.... -and so it goes...

2ndly, there are so many studies, that any scientific theory advocate can
cherry pick studies to support their position.

I like coconut milk. I like the taste. There are anecdotes about Islanders
who ate lots of coconuts having been quite healthy. Of course, I suppose an
Islander might eat a lot of fish too.

"Bob in CT" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Hannah Gruen said:

"Dave LCHF" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I have no connection to the Mercola.com website, but I watch their
YouTube
videos, and I liked this one.

Dr. Pearsall of the http://www.Mercola.com website has made a YouTube
video on using dietary fat while managing weight.
Link:

Thanks for the link. I have to say that I view anything from Mercola with
cautious scepticism, but he's on the right side of rationality some of
the
time, anyway. I have the same quibble with the Enig/Fallon cabal... none
of
them seem to be capable of reliably using scientific data in a fully
objective, "scientific," way.

One thing I'm sceptical about are the rather extreme claims currently
being
made for coconut oil. It's a great fat... in fact, I'm kinda ticked off
because its recent popularity has made it difficult to find for a
reasonable
price, in my area anyhow. I don't know anything better for stir-frying
and
pan-sauteeing .

However... I'm not sure regular old animal-source saturated fats are all
that difficult for our bodies to utilize, so long as we are in reasonable
health and especially not overconsuming carbohydrates. Our bodies, after
all, were designed to run efficiently on our own fat stores, i.e.
animal-source saturated fats (in part, anyway). I'm not ready to start
paying $10+ per pound for the new "wonder" saturated fat, nor to start
adding it to my morning coffee. Ick.

I used to do that. It's really not that bad. Plus, I used to eat rice
cakes when I was low fat. A little oil added to coffee is better than a
rice cake.

Quoted message said:

I'm not that well-read on the science behind the coconut oil claims,
though.
Early on, I was seeing a lot of in-vitro and animal studies that were
being
extrapolated (inappropriately) into grandiose benefits for human health.
What do you guys think?

HG

I think you're right. Some of the coconut oil claims are a bit
overhyped. I also think that lard (if you can find it without partially
hydrogenated oils, that is) would be just as good from a cooking
standpoint.

I do think coconut oil's properties are interesting, though. I wish there
were a truly unbiased source of dietary information. Alas, we have to
wade through multiple sources, each as biased as the last.

--
Bob in CT

Hannah Gruen said:

Quoted message said:

One thing I'm sceptical about are the rather extreme claims currently being
made for coconut oil. It's a great fat... in fact, I'm kinda ticked off
because its recent popularity has made it difficult to find for a reasonable
price, in my area anyhow. I don't know anything better for stir-frying and
pan-sauteeing .

I've found it for $9 in the organic section of the local grocery
store, and for $3 at Super Wal Mart.

Quoted message said:

However... I'm not sure regular old animal-source saturated fats are all
that difficult for our bodies to utilize, so long as we are in reasonable
health and especially not overconsuming carbohydrates. Our bodies, after
all, were designed to run efficiently on our own fat stores, i.e.
animal-source saturated fats (in part, anyway). I'm not ready to start
paying $10+ per pound for the new "wonder" saturated fat, nor to start
adding it to my morning coffee. Ick.

Instead pay for lard and it ends up having added transfats. Grumble.

Quoted message said:

I'm not that well-read on the science behind the coconut oil claims, though.
Early on, I was seeing a lot of in-vitro and animal studies that were being
extrapolated (inappropriately) into grandiose benefits for human health.
What do you guys think?

Evolutionary argument - Ancestors moved from the forrests to the
savannah and became hunters of scavengers so animal fat works
for us. Ancestors spent so much time as beach combers that we
have a metabolic need for salt so foods available on tropical beaches
work well for us - seafood and coconuts. So without getting into
the details of the scientific claims I see why coconut oil would be
well accepted by humans. Besides, it smells nice when melted ...

On May 9, 3:43 am, "Hannah Gruen" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Our bodies, after
all, were designed to run efficiently on our own fat stores, i.e.
animal-source saturated fats (in part, anyway).

The human body runs /terribly/ on fat stores. It runs efficiently on
carbohydrates.

Doug Freyburger said:

Hannah Gruen said:

What do you guys think?

Evolutionary argument - Ancestors moved from the forrests to the
savannah and became hunters of scavengers so animal fat works
for us.

Is that why most of the world record performances in athletics were
accomplished on high fat, low-carb diets?

Quoted message said:

Ancestors spent so much time as beach combers that we
have a metabolic need for salt

I see where this might be headed: justification of your next binge on
greasy, salty, junk food.

Quoted message said:

so foods available on tropical beaches
work well for us - seafood and coconuts.

But fresh seafood isn't very high in salt.

For instance, fresh salmon is relatively low in sodium. Its sodium
content is comparable to chicken or beef. And has about 7 times more
potassium than sodium. Squid is similarly low in sodium. Scallops are
a bit higher in sodium, but not by much.

Perhaps you are confused by the labels on processed seafood, or are
laboring under the misconception that things that live in salty water
contain salt. Many marine species are hypotonic with respect to the
salty water they live in. In spite of living in it, they keep it out
of their bodies.

Kaz Kylheku said:

Doug Freyburger said:

Evolutionary argument - Ancestors moved from the forrests to the
savannah and became hunters of scavengers so animal fat works
for us.

Is that why most of the world record performances in athletics were
accomplished on high fat, low-carb diets?

And world level athletics has what to do with the majority of
people other than to serve as a canard that you're off your rocker?
Fit individuals can easily do fine on low carb diets. If they follow
the directions and ease into their programs.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Ancestors spent so much time as beach combers that we
have a metabolic need for salt

I see where this might be headed: justification of your next binge on
greasy, salty, junk food.

Wow. Make sure you post often. It's very entertaining. But
please do make sure to go on a sodium-free diet and see how
the cravings get stronger and stronger until you eventually die
from lack of sodium.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

so foods available on tropical beaches
work well for us - seafood and coconuts.

But fresh seafood isn't very high in salt.

If your level of technology is a sharp stick, fresh seafood is
salty for the simple reason it is coated with sea water.

Quoted message said:

Perhaps you are confused by the labels on processed seafood, or are
laboring under the misconception that things that live in salty water
contain salt. Many marine species are hypotonic with respect to the
salty water they live in. In spite of living in it, they keep it out
of their bodies.

Oh yeah, processed foods with labels as having an effect
on human evolution a million years ago. Right. Thanx for
the entertainment.

"Hannah Gruen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Dave LCHF" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I have no connection to the Mercola.com website, but I watch their YouTube
videos, and I liked this one.

Dr. Pearsall of the http://www.Mercola.com website has made a YouTube
video on using dietary fat while managing weight.
Link:

Thanks for the link. I have to say that I view anything from Mercola with
cautious scepticism, but he's on the right side of rationality some of the
time, anyway. I have the same quibble with the Enig/Fallon cabal... none
of them seem to be capable of reliably using scientific data in a fully
objective, "scientific," way.

One thing I'm sceptical about are the rather extreme claims currently
being made for coconut oil. It's a great fat... in fact, I'm kinda ticked
off because its recent popularity has made it difficult to find for a
reasonable price, in my area anyhow. I don't know anything better for
stir-frying and pan-sauteeing .

However... I'm not sure regular old animal-source saturated fats are all
that difficult for our bodies to utilize, so long as we are in reasonable
health and especially not overconsuming carbohydrates. Our bodies, after
all, were designed to run efficiently on our own fat stores, i.e.
animal-source saturated fats (in part, anyway). I'm not ready to start
paying $10+ per pound for the new "wonder" saturated fat, nor to start
adding it to my morning coffee. Ick.

I'm not that well-read on the science behind the coconut oil claims,
though. Early on, I was seeing a lot of in-vitro and animal studies that
were being extrapolated (inappropriately) into grandiose benefits for
human health. What do you guys think?

HG

Regarding the coconut oil, I just purchased another canister, this one is
"extra" virgin, and smells more strongly of coconut...not that I am
complaining. I have just in the last month and a half got my sorry carcass
back on the low carb bandwagon, and part of the effort has included the
coconut oil, some coconut milk (the BOMB in low carb shakes) and coconut
flour...very low carb, VERY high fiber, infact add more fluid, and DRINK
more fluid...you wont be plugged...ok stopping that now.

I lost 20 lb so far...and I have to go back to the gym to see on their
tanita scale how much was fat vs lean. So I like the coconut oil component.

"Kaz Kylheku" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On May 9, 3:43 am, "Hannah Gruen" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Our bodies, after
all, were designed to run efficiently on our own fat stores, i.e.
animal-source saturated fats (in part, anyway).

The human body runs /terribly/ on fat stores. It runs efficiently on
carbohydrates.

Well, if I am going to lose the extra fat, my sorry body better START
burning fat stores for food, however "/terribly/", instead of carbohydrates!

By the way, Sparky, do you know what the body does with extra glycogen in
your bloodstream when you are insulin resistant, and the insulin cant make
your blood cells accept the blood sugar for fuel that was made from the
carbohydrates you ate?

Scroll down for the answer, if you don't already know:
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
It gets processed to your fat cells for storage. Chew on that.

--
~Melodie~ Aka AnonomissX

On Wed, 09 May 2007 18:35:40 -0400, Doug Freyburger <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Kaz Kylheku said:

Doug Freyburger said:

Evolutionary argument - Ancestors moved from the forrests to the
savannah and became hunters of scavengers so animal fat works
for us.

Is that why most of the world record performances in athletics were
accomplished on high fat, low-carb diets?

And world level athletics has what to do with the majority of
people other than to serve as a canard that you're off your rocker?
Fit individuals can easily do fine on low carb diets. If they follow
the directions and ease into their programs.

I've found the carbohydrate requirements of exercising to be vastly
overrated. OK, if you're a world class bicyclist, you might need a
certain amount of carbs. But for those of us riding nthe 100 mile per
week range, the carb requirement is way, way, way lower. Currently, I'm
riding in the around 50-660 mile range per week, along with lifting
weights twice a week. I find eating some fruit after these exercises
enough to replenish what I need. If I feel the need to have more carbs, I
eat a few pieces of fruit. That's it.

--
Bob in CT

On Thu, 10 May 2007 10:01:54 -0400, Bob in CT <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

On Wed, 09 May 2007 18:35:40 -0400, Doug Freyburger <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Kaz Kylheku said:

Doug Freyburger <[email hidden]> wrote:

> Evolutionary argument - Ancestors moved from the forrests to the
> savannah and became hunters of scavengers so animal fat works
> for us.

Is that why most of the world record performances in athletics were
accomplished on high fat, low-carb diets?

And world level athletics has what to do with the majority of
people other than to serve as a canard that you're off your rocker?
Fit individuals can easily do fine on low carb diets. If they follow
the directions and ease into their programs.

I've found the carbohydrate requirements of exercising to be vastly
overrated. OK, if you're a world class bicyclist, you might need a
certain amount of carbs. But for those of us riding nthe 100 mile per
week range, the carb requirement is way, way, way lower. Currently, I'm
riding in the around 50-660 mile range per week, along with lifting
weights twice a week. I find eating some fruit after these exercises
enough to replenish what I need. If I feel the need to have more carbs,
I eat a few pieces of fruit. That's it.

That should be 50-60 mile range. This type of logical fallacy is common
-- that because group A does something means that everyone needs to do
that something. In other words, because world-class athletes have certain
nutritional requirements, means that everyone has those nutritional
requirements. That's simply untrue.

--
Bob in CT

Bob in CT said:

Doug Freyburger said:

Kaz Kylheku said:

Doug Freyburger <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Evolutionary argument - Ancestors moved from the forrests to the
> savannah and became hunters of scavengers so animal fat works
> for us.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Is that why most of the world record performances in athletics were
accomplished on high fat, low-carb diets?

Quoted message said:

And world level athletics has what to do with the majority of
people other than to serve as a canard that you're off your rocker?
Fit individuals can easily do fine on low carb diets. If they follow
the directions and ease into their programs.

The reason comparisons with world class athletes is idiocy:

Consider the filtering mechanism to become world class.
In high school somewhere in the 10-30% range can qualify
if variety sports. Move on the college and it's 10-30% of
those who can qualify for variety at the college level. Only
the top 0.1% of the total population can ever be considered
at the semi-pro level in sports. By the time you're world
class the percentage of the total population is a few more
digits - 0.001% or less. It's idiocy to think that what works
for a tiny fraction of a percent of a percent makes any sense
for the majority of the population.

So what does make sense for athletic aspirations: Getting
into the top ten percent of your current bracket, that's what.
For pro athletes that is getting to world class level. For
college athletes that is getting to pro levels. For high school
athletes that is making it to college varsity levels. For 90%
of the population, it's making it to your age group's equivalent
of high school varsity levels.

If you make running a part of your exercise program, that
would mean spending a year building up to the point where
a 10K run is straightforward. Then starting to compete in
local 10K run events. Target getting into the top half of your
age bracket. Get to that level, then think about better. But
thinking world class means anything to the majority of the
population, lunatic idiocy.

Quoted message said:

I've found the carbohydrate requirements of exercising to be vastly
overrated. OK, if you're a world class bicyclist, you might need a
certain amount of carbs. But for those of us riding nthe 100 mile per
week range, the carb requirement is way, way, way lower. Currently, I'm
riding in the around 50-660 mile range per week, along with lifting
weights twice a week. I find eating some fruit after these exercises
enough to replenish what I need. If I feel the need to have more carbs, I
eat a few pieces of fruit. That's it.

You're doing this at under 100 carb grams per day, right?
so long as I read the book and follow the directions, aka
build up gradually, I don't have any problem working the
Bowflex and such.