Everything You Are Eating is Wrong

[Mlle. Zabzie]

What type of surface do you knead your bread on? I used to have a large butcher block standalone in the center of my kitchen, which I foolishly left behind when we sold the house, that I used to love to knead bread on. My new kitchen has Corian countertops, which are awful to turn out any kind of dough on. I've got a pastry cloth, but the damn thing isn't big enough. I may have to buy a couple more and stitch them together.

A large butcher block standalone "island" in the center of my kitchen. :lol:

[Usrnmhsnomning]

It's not that simple. There will be vast differences in health between someone who eats 2000 calories of mcdonald's food a day vs someone who eats 2000 calories on a paleo or Mediterranean diet. If you're exercising and trying to improve maintain your health, what you're eating is important. It's not just all about amounts.

It is that simple. Keep in mind that I'm referring to weight loss in this regard, and that I don't believe weight/fat loss and healthy eating necessarily have to go hand in hand, at least not at first. If someone eats 2000 calories of mcdonald's food a day and burns off 3000 calories a day vs someone who eats 2000 calories on a paleo diet and burns 2000 calories off each day, guess which one is gonna experience weight loss and guess which one isn't gonna change? If you're looking to lose weight (notice the distinction I've made between losing weight and healthy eating), what you are eating is of little consequence so long as your energy output exceeds the energy input. Healthy eating can come after moderation is learned. Trying to skip moderation and exercise and instead jump straight into healthy eating to try lose weight is exactly why many people fail. They don't change their consumption, they just change what they are consuming, and are baffled when the scales don't reflect their 'hard work' dieting. If you've got too much fat, you're not gonna lose it by switching to a different diet type unless temperance and exercise comes with the change.

I find it can be harmful to refer to such diets as 'clean' or 'healthy' eating. So many people believe that eating healthy is going to help them lose weight when it really isn't, because they still can't control how much they are eating. Might make them feel healthier, but unless the fundamental fact of calories in < calories out is met, they'll retain their body fat. My mother is a good anecdote of this; ridiculously healthy eater, meat and fruit and veges 95% of the time, but because she struggles with moderation she fails to lose weight as she eats too much too often. As far as I'm concerned if you're overweight and you want to change, the very first thing you have to do is reduce your portion size, reduce your frequency of eating, and increase your exercise and physical output. When you've got yourself to a point of consuming 2000 calories a day vs burning 3000 calories a day, then you can start rearranging what that 2000 calories is made up out of to start to improve your health as well. Otherwise you'll get no results because you're still eating far too much 'healthy' food compared to your physical activity.

[lokisnow]

ah yes, the simplicity of calorie counting and energy expenditure.

I'm reminded of how all the people who are not fat spend enormous portions of their day weighing, measuring their food and counting every calorie they consume and also devote time to calculating precisely how much energy they have spent that day and adjusting their calorie intake accordingly.

I've always been shocked at just the enormous amount of time devoted to counting calories in and calories out that not fat people do in order to stay not fat, considering most not fat people have been not fat their entire lives I am especially impressed that they have been assiduously counting calories in and calories out since childhood. I'm even more impressed that they manage to devote this enormous amount of time to calorie counting so they can stay not fat without anyone ever recording them doing it. 30% of the population is not fat and clearly they must be doing this constantly, monitoring every calorie all the time, and no one can ever get them on camera.

Additionally, my wife is not fat, and I have yet to catch her in the act of daily monitoring her calories in and calories expended, she's been not fat her whole life, so clearly she has been keeping up this daily regimen since childhood--since missing her goal by a nearly unmeasurable 20 calories a day would have resulted in her being fat by now--but she has still managed to hide this time consuming activity from me, what else is she hiding!

[Tears of Lys]

A large butcher block standalone "island" in the center of my kitchen. :lol:

:bang: Why, oh, why did I leave it?? :bawl:

[Usrnmhsnomning]

ah yes, the simplicity of calorie counting and energy expenditure.

I'm reminded of how all the people who are not fat spend enormous portions of their day weighing, measuring their food and counting every calorie they consume and also devote time to calculating precisely how much energy they have spent that day and adjusting their calorie intake accordingly.

I've always been shocked at just the enormous amount of time devoted to counting calories in and calories out that not fat people do in order to stay not fat, considering most not fat people have been not fat their entire lives I am especially impressed that they have been assiduously counting calories in and calories out since childhood. I'm even more impressed that they manage to devote this enormous amount of time to calorie counting so they can stay not fat without anyone ever recording them doing it. 30% of the population is not fat and clearly they must be doing this constantly, monitoring every calorie all the time, and no one can ever get them on camera.

Additionally, my wife is not fat, and I have yet to catch her in the act of daily monitoring her calories in and calories expended, she's been not fat her whole life, so clearly she has been keeping up this daily regimen since childhood--since missing her goal by a nearly unmeasurable 20 calories a day would have resulted in her being fat by now--but she has still managed to hide this time consuming activity from me, what else is she hiding!

You don't have to calorie count to not eat excessively in comparison to your physical output. Calories in < calories out is a physiological fact. Fat doesn't just appear from nowhere. It appears from excess eating, and lax physical activity. Fact. Move more, eat less, you WILL burn fat. Fact. It doesn't require you to count each and every single calorie you intake and burn. It requires you to not eat like a pig while maintaining a sedentary lifestyle.

[lokisnow]

You don't have to calorie count to not eat excessively in comparison to your physical output. Calories in < calories out is a physiological fact. Fat doesn't just appear from nowhere. It appears from excess eating, and lax physical activity. Fact. Move more, eat less, you WILL burn fat. Fact. It doesn't require you to count each and every single calorie you intake and burn. It requires you to not eat like a pig while maintaining a sedentary lifestyle.

oh okay. I see. Fatties have to carefully watch calories in and calories out. But this universal rule of watching calories in and calories out does not apply to not fatties.

if being off by 20 calories a day will make you fat by your thirties, how do not fatties maintain such a precise watch of their calorie balance daily if they are not in fact watching calories in nor calories out?

[Night'sQueen]

On a more serious note, I am confounded by the vitriol people display when someone mentions paleo or anything else. I love how MC started this thread with how he eats, and not how the whole world should eat. If I want to eat radishes, root beer, and blue m&m's only, guess what? That's my prerogative. I'm a grown ass adult. Why does someone care if I'm doing paleo, or whatever? I don't get it. Why are people so emotionally invested in what other people eat? I am honestly puzzled by this. Would someone please explain this to me?

Am suspicious that I am kind of dumb with regards to this. :dunno:

I was a vegetarian for 12 years and dealt with people getting very defensive about their own diets when they found out I didn't eat meat. Many people would challenge how I could possibly be healthy, or feel compelled to tell me the wide variety of meats they couldn't possibly live without, or demand I tell them "what is wrong with eating meat." The worst was when people would give me a once over and say, "well do you wear leather?!" Another frequent question was, what do you eat for Thanksgiving? Um, everything you do except the turkey...

Truly, I wasn't proselytizing or noisy about it, but somehow the statement, "I'm a vegetarian" was taken by some as an attack on their own lifestyle. If I'm not trying to impose my choices on you, why are you so defensive?? What difference does it make to your life exactly? It seems there is an immediate assumption of judgment even when you don't you really give a shit what someone else is eating. When I look back on it, some of the things people said were really fucking obnoxious.

I won't even get into the things that were said when I told people I was an atheist… I pretty much don't do that anymore (except on the interwebs.) :leaving:

[Tempra]

oh okay. I see. Fatties have to carefully watch calories in and calories out. But this universal rule of watching calories in and calories out does not apply to not fatties.

if being off by 20 calories a day will make you fat by your thirties, how do not fatties maintain such a precise watch of their calorie balance daily if they are not in fact watching calories in nor calories out?

Why are you being deliberately obtuse?

[lokisnow]

Also, no snark. I really truly do want to know why not fat people who have been not fat their whole lives do not have to count calories in and also watch calories out. What's their secret? They'll gain 25 lbs in 12 years by being off 20 calories a day. That's a shockingly tiny amount, like two-three slices of a banana.

Is every person who is not fat throwing away part of their daily banana? How do all the people who are not fat know their daily calorie total and daily calorie expended total with such precision? And how do I get the same tools all the not fat people have had since childhood.

It's not obtuse. The expectation is that fat people have to precisely know and regulate their calorie consumption and calorie expenditure daily, for decades, to a very precise degree in order to lose weight and keep it off. 30 percent of the population is not fat, so they know how to do this.

However it very unfair that they do not participate in any of the rituals of calorie watching that all of us fat people have been assiduously following, sometimes to truly absurd degrees for the entirety of our lives, many of us fat people have been religiously tracking calories since childhood. How come not fat people don't have to play by the same rules?

[Night'sQueen]

ah yes, the simplicity of calorie counting and energy expenditure.

snip

Not fat people are conveniently good at math.

Woe to those of us who prefer the liberal arts...

[Fragile Bird]

Probably because, Tempra, there are so many stories about people who can eat 3,000 calories a day and not gain weight, without any unusual exercise, and people who stricyly follow 1,600 calories a day and just maintain their weight.

[Tempra]

Probably because, Tempra, there are so many stories about people who can eat 3,000 calories a day and not gain weight, without any unusual exercise, and people who stricyly follow 1,600 calories a day and just maintain their weight.

People have different metabolism levels.

[Viserion Stormborn]

The running example is interesting. Around April of last year, from an endurance and athletic standpoint, I was in what I would call the peak physical condition of my adult life (I'm 26). I was running around 25-30 miles per week and training for a half marathon but at the same time I was also the biggest I've ever been, around 180 pounds and looking noticeably chubby in the face and mid-section.

Fast forward to the summer, I was sent to Switzerland for several months for work. I continued running, but at a much lower volume - once or twice per week and only 3-4 miles per run. I wasn't eating particularly healthy, alot of meat and cheese and pasta, but I did cut out snacking completely and I was also walking an exponential amount more than previously. And, I was smoking like a chimney and drinking more often. I ended up losing 25 pounds and it's more or less stayed off in the three months since I returned home. Looking at side by side picture of myelf from the day I left to the day I came back is pretty jarring, I didn't realize at the time that I was getting quite chubby.

The big paradox is that I felt insanely healthy at the time because I was running so much. Then in Switzerland my lifestyle was decidedly less healthy - the last two months I was there I was smoking a pack a day and not exercising at all- but I dropped all those pounds anyways. It's kind of discouraging. I understand people lose weight when they smoke, but I was smoking before too, just not as much.. and I don't know that relaxed pace walking >> strenuous running.

[lokisnow]

People have different metabolism levels.

This does not answer the question.

This is obtuse.

If a person can maintain weight perfectly for decades without carefully watching calories in and also considering calories out how are they doing it without assistance? To maintain weight perfectly for decades your daily calories have to have less than 1% error.

If the only way to lose weight it to manage calories as described it simply must be true that to maintain weight you also have to manage calories equally carefully.

How can these things be different?

If it is all about calorie management and balance then weight maintenance, weight loss and weight gain must all follow the same principles of management and balance.

If weight maintenance does not follow the same principles of exquisite calorie management that weight loss entails please enlighten us as to why.

I really do want to get to the bottom of the double standard of why people who are maintaining weight do not have to abide by the calorie management principles that people who are losing weight much abide by.

the amount of calories that will trigger weight gain is infinitesimal on a scale of years, so somehow people who maintain weight must be watching their calories as fanatically as those trying to lose weight watch their calories.

If they are not doing so, there is a clear double standard here. There must be some way that people who are fat can share in the secret knowledge of weight maintenance that the people who are not fat have.

[Tempra]

This does not answer the question.

This is obtuse.

If a person can maintain weight perfectly for decades without carefully watching calories in and also considering calories out how are they doing it without assistance? To maintain weight perfectly for decades your daily calories have to have less than 1% error.

If the only way to lose weight it to manage calories as described it simply must be true that to maintain weight you also have to manage calories equally carefully.

How can these things be different?

If it is all about calorie management and balance then weight maintenance, weight loss and weight gain must all follow the same principles of management and balance.

If weight maintenance does not follow the same principles of exquisite calorie management that weight loss entails please enlighten us as to why.

I really do want to get to the bottom of the double standard of why people who are maintaining weight do not have to abide by the calorie management principles that people who are losing weight much abide by.

the amount of calories that will trigger weight gain is infinitesimal on a scale of years, so somehow people who maintain weight must be watching their calories as fanatically as those trying to lose weight watch their calories.

If they are not doing so, there is a clear double standard here. There must be some way that people who are fat can share in the secret knowledge of weight maintenance that the people who are not fat have.

Fragile Bird did not ask a question.

Couple points:

1) No one maintains weight "perfectly." People's weight fluctuates constantly. I assume you mean people whose weight seemingly stays within a few pound range year after year.

2) Ironically, I think it is you people trying to make a point that a calorie isn't a calorie (whatever that means) that are also being overly simplistic. People are not assigned a fixed metabolic rate for life. People's metabolism changes depending on a host of factors, including age, weight, body composition, activity levels, food eaten, etc. As to your example of why a non-fatty who eats 20 extra calories over maintenance for 12 years does not gain 25 pounds? His metabolic rate increased and he is not overreating. One explanation could be that the person initially gained a few pounds of fat or muscle and then his weight gain tapered off because his metabolism increased with his corresponding weight gain. Alternatively, some people are seemingly blessed with a metabolism that can ramp up (or down) depending on what they eat. My brother can down a meat lover's pizza every night without gaining much weight. Yet, he doesn't have to eat a meat lover's pizza every night to maintain his weight. Why? Because his metabolic rate is not a constant number. It can shift greatly depending on what he eats. Unfortunately, my genetics are not so favorable and I need to be more careful with what I eat or I will put on weight pretty easily. Every one has to "abide by the calorie management principles." That's to say that if someome eats more calories than his body burns, he will gain weight. The hard part about discussing this in the abstract is that each person has a very different metabolism based on their own circumstances. I hope this is obvious but my brother (and people like him) cannot literally eat any amount of calories without gaining weight. At some point, his consumption would exceed his body's ability to burn the calories and he would then gain weight. I see this a lot with scrawny guys at the gym who think they can't gain weight no matter how much they eat. They can and do once they start eating a lot.

[Shryke]

Also, no snark. I really truly do want to know why not fat people who have been not fat their whole lives do not have to count calories in and also watch calories out. What's their secret? They'll gain 25 lbs in 12 years by being off 20 calories a day. That's a shockingly tiny amount, like two-three slices of a banana.

Is every person who is not fat throwing away part of their daily banana? How do all the people who are not fat know their daily calorie total and daily calorie expended total with such precision? And how do I get the same tools all the not fat people have had since childhood.

It's not obtuse. The expectation is that fat people have to precisely know and regulate their calorie consumption and calorie expenditure daily, for decades, to a very precise degree in order to lose weight and keep it off. 30 percent of the population is not fat, so they know how to do this.

However it very unfair that they do not participate in any of the rituals of calorie watching that all of us fat people have been assiduously following, sometimes to truly absurd degrees for the entirety of our lives, many of us fat people have been religiously tracking calories since childhood. How come not fat people don't have to play by the same rules?

The obvious answer is that not-fat people reach a energy in/out-balance without trying. Only those who can't reach it just doing their thing have to resort to thinking hard about the issue.

Which isn't to say that the energy in < energy out equation doesn't over-simplifies the complexities of people's varying biologies and how they process calories, which effects how calories become energy.

But the fact that people might naturally burn more calories doing nothing then others doesn't effect the idea of less in then is expended.

[Tempra]

Undoubtedly so. And individuals can see their own metabolism change. But why? And what exactly is metabolism?

Here's a thought experiment. Let's say we have two identical twins that we'll call Jack and Joe. Let's say that they both have metabolic syndrome and are probably 70 or so pounds heavier than what it seems that they ought to be. We set up a clinical trial that Jack and Joe both agree to participate in.

They each move into a special house that they won't be able to leave for a year. They have plenty of comforts, but the situation is controlled so that they have no control over what food gets in and out of the place. They have a computer where they can stock the fridge and pantry with whatever they select, and Jack is told to just eat what he usually does and/or prefers. Same for Joe, but with one wrinkle. His computer only has low-carb food. Neither of them have restrictions on how much they need to exercise or how much or how little food they ought to eat. Joe just can't overdo carbs no matter what because his home for the year is carb-restricted.

What would happen?

I would bet quite a bit that Jack would look about the same or be a bit heavier at the end of the year while Joe would lose all of that excess weight. I cannot prove this without doing the trial; it's just a thought experiment. But what if someone does do the trial? And on a bigger scale? And it shows just the results I'm describing? What then?

I would generally agree with your expected results but for different reasons. Because Joe cut out carbs, he would likely consume fewer calories than Jack. (Obviously, there are many variables that could affect the results).

This is from one of peterbound's link a few pages back:

Since the year 2002, over 20 randomized controlled trials have compared low-carb and low-fat diets.

The studies consistently show that low-carb diets lead to more weight loss, often 2-3 times as much.

One of the main reasons for this is that low-carb diets lead to drastically reduced appetite. People start eating less calories without trying (18, 19).

http://authoritynutrition.com/6-reasons-why-a-calorie-is-not-a-calorie/

[Shryke]

Undoubtedly so. And individuals can see their own metabolism change. But why? And what exactly is metabolism?

Here's a thought experiment. Let's say we have two identical twins that we'll call Jack and Joe. Let's say that they both have metabolic syndrome and are probably 70 or so pounds heavier than what it seems that they ought to be. We set up a clinical trial that Jack and Joe both agree to participate in.

They each move into a special house that they won't be able to leave for a year. They have plenty of comforts, but the situation is controlled so that they have no control over what food gets in and out of the place. They have a computer where they can stock the fridge and pantry with whatever they select, and Jack is told to just eat what he usually does and/or prefers. Same for Joe, but with one wrinkle. His computer only has low-carb food. Neither of them have restrictions on how much they need to exercise or how much or how little food they ought to eat. Joe just can't overdo carbs no matter what because his home for the year is carb-restricted.

What would happen?

I would bet quite a bit that Jack would look about the same or be a bit heavier at the end of the year while Joe would lose all of that excess weight. I cannot prove this without doing the trial; it's just a thought experiment. But what if someone does do the trial? And on a bigger scale? And it shows just the results I'm describing? What then?

We'd have to run the experiment to find out.

And until you do, what evidence for your belief do you really have?

[Shryke]

Seems like sort of an unfair question when I'm going out of my way to point out that we don't have the most definitive proof. I'm conceding that. But one could say the same of the other camp, neh?

Not really since the "other side", baring a few people, is making only vary basic claims or often simply refuting claims on the basis that they are unproven.

I don't need to prove how food is really processed in the human body to poke holes in the paleo-diet, I just need to shown that your evidence is not sound or supports other theories too.

But I'm going to appeal to authority here, and say that one might read Good Calories, Bad Calories, by Gary Taubes or check out Peter Attia's incredible blog which is here.

And these are the guys who are getting all of this backing to finally do the experiments that we need to do, or at least that is their stated goal.

WillWorkForNinjaPowers also linked to the other Taubes book, Why We Get Fat, which is basically the abridged version of Good Calories, Bad Calories.

I'm not certain. That's why better science and better trials are needed.

What studies have Taubes or Attia done?

The issue here is that you can't say "more study is needed" at the same time you push a specific diet based on specific claims about the processing of food in the human body.

As to your point about total caloric intake though....you could be right that my hypothetical Joe would consume fewer calories, but why? What if it's not something like "I am tired of eggs and sausage" but "I'm just not that hungry anymore" whereas my hypothetical Jack is still consuming more calories because he's like "I eat lots and lots of chips and yet I'm always hungry?"

Again, something more seems to be going on, but also again, I concede that we need to know more.

The why is the big question isn't? The whole issue here is alot of people claiming alot of things about diets and human health with only the thinnest veneer of a hypothesis for a causative mechanism.

[Fragile Bird]

Well, if I can just add a comment to what Tempra mentions about one of Peterbound's links and people who eat a low carb diet consuming fewer calories. One of the comments made by Dr. William Davis, author of Wheat Belly, in an interview I heard that made me decide to go gluten free, is the fact that gluten is an appetite stimulant, a fact discovered by food companies about half a century ago. They then started adding gluten to all kinds of food items. Dr. Davis made the comment that once you go gluten free, your appetite will decrease and you will consume 400 to 500 fewer calories a day. Look up a list of the different food additives that contain gluten and start reading labels on packages and see how many kinds of gluten are in the food you eat.

Think about it, how many times have you been in a restaurant and a basket of bread is brought out, and long before your meal or even your appetizer is brought out you've demolished the bread? Oh, you say, but it's so delicious. When I tell people I've gone gluten free, so many say to me they can't imagine giving up bread. Well, most people (not all, there are always exceptions) lose their craving for bread once they give up gluten. It used to be that whenever I went to my favourite coffee shop for either a coffee or tea, no matter how hard I tried, I regularly weakened and got a cookie to eat with my beverage. Or if I stopped at the grocery store at the same mall to pick a few things up, I'd end up with a croissant. I gave up gluten last August and once I got into the swing of things, only a week for me IIRC, I have never purchased either a cookie or a croissant even though I'm a regular at the coffee shop and the grocery store. It's not because I've suddenly after all these years acquired an amazing self-discipline that I didn't have before, it's because I've lost the craving for gluten.

Someone else mentioned that old piece of advice regarding shopping only the outer aisles of the grocery store, the aisles that hold the vegetables and fruits and meats. It's just so true. I can walk up and down aisles and aisles in the grocery store and see row after row of food items that I have absolutely no interest in purchasing, not only because of the sugars and sodium but because of the gluten. Call it a fad diet if you want, but I have certainly found it to be a valid way to eat.

ETA: Sorry, forgot to mention, the claim has been made that not only is gluten an appetite stimulant, it contains compounds similar to narcotics, and therefore actually addictive. You may recall stories by researchers along these lines last year, and the way the idea was mocked in the press.