This is what makes me mad.

Hi all

 

Sorry to rant here but I can't resist. Please ignore if not interested.

 

Ok, so this is what just enrages me. Check this site out:

 

http://smallbites.andybellatti.com/?p=1751

 

His arguments (badly formatted and all but that's not important) are as follows:

 

1. Atkins popularized the low carb diet in 1970, millions bought into it and the weight problem worsened. Again in 2002 this happened and the weight problem worsened. Therefore, it must not work.

 

2. He mentions a Hirsh Leibel 'study' from the 1950's and 60's which tested calories from different sources. So therefore a calorie is a calorie is a calorie.

 

3. He asks "please show me someone who, for an entire month, consumes 1,000 extra calories a day — without burning them off — solely from fat and protein and does not gain a pound. " Since no on has shown him this, it must not be true.

4. He says "If sugar in and of itself, regardless of how much was consumed, is the cause of obesity, why have rates in the United States skyrocketed only over the past twenty years?"

5. He talkes about total meat consumption going up along with total sugar consumption which resulted in higher total calorie count went up and must be the cause of excess obesity.

So the interesting thing is he is responding to an email in which the righter says every rebuttal to Taubes claims that obesity cannot be attributed to calories in - calories out has been 'high on rhetoric and low on science'. And his entire response is both (with the exception of the one study he sites which is not applicable).

To respond to his major points;

1. His argument that Atkins promoted the diet in the 1970s, and millions bought in but obesity increased on a macro level is completely ridiculous. The media, medical establishment, and nutritionists have all been giving the 'cut calories and exercise more' advice for the last 30 years and the obesity epidemic has worsened. By the same logic, that must be false as well.

2. The Hirsh Leibel study which he says proved that it is calories that matter doesn't apply (as I mentioned in a response). The study fed people diets of different macro nutrients and analysed the results (actually it is a 1992 review of a data from the 1950's and 60's). They excluded anyone that did not maintain a stable weight and as a result says NOTHING about the affect of different macro nutrient levels on weight loss. Again, ridiculous.

3. Gary Taubes does not say that you can consume an extra 1000 calories a day without burning them off and not have those calories stored and gain weight. What he does say is that in the absense of high levels of insulin, more of these calories will be available to burn and the result will be either you won't want to eat more (therefore you won't eat the excess calories) or your body will prompt you to be more active. That's a paraphrase.

4. I don't even understand what he is saying about the sugar thing. He says why have the obesity rates shot up only in the last 20 years and this is a reason sugar in and of itself cannot be the cause of obesity. It's actually be the last 30 years (since the 70's) which (at least according to the Sugar the Bitter Truth lecture by Robert Lustig) this corresponds with the increase in consumption of sugar and fructose). Weird argument.

5. He sites that increase meat consumption and increased sugar consumption = increased total calories (which is true) and therefore it is the increased total calories that is causing the obesity epidemic. I think, from reading both of Taubes books, he would argue, that the increase in the consumption of both can be explained by the increase in sugar (and other fattening carbohydrates) which caused the body to store more calories as fat and therefore have less energy available to burn causing people to want to eat more and not be active.

The basis of Taubes' books is that we are not getting fat because we are eating more and are less active, we are eating more and less active because we are eating fattening carbohydrates. These carbs are causing our bodies to store a greater proportion of the calories consumed as fat as opposed to making them available to the body to burn for energy and therefore we crave more calories. As a result of the craving we can eat more and/or conserve energy by not being active. He is arguing that it is the hormonal response to the food we eat that is driving weight gain and therefore driving the increased consumption and conservation of calories by our body in the form of eating more and exercising less. He (I believe) is arguing that while we can lose weight by eating less, our body will slow down it's energy usage and cause cravings before giving up the fat and unless we deal with the insulin, we are pretty much doomed to gain the weight back as soon as we stop forcing ourself to eat less and exercise.

I know from personal experience that trying to eat less and exercise without dealing with the carb issue is very hard and has definite pitfalls. I also know from personal experience that if I do deal with the carbs, eating less is very easy. I make an effort to deny myself anything but carbs and when I have calculated my intake, it is less than I take in with carbs.

I don't believe that this form of eating is for everyone. As that Chris Gardner in the "Battle of the Diets' video points out, it is alot better for those with insulin resistant. And frankly, those who need to lose weight the most (the obese) are far more likely to be insulin resistant. And in the end adherence is the most important thing.

Something off my chest

I agree with conservatives that government should be limited I just disagree on the limits. I think government should not be allowed to stop a woman from making health decisions based on some misguided belief as to whether or not a dividing cell with no brain is a human. I believe government should not decide which two people who love each other can marry. The government should be limited as to which countries it decides to bomb and invade. The government should be very limited as to what decisions it makes on a citizen's behalf. </span>



However i think government should ensure access to all citizens to the basics tools to survive and succeed. Access to a decent education and healthcare without the danger of bankruptcy are a couple of those basics. Individuals choice to go to school or get decent health care should not be limited by their ability to pay.
The extreme conservative movement believes in the opposite limitations. They think government should stop certain people from marrying and women from choosing whether or not to carry their rapists baby to term. They think government should limit people's choices but that government should be limited in what it provides as basics to their citizens. Oddly I don't think they believe government should be limited to what it provides to the wealthy in terms of tax breaks or to corporations in teems of incentives to do business. But if you want to go to college but can't afford better hope some individual or group will help you out cuz the taxpayer shouldn't have to. That money is only supposed to go to some business hat isn't making enough money. Or to buy bombs or bullets to kill some poor schmuck who is standing in the way of some corporate interest.
I find it interesting where they do see appropriate limits to government and where they think government should be allowed to intrude into the lives of others. Some call it hypocritical. I guess I agree but there seems to be something sociopathic about it too.
Oh and to those libertarians out there. I believe in the free market is great for many things but don't try to sell me some snake oil that if it weren't for government everyone could access healthcare and a good education without fear of bankruptcy or that if it there wasn't regulation companies wouldn't pollute. You can't just say that is true without explaining how it would work and so far every explanation I hear about how it would work has been total bull.
Ok there I got that off my chest. Now I can get back to my coffee.

Where are the reasonable Republicans

This guy is an asshole. He wants to talk about what he says are the 'issues in this election' but what he wants to talk about is what his opponent has done, not what he will do, not about what he believes or stands for.


Now, I have a bit of a conservative bent when it comes to some things. I don't believe the government should do things that the private sector can do better. I just don't believe health and education are two of those things.

The thing I can't stand is when any politician or personality uses the 'you took that out of context' line without being willing to put it into context. Yes, in this interview Rachel Maddow took quotes from quite a while ago that are a bit nutty but this guy looks to be evasive about those actual quotes and while I'm sure his base loves that he confronted Rachel but they are going to vote for him anyway. If he really wants to appeal past that point, all he really needs to say is 'yes I said that' and either 'I stand by it' or 'I've re-examined those beliefs in the years since and I no longer hold them' but rather he accuses her of lying when she clearly isn't, accuses her of sarcasm when she is clearly not being so and continues to talk over her questions and frankly looks like an asshole.

Now I know Rachel has an opinion and an agenda. I don't think she would argue with that. But I have to believe that there are some conservatives that would be willing to debate her or any other liberal without resorting to name calling or speaking over questions to avoid answering them. Someone must actually believe in their 'conservative' ideals without having to resort to this crap. Look, if you really believe that it is morally wrong and should be illegal for a rape victim to abort her rapists baby, say it, hold your head up high and say it. Accept that you are in a democratic republic where the voters may disagree with you, or the constitution may disagree with you but say it. The point of a democracy is that people will disagree but the most widely held opinion will be acted upon. Both the left and the right needs to deal with that.

Just because you believe something to be true, doesn't make it true.

This has been bugging me for a while. It seems like there is a trend amongst people to actually think that because they believe in something, it must be true regardless of the evidence to the contrary. Some of the more stark examples come from south of the border (I am Canadian by the way). Look at the birther's. They believe that President Obama was born in Kenya. Even though his birth certificate has been released (yes a certificate of live birth is proof of birth, it just goes the extra step to be a certification that someone was born alive). Somehow it has become honorable to continue to believe something to "stay the course" (yes the Bush allusion is on purpose).

This strict ideology is very disconcerting to me. Look at the Libertarians. They believe that the free market can take care of everything. Now the fact that the free market and lack of regulation has led to the economic collapse of the last couple years and the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico hasn't led them to moderate (not abandon but moderate) their views is something that I dont' get. I have actually heard them argue that these events were CAUSED by the inadequate regulation in the market and therefore the best solution is to remove regulation. This is insanity. I'm all for the government staying out of things where they don't belong, but regulating environmental impact of activity and protecting consumers from shady financial institutions obfuscating the risk inherent in their hybrid products is a place where they do belong.

While I'm at it, I'd like to clear up one thing. These tea party folks down south are not really libertarian. The reason I say this is that the majority of them support the Christian Conservative cause. This means while they want the government to stay out of their pocketbook, they see no problem with the government deciding who someone can marry, whether or not a woman has control over their body when they become pregnant. I didn't see any of these people coming out and saying that Arizona shouldn't have the right to ask for someone's papers because they look like an illegal alien. What the hell? Really, what they want is the government to do what they want them to do an nothing else. They want the government to leave them alone but if you are gay, latino, or a woman who was raped, too fucking bad (excuse my french). Yup, too fucking bad because what how you live your life should conform to their morality, their religion. That is not small government and don't let them convince you otherwise.

Sharon Angle, Christine O'Donnell, and the other tea party supported candidates are NOT small government candidates. They want government to lower taxes and cut spending that helps people who are finding it difficult to help themselves, but they also want government to tell victims of rape and incest that they must carry their abuser's or rapist's baby to term. They want to government to tell a gay man that they cannot marry the person they love and share the same benefits of a marriage as a heterosexual couple. Don't let them fool you.

The phrase that drives me nuts

One phrase uttered consistently with relation to healthy eating is that one must eat a ‘balanced’ diet. What does a balanced diet mean? If I eat 33% protein, 33% carbohydrate and 33% fat, is that balanced? What do the percentages relate to, weight, calories, what? It’s one of those things ‘they’ say and it seems like it’s some sort of universal truth but when you think critically about it, it means nothing unless you figure out what ‘balanced’ means.

Having said that, I’d like to blog a bit about a diet study that was released in August of 2010 (http://www.annals.org/content/153/3/147.abstract).

What this study set out to test is which diet provides the best outcome for weight loss and other factors. You can read the abstract yourself but one thing was left out of the conclusions that I find very interesting. The study concluded basically that either diet works and were effective. Here’s what they left out: the low-carb diet produced roughly the same results without mandatory calorie restriction. The low carb group was not asked to limit the amount they ate (at least as far as I can tell from the write up) only to limit the carbohydrate count. So from that there are two possible conclusions:

1. The low carb subjects voluntarily ate as many calories as the low-fat group and lost weight as a result of fewer calories

2. The low carb subjects ate more calories than the low fat group but lost the same amount of weight.

Either way, this is a revolutionary result for those of us who have tried the mainstream low-fat diet and suffered from hunger.

I don’t believe that anectodal evidence should convince anyone but my own personal experience is that the low carb lifestyle produces the best outcome for me. When I am hungry, I can trust that hunger. Most of the time, I am not hungry. I cannot say this when I am eating the typical mainstream diet for weight loss.

So…. what does this have to do with the phrase that drives me nuts. Well, it seems to me that telling people to eat a ‘balanced’ diet is a way to dismiss people without giving them the information and tools they need. For me, a balanced diet means very few carbohydrates. Probably 4-5% of the calories I consume come from carbohydrates. Probably another 20-30% come from fat and 65-76% therefore come from fat. To me, given the result to my health (weight loss of 23 pounds), this is balanced. I’m not saying that it would be balanced for anyone else but it’s about time we retire the ‘balanced’ diet phrase because it is meaningless.

Why am I blogging

Why am I blogging? Because every now and then something out there just drives me up a wall and even though it is likely nobody cares, I have to get it off my chest.

For example, today I read about how the US experimented on people in Guatemala by injecting them with syphillis and gonorrhea and encouraging them to spread the disease (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39456324/ns/health-sexual_health/).

What really has become my passion lately has been diet, nutrition and health. I have been on a quest to lose weight for about 7 years now. In 2003 I lost 80 pounds and kept most of it off. I am now down almost 90 pounds from where I started and figure I have about 15 to go. The thing that really bugs me lately is the completely misleading, erroneous and dangerous advice that comes out of the mainstream in terms of losing weight. The normal advice is eat less and exercise usually expanded to add the avoidance of fat.

This advice is frankly incorrect for most people, and dangerous.

Anyway, I don't have time to rant about this now but soon...