The great diet myth

tcomeau said:

He seems to forget that 98% of those who try this "easy" way to lose weight, fail at it.

What percent of low-carb dieters experience long term success and how would you define low-carb for
this purpose? Please provide citations to support your claims.

--
jmk in NC

[email hidden] [email hidden] [email hidden] Once upon a time, our fellow tcomeau
rambled on about "The great diet myth." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition
retorts, thusly ...

Quoted message said:

The great diet myth

May I suggest that you check the source?

Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

"... you have my sympathies" Science Officer Ash to Ripley, in the movie ALIEN.

tcomeau said:

The great diet myth

theaustralian.news.com.au0,5744,8737533%255E23289,00.htmlOpen ↗

------------------
GARY Wittert is forever telling people it's simple to stay slim and fit. All you have to do is to
eat less, exercise more and stick to mostly healthy fresh food and fruits.

"It's really very simple - so simple that people often don't believe me," Professor Wittert, an
obesity expert who is Department of Medicine head at Royal Adelaide Hospital, says. "A radio
reporter once interviewed me on whether diets work.

"I told her it's very simple to stay slim - just eat fresh food and fruits in moderation and
exercise more. She called me back the next day and told me that her editor decided not to use the
story because my message was too simple."

Perhaps this explains why so many fad diets have mushroomed in the last few years and why women --
and increasingly more men -- are obsessed with diets, because they believe diets are the only way
to fight off flab.
------------------

This guy says that it is so easy it is boring. He seems to forget that 98% of those who try this
"easy" way to lose weight, fail at it. The implication is that obese people can't even follow
simple direstions. At the same time he refers to low-carb diets as a fad.

The kicker? Look who this guy is:

Gary A. Wittert, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Department of Medicine, University of Adelaide;
Senior Consultant Endocrinologist, Royal Adelaide Hospital; and President of the Australasian
Society for the

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Quoted message said:

Study of Obesity, Adelaide, Australia. Research on the interaction of

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Quoted message said:

insulin, glucagon-like peptide 1, gastric inhibitory polypeptide, and appetite in response to
intraduodenal carbohydrate supported by the Sugar Bureau. (Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 1998;68:591-8)
Member of the McDonald's Corporation Global Advisory Council on Healthy Lifestyles; formed to
"help guide the company on activities that address the need for balanced, healthy lifestyles."
(mcdonalds.com05212003Open ↗; accessed 6/23/03)

Another industry shill. He works for the sugar bureau and McDonalds!!!!

Big surprise...

Was he selling sugar? Was he pushing McDonalds? Nope, just telling the truth. There's no magic, eat
less, exercise more.

Why would anyone buy your magic pixie dust?

--Jeff

--
Ho, ho, ho, hee, hee, hee and a couple of ha, ha, has; That's how we pass the day away, in the merry
old land of Oz.

Jeffrey Turner <[email hidden]> wrote in message >

Quoted message said:

Was he selling sugar? Was he pushing McDonalds? Nope, just telling the truth. There's no magic,
eat less, exercise more.

Why would anyone buy your magic pixie dust?

--Jeff

He is selling the myth that refined carbs is a healthy food. Isn't it obvious? The only people who
question low-carb diets are

1) unfamiliar with the diet or
2) an industry shill or
3) animal right agitators

I challenge you to find me one public opponent of low-carb that isn't in any of these categories.

TC

tcomeau said:

Jeffrey Turner <[email hidden]> wrote in message >

Quoted message said:

Was he selling sugar? Was he pushing McDonalds? Nope, just telling the truth. There's no magic,
eat less, exercise more.

Why would anyone buy your magic pixie dust?

--Jeff

He is selling the myth that refined carbs is a healthy food. Isn't it obvious? The only people who
question low-carb diets are

1) unfamiliar with the diet or
2) an industry shill or
3) animal right agitators

I challenge you to find me one public opponent of low-carb that isn't in any of these categories.

He was saying that there's no real advantage to any of the pre-packaged diets. There isn't. If you
eat fewer calories than you use, you will burn fat. There aren't any shortcuts and no pixie dust.
People are gaining weight because food is overly plentiful and our lifestyles are more sedentary. If
you exercise regularly to get your metabolism up and eat fewer calories than you burn up then you
will lose weight. Vegetables, and fruits, have more nutrients per calorie so they are good foods to
keep you healthy on fewer calories. Then eat solidly nutritional foods to round out your diet - so
you get all your necessary nutrients.

Unless you can show that his research on insulin and appetite showed otherwise, I'd suggest you
don't put words in his mouth. And somebody should tell McDonalds how to make their meals more
nutritious and less fattening.

"From the top selling and controversial Atkins diet, zone diet, blood-group diet, macrobiotic diet,
the cabbage soup diet, montignac diet, Jenny Craig, Weight Watchers to the Ashram diet, they all
promise to make you lose weight -- fast."

Is macrobiotics a low-carb diet? Cabbage soup?

--Jeff

--
Ho, ho, ho, hee, hee, hee and a couple of ha, ha, has; That's how we pass the day away, in the merry
old land of Oz.

Jeffrey Turner <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

tcomeau said:

Jeffrey Turner <[email hidden]> wrote in message >

Quoted message said:

Was he selling sugar? Was he pushing McDonalds? Nope, just telling the truth. There's no magic,
eat less, exercise more.

Why would anyone buy your magic pixie dust?

--Jeff

He is selling the myth that refined carbs is a healthy food. Isn't it obvious? The only people
who question low-carb diets are

1) unfamiliar with the diet or
2) an industry shill or
3) animal right agitators

I challenge you to find me one public opponent of low-carb that isn't in any of these
categories.

He was saying that there's no real advantage to any of the pre-packaged diets. There isn't. If you
eat fewer calories than you use, you will burn fat. There aren't any shortcuts and no pixie dust.
People are gaining weight because food is overly plentiful and our lifestyles are more sedentary.
If you exercise regularly to get your metabolism up and eat fewer calories than you burn up then
you will lose weight. Vegetables, and fruits, have more nutrients per calorie so they are good
foods to keep you healthy on fewer calories. Then eat solidly nutritional foods to round out your
diet - so you get all your necessary nutrients.

Unless you can show that his research on insulin and appetite showed otherwise, I'd suggest you
don't put words in his mouth. And somebody should tell McDonalds how to make their meals more
nutritious and less fattening.

"From the top selling and controversial Atkins diet, zone diet, blood-group diet, macrobiotic
diet, the cabbage soup diet, montignac diet, Jenny Craig, Weight Watchers to the Ashram diet, they
all promise to make you lose weight -- fast."

Is macrobiotics a low-carb diet? Cabbage soup?

--Jeff

Ok... What exactly is the mechanism by which the body detects excess calorie intake and triggers fat
storage? How exactly does this work. Please provide references.

TC

Quoted message said:

lose weight. Vegetables, and fruits, have more nutrients per calorie so they are good foods to
keep you healthy on fewer calories. Then eat solidly nutritional foods to round out your diet - so
you get all your necessary nutrients.

But that is what it is about! (Except that fruits tend to have much less nutrients per calorie than
vegetables). Add to this that meat has a lot of nutrition too, fat is needed to absorb that
nutrition and starchy/sugary things (called the 'white stuff' in LC jargon) tend to be worst in this
regard - and what you get is the low-carb diet.

Personally, I do not think there is anything magical in LC dieting, except that replacing potatoes
by non-starchy vegetables is something your apetite will hardly notice - but your calorie intake
will be much, much lower. Remove the "white stuff" and you will start loosing.

Mirek

Mirek Fidler said:

Quoted message said:

lose weight. Vegetables, and fruits, have more nutrients per calorie so they are good foods to
keep you healthy on fewer calories. Then eat solidly nutritional foods to round out your diet - so
you get all your necessary nutrients.

But that is what it is about! (Except that fruits tend to have much less nutrients per calorie
than vegetables). Add to this that meat has a lot of nutrition too, fat is needed to absorb that
nutrition and starchy/sugary things (called the 'white stuff' in LC jargon) tend to be worst in
this regard - and what you get is the low-carb diet.

Personally, I do not think there is anything magical in LC dieting, except that replacing potatoes
by non-starchy vegetables is something your apetite will hardly notice - but your calorie intake
will be much, much lower. Remove the "white stuff" and you will start loosing.

Maybe. But if you're eating at McDonalds but tossing the bun you're not doing yourself much of a
favor. Face it, it's easier to get more fat in your diet than you need and fat has over twice the
calories per gram that carbs do. It's not carbs that make you fat, it's calories.

--Jeff

--
Ho, ho, ho, hee, hee, hee and a couple of ha, ha, has; That's how we pass the day away, in the merry
old land of Oz.

jmk said:

tcomeau said:

He seems to forget that 98% of those who try this "easy" way to lose weight, fail at it.

What percent of low-carb dieters experience long term success and how would you define low-carb
for this purpose? Please provide citations to support your claims.

TC, still waiting for your citations...

--
jmk in NC

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

He seems to forget that 98% of those who try this "easy" way to lose weight, fail at it.

What percent of low-carb dieters experience long term success and

how

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

would you define low-carb for this purpose? Please provide

citations to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

support your claims.

TC, still waiting for your citations...

Well, I think that you want rather much in rather short time. Long term success is considered
after five years of keeping weight off. Now low-carb mania started one or two years ago. Give it
a chance 🙂

Anyway, there definitely ARE people that succeded in long term on LC. What about learning from them
rather than bashing LC?

Mirek

Quoted message said:

Maybe. But if you're eating at McDonalds but tossing the bun you're not doing yourself much of
a favor.

That is out of question. Completely agree.

Quoted message said:

Face it, it's easier to get more fat in your diet than you need and fat has over twice the
calories per gram that carbs do. It's not carbs that make you fat, it's calories.

I would disgree a little bit about this. I think that "fat appetite" is fairly limited. Try to eat
excess of pure fat - I think you will end at 50g maximum. Try to eat unlimited portions of meat. And
now try the same thing with bread. That said, I believe that our bodies are able to recognize fat
and protein calories fairly well, but they might have a problem recognizing carbs - simply because
they are not used to as high carbs concentrations as is common in last several thousands of years
when agriculture started to produce starch. At least, for me this works.

Other than that, it is calories. There might be a slight metabolic advantage for ketogenic diet -
maybe. But it is not anything as magical as good Dr. A wanted us to believe....

Mirek

Jeffrey Turner said:

Maybe. But if you're eating at McDonalds but tossing the bun you're not doing yourself much of a
favor. Face it, it's easier to get more fat in your diet than you need and fat has over twice the
calories per gram that carbs do. It's not carbs that make you fat, it's calories.

You are making the mistake in assuming that if I reduce my consumption of carbs by X grams, I will
increase my fat consumption by X grams. Studies have shown (no cites at hand) that fat is more
satisfying, and for a longer time, than carbs so you tend to consume fewer of them.

Refined carbs are metabolized quicker than fats, so they are introduced into the blood stream
faster. This can result in elevated glucose levels in the blood, affecting insulin levels and
increasing the probability that the excess glucose will be converted to fat.

"Mirek Fidler" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Maybe. But if you're eating at McDonalds but tossing the bun you're not doing yourself much of a
favor.

That is out of question. Completely agree.

Quoted message said:

Face it, it's easier to get more fat in your diet than you need and fat has over twice the
calories per gram that carbs do. It's not carbs that make you fat, it's calories.

I would disgree a little bit about this. I think that "fat appetite" is fairly limited. Try to eat
excess of pure fat - I think you will end at

The main point of low-carb concerns insulin. Carbs put sugar into the blood much more efficiently
than other macronutrients, and that is dangerous to blood vessels. So the body produces lots of
insulin to sweep it away even before you can use it for energy. And where does that blood sugar go?

It goes to fat and is stored away.