What if he has perfectly normal glucose levels, but high cholesterol levels, even with meds? Is he still better off with bacon and eggs? (I'm not trolling, it's a serious question)
This is why I take any nutrition advice with a skeptical eye unless it's coming from someone who is personally familiar with my health profile.
Use whatever example you care to use. If a person eats less of whatever it is than they currently are, and exercises, they will lose weight. This is my contention, you still have done nothing to dispute the contention that 'eat less, exercise more' doesn't work. Use whatever example you want. Someone said '4 snickers and 4 sodas. Ok. We'll use that. IF that person eats 2 snickers and 2 sodas and starts walking 2 miles a day, will they lose weight? Again, this is my contention. You eat less than you usually do, and exercise more than you usually do, you will lose weight. Actually, you're engaging in the all-American past time of obfuscation. It IS that simple. Eat less, exercise more is absolutely the way to lose weight. Are there other ways to lose weight? Sure, cancer treatment, surgery, malaria, etc. will all help you lose weight. My contention is that for any person, if they eat less and exercise more, they will lose weight. It may take a week, a month, or several months, but it will work, and despite what others may contend, it IS math. You take in X, you burn Y, Z is left over. IF there's no Z left over, then you will lose weight. Despite your attempt (and the attempt of corporations whom shill weight loss programs) the ultimate truth is readily apparent and NOT difficult. Eat less than you burn you will lose weight. Who gives a shit. If you eat 6 nutrient bars a day, then cut down to 3, and exercise more, you are going to lose weight. What you are eating makes a difference versus other people, but what - AND HOW MUCH - you eat versus you, is the actual measure. If I eat less than I normally do for a month, and exercise more, is it seriously your contention that I'll gain weight? Did physics all of a sudden become inapplicable due to the addictive nature of oreos? Than what is it? If something is fit for human consumption, it's food. You may eat too much of it, you may eat the 'wrong' stuff. But it's still food. Again, this is a simple topic that people seem to be bending over backwards to make difficult. If 'eat less, exercise more' somehow doesn't seem correct, then there really is no point in further discussion because you are living in a different universe where the laws of physics and logic don't apply.
I recommend the book It Starts With Food to answer this question. Dallas and melissa have done a great job explaining this subject. (But the answer is yes.) TVI - we are talking about two different things. You're talking about weight loss. I agree. Eat less. Exercise more. Weight be gone! I'm talking about wellness. Eat less. Exercise more. Wellness not necessarily achieved.
Uh, insulin levels? I've rarely hear that come up in average health talk. Now that comes up in "I used to be fat/at risk for diabetes, hyperglycemia" talk, but I'm pretty sure I can eat wheatbread (brownberry is fucking delicious) and brown rice everyday for 6 months and insulin be an issue. I say that, because I basically did (PB&J saves a ton of money as a lunch option), got a physical, grilled him about everything because I gained weight due to a perscription (probably some of those carbs)/having a mother with blood sugar issues...he noted very little change in my blood sugar. What he was measuring were my cholesterol levels, as my father had to have a bypass due to high cholesterol, so I need to watch those (also in a precarious situation due to that medication I am no longer on). Also, carbs aren't the end all be all enemy. Anyone check the fat people number in France? Carbs on top of carbs, wrapped in sugar, sprinkled with carbs, wraped in carbs, with more for dessert. They aren't whales. They do portions. The difference? They fuck a lot. Amirite? I started reading nutrition facts to make sure I'm not getting a lot of saturated and trans fats, too much sodium and trying to reduce the high fructose corn syrup. After that I have to take my health to the gym because I like food too much. Also, raise your hand if you used to be fat and lost a ton of weight.
I was going to say this but Shimmered beat me to it. It's obvious that losing weight is easy. People go on diets everyday and lose weight all the time. The problem is, just because you are within a "proper" weight range, doesn't mean you are healthier. I could eat 1000 calories of junk food and 1000 calories of meat and veggies and have a wildly different bill of health. To the point, just getting people less fat isn't going to improve the overall health profile of the country. It obviously will have an impact, but there are better, more long term approaches that would serve people as a whole much more efficiently and effectively.
This is something I touched on in the workout thread. Sometimes people tend to go overboard attempting to overhaul a novice's entire diet. If you're trying to be healthier, it can be extremely daunting to go straight from ramen noodles and beer to straight paleo. Just eat a bit cleaner and exercise. It doesn't necessarily have to be the gym. Take up a sport. Find a friend to go walking with. And I think most people know that grilling a chicken breast and some eggs and making a cup of rice is better for you than quick hamburger helper. I do agree with Shimmered in that a lot of people think health and fitness and interchangeable when, while related, they don't always go hand in hand.
Well I think the problem is Shim is that people aren't really focused on "wellness" they want to get to what I described before. They want to look good, and have a certain quality of life. You specifically are in a lifestyle where its a thing, basically a really focused hobby. Other people want their hobby to be drinking, fucking, travelling, but not die and while looking good at the same time. Hence why all the focus is on weight loss and not the very general "wellness". Wellness is way more subjective, because if you're saying there are two people of identical height and weight, one eats two more subway sandwiches, pizzas and General Tsao's more than the other...both free from cancer, aids, any other terminal diseases and not going to have a heart attack, wellness becomes really subjective. Since I had a grandma (and a tons other peope who have had parents) live pretty damn good lives to the ages of 80+ focusing on healthy, ithout having to go paleo or focus on "wellness" then there justification is not there to forgo all those delicious, delicious foods they've been eating and are so readily available. *sits to digest the stuffed crust pizza he just ate, forgetting the salad he brought into work*
Yes, cholesterol count is fairly irrelevent, it's the LDL particle size that matters. Large puffy LDL particles are benign, small dense particles are the ones that can cause the damage. The forming of the smaller LDL particles are generally correlated with high triglycerides which is caused by higher carbohydrate intake. I did it twice. First time was 70 pounds in high school, when I basically gave myself a Biggest Loser (the show didn't exist at the time) type intervention. I did the typical low fat diet going to bed hungry every night and beat the shit out of myself running and lifting everyday, and I won't lie, it worked, I lost the weight and was in good shape. But it just wasn't sustainable for me when I graduated college, to maintain the weight without starving myself I had to workout three times a day during the week and twice a day on weekends, that wasn't feasible with a full time job and I gained a lot of it back. Second time was 55 pounds just recently with a low carbohydrate paleo approach. It was hard in the beginning, but seems much more sustainable long term since I eat to satiety and never go to bed hungry. I exercise now because I enjoy it, but I did virtually none to lose the weight.
But we're not talking about our ever-declining good looks, or our ever expanding pant size. The thread is about our ever declining health. Until we change the perception, however we do it, that not being obese = health, our overall REAL health is going to continue to decline.
I've always wondered what you could eat that wasnt killing you slowly. I suppose a steamed organic chicken breast with some vegan moss could have sustenance, as would steamed fish with herbs. I'd end up depressed and gorge on crisco until a heart attack takes me down, leaving my life hanging in balance- along with the lower half of my now paralyzed body. I'd survive and be given a feeding tube which I could kink two weeks before Spring Break.... Make that three weeks so I have a Mitch Buchannon bod. A diet that really delivers! I'd meet a nice girl, take her back to the Inn, and squirt her with my colostomy bag.
Wine, and lots of it. Swill it down by the bucket with soft cheese and goose livers, and those carbs won't know what hit them.
First of all, moss aint vegan. Eating eukaryotic cells is murder. Secondly... Have you been reading my diary?
Well to be fair, the focus of this thread has a video about weight, a statistic about weight, and mentions weight about...5 times (Yes, I counted). Barring terminal illnesses/things that don't go away, people are going to consider weight/life expectancy as the primary measure of health. Those are also tied together. The oldest peoeple in the world are skinny as fuck. Some chick just turned 109, she's barely breaking a buck. My 94 year old grandma is 105 tops. Now this line of thinking could be wrong, if it is which you argue it is, how wrong is it? The question really is going to boil down to "do I want to spend x amount of time, energy, and money to live to 80, 90, 100?" If we flipped everything around and said, everyone will live to 100 if they eat "Healthy Way". If they decide to eat a burger, it is minutes 15-30 minutes of their life off. It really comes to a tipping point of "I know this is going to taste better/cheaper/more convenient than healthy option x, but how much damage is it REALLY doing?" Since the average life expectancy is not dropping, what are we really looking at as "our ever declining health"? Is it just the awareness that "hey this shit isn't as good as we thought it was" just making it seem like we're getting more unhealthy? Is it better measurement tools of having a better ability of counting fat people? Is it the increase in the prevalence of allergies/diseases (whole nother topic there, my 73 year old dad laughs at the idea of peanut allergies)? Or is it the fact people are getting fatter, we're hearing stories about "fat discrimination" now we're having to launch "big is beautiful" advertising campaigns for self-esteem? I'm not just arguing here, I'm trying to wrap my head around the whole thing. What are we talking about when we're talking "wellness" / "health" are we talking life expectancy, quality of life, the feeling of the person or what? Because if you're saying if I eat less carbs and processed food, I'll FEEL better than I do now, then...fuck that, I feel great, where is my burger/pizza? If you're saying I'll live another 5 years, well that's a conversation. If you're saying my body will start acting/looking like its 80, when its 60, now you're on something else that is piquing my interest. Healthy, and perfect tip-top shape are two different things. Two different goals. Perfect tip-top shape people go Paleo and do crossfit (or pump iron, heavy weighlift, etc). They post pictures about it on their FB and talk about it. Because that's a their thing they do. Not a lot of people do crossfit and have another hobby, like knitting. You have to separate the "hey I want to live and not die early" from the "this is the thing I talk about, I'm in a group about, and may or may not go to conferences about." There is having healthy being a part of your life, then there is healthy being your life. Huge difference.
I don't have the lab report with me, but I remember the total count was about 189, but everything else was flagged as high. I'll check it when I get home, but I gotta run. There's some tall dude with a black hoodie and a funny looking hockey stick knocking on my office door.
Bizarre wrench in theory: slightly-overweight live longer than people of average weight. According to more than one study. Fuck if I know what to make of that, though. Perhaps just that BMI is a really shitty proxy on the individual level. Parker brings up a very important point: a lot of things that are "good for you" are, at the end of the day, not very enjoyable. A life of skinless chicken breasts, kale, and lentils just sounds depressing. The reason more people aren't more keen on things like paleo isn't necessarily because they're stubborn, but because as often as not it sounds terrible and not worth it. Just purusing that thread, there's the "warrior diet" where you eat one meal a day, kale smoothies, a shitload of egg whites, etc. Sure, being able to eat lots of steak is good and all, but sometimes people just want to be able to eat some cheese and pasta. Being in tip-top form and getting the most out of life aren't always synonymous.