WSJ Article Says You Can Be Obese at a Normal Weight. Shocked?

[noremorse]

@Holly I made a distinction between type 1 diabetes and type 2 diabetes. Type 1 diabetics are the ones that starve to death without insulin. They can be brought to a healthy weight with insulin. Type 2 diabetics are the ones that gain weight when put on insulin.

To your point about Atkins, many bought the book, but how many tried it? Atkins published the book after success with over 10,000 patients. The fact that he had them eating vegetables didn't help either. The vegetables make people hungrier and make compliance more difficult.

@Jericho I am calling myself an expert. People pay me money to help them lose weight and keep it off. As much as $50 a pound to be exact.

As to your point about the seeds being appealing to animals, it doesn't really hold up. Let's take an apple. Have you ever tried planting an apple seed? Apples are the seed. If you eat the apple and plant the seed, it won't grow.

As for the Japanese I didn't think it was worth mentioning for a number of reasons. First, the Japanese are still quite fat in many instances. They may not be as fat as us, but they are fat and have the same diseases. Second, they are healthIER, but that doesn't make them all that healthy when compared with americans and italians and french etc. Third, if you look at what sumo wrestlers eat, it's a thick carb soup called chankonabe.

@KaraCooks I actually do recommend an all meat (grass fed) diet. Vegetables are useless "food" totally void of nutrition that make you hungrier. Now for a person who's healthy, you have to take quality of life into the equation, so once someone's fit we work out a regimen that works for them, but as long as they eat few enough carbs for their body to stay in ketosis they are going to be fine.

Our bodies actually are not designed to work on a "variety of sources," they are designed to work optimally on meat and fat, in ketosis. There's an enormous body of science that proves this to be the case, and I know hundreds of people who would agree with this statement anecdotally from personal experience.

Every vitamin and mineral that you need can be gotten in the optimal quantity that you need it from grass fed meats. Vihjalmur Stefansson proved this beyond a reasonable doubt in the 1920s. Carbohydrates deplete these vitamins and minerals, which is how people get vitamin deficiency diseases.

Pending my complete answer to these borderline unethical ideas that you seem to be spewing forth so vehemently, I'll suffice with a few key remarks.

-> Refresh your knowledge about the Krebs Cycle (cf. Ketosis and Ketones).

-> "Vegetables are useless "food" totally void of nutrition that make you hungrier" this obliterates any ounce of credibility you could ever hope to have.

-> Sumo wrestlers ARE healthy people. If you knew AT ALL what you are talking about, you'd know that it has been shown they store their fat subcutaneously while having almost no visceral fat. The same is true for many other "pudgier" or "fat" looking types of athletes.

-> The fruit will grow. Evolution and pretty much every square inch of the world covered with rainforests and high fruit bearing trees disagree with you.


You are consistently at tension with decades upon decades of scientific research, knowledge and facts, only citing off the cuff some questionable, ancient and solitary "scientific findings" to further convince yourself of the fact that you are right.

You said you had a heart transplant. That is a severe operation and I empathize. But following this no-carb, high meat diet I can garantuee you you'll need another one somewhere along the line. Better hope you draw the winning lottery ticket twice in a row. Seriously, snap out of this quasi-fundamentalist view and start living healthily and most importantly stop spewing these lies to impressionable people, made so by their despair in trying to lose weight.

 

[Holly88]

Many II diabetics are obese in the first place (seeing as fat cells suppress insulin sensitivity)...

Insulin is a middle man, as much as glucagon is. It's the balance of these hormones that has a role in REGULATION of blood sugar. Neither CREATES energy, they merely move it around. It's the individual who puts food in their mouth to become glucose in the blood to be stored in the liver or muscles as glycogen... You cannot say that it's as simple as insulin = weight gain.

Anyway, I'm not sure why I'm even trying to enlighten someone who believes that all essential nutrients are available through meat alone... I don't even know where to start on that one!

I mean... whatever happened to fibre? Lack of fibre (as well as high levels of red meat) are significant risk factors in colon cancer, which ranks in the top three of cancer mortality rates.

 

[LoseWeightNYC]

@noremorse So you obviously have no understanding at all of heart disease. Heart disease is caused by vascular inflammation, which is caused primarily by carbs and secondarily by extended periods of low impact exercise. This is why runners have higher incidence of heart disease than non-runners. Blood cholesterol, which is highly correlated with heart disease, is actually totally independent of dietary cholesterol in every study ever done when controlled for carbohydrate intake. A high ratio of Omega 6: Omega 3 fatty acids is correlated with heart disease, but when you eat GRASS FED beef this is a non-issue, as the 6:3 ratio is on par with that of fish. Of course there are other benefits, including CLA, but the fatty acid ratio is very important. A diet high in fat with a ratio of 6:3 of 4:1 or lower is good for your heart. The problem, of course, is that the crap you buy in grocery stores is 20:1.

Also, you should probably question what you're sold a little more. The research on obesity is a house of cards. Pretty much all of the "bad for your heart" stuff is built on the idea that blood cholesterol is bad, and it is from a time when blood cholesterol is pretty much all that could be measured. All of this has been discredited since the 60s when they became capable of discerning insulin levels. Over 100 years of research disproves the idea that cutting calories works for everyone, and it's funny to me that you would even consider arguing that. Until obesity is understood as a physiological disorder caused by hyperinsulinemia as opposed to a psychological one caused by overeating, I will continue to vehemently spout "unethical ideas."

 

[Jericho]

Wow..I'm done. I rather let Steve handle this mess. But even I know this is pure bull.

'Hey kids! Don't run or you can die of heart disease..oh and carbs cause heart attacks'

Eating low glycemic index foods are good but all this you are saying? Nah, don't buy it.




I'm starting to think we are feeling the troll here.

 

[Holly88]

I had posted something but I don't think any of this warrants a response any more. End of.

PS I'm a medical student. Doctors are the original professionals. We take an oath, we don't just make money.

 

[LoseWeightNYC]

Many II diabetics are obese in the first place (seeing as fat cells suppress insulin sensitivity)...

Insulin is a middle man, as much as glucagon is. It's the balance of these hormones that has a role in REGULATION of blood sugar. Neither CREATES energy, they merely move it around. It's the individual who puts food in their mouth to become glucose in the blood to be stored in the liver or muscles as glycogen... You cannot say that it's as simple as insulin = weight gain.

Anyway, I'm not sure why I'm even trying to enlighten someone who believes that all essential nutrients are available through meat alone... I don't even know where to start on that one!

I mean... whatever happened to fibre? Lack of fibre (as well as high levels of red meat) are significant risk factors in colon cancer, which ranks in the top three of cancer mortality rates.

First of all, I think that the idea that the majority of people with type 2 diabetes are obese already should tell you something. Like, for example, maybe it's the same mechanism causing both... It is a FACT that insulin causes fat storage, I dare you to try to dispute it. No doctor anywhere would disagree with that statement.

As for fiber, well, that's just plain false, and the idea that meat stayed in your gut and caused colon cancer was disproved in the 60s, I guess you didn't get the memo. I personally am not a fan of eating anything that I cannot digest, particularly when it causes bacteria to multiply in your colon.

I obviously have a far more in depth understanding of both physiology and pathology than you, which is totally fine, as I am a professional, but I do think you should consider keeping a more open mind.

 

[Jericho]

I obviously have a far more in depth understanding of both physiology and pathology than you, which is totally fine, as I am a professional, but I do think you should consider keeping a more open mind.

I'm not too sure about the professional. You haven't shown anything that makes us believe you are really here to help. You are not a doctor. Might I ask what your college major was or a degree? Most of us state flat out we are not experts. We tell people they need to talk to a doctor first as they ARE the experts.

I am more inclined to believe two people when it comes to this..those who are actual experts (aka doctors) and those who has lived this. You are neither. I'll say it flat out, I believe you have taken bits of facts and hyped them into the be all. What you do is take a personal responibility out of people's hands by saying your calorie intake means nothing. Carbs are not bad nor are they evil. Very few things are 'bad' in moderation. People are overweight because we eat poorly. Yes, too many carbs are bad but so is too much meat or too much or anything when there is no balance.

Balance. It's the key to all life. To say the answer is so simplistic as 'don't take in carbs'..well I stated I would not go to personal insults and I still won't.

 

[LoseWeightNYC]

I'm not too sure about the professional. You haven't shown anything that makes us believe you are really here to help. You are not a doctor. Might I ask what your college major was or a degree? Most of us state flat out we are not experts. We tell people they need to talk to a doctor first as they ARE the experts.

I am more inclined to believe two people when it comes to this..those who are actual experts (aka doctors) and those who has lived this. You are neither. I'll say it flat out, I believe you have taken bits of facts and hyped them into the be all. What you do is take a personal responibility out of people's hands by saying your calorie intake means nothing. Carbs are not bad nor are they evil. Very few things are 'bad' in moderation. People are overweight because we eat poorly. Yes, too many carbs are bad but so is too much meat or too much or anything when there is no balance.

Balance. It's the key to all life. To say the answer is so simplistic as 'don't take in carbs'..well I stated I would not go to personal insults and I still won't.

I am not taking personal responsibility out of the equation at all. In fact, I am empowering your personal responsibility. Previously you were helpless in the fight against your body to take off weight, but now that you have an alternative hypothesis that explains everything about weight gain/loss including things like why women tend to gain weight in the hips while men can have very thin legs yet enormous beer bellies; why overweight people on average eat LESS than thin people; why people have successfully lost weight on all meat diets ranging from 800 calories a day to 2700+ calories a day at nearly the same rate.

It also explains why someone who eats a semi-starvation diet is ravenous and goes into starvation mode while someone who fasts loses their hunger completely after the 48 hour marker or so. And why someone who eats 800 calories a day of all meat is not hungry, but someone who adds another 400 calories of fruits and vegetables is ravenous and goes into starvation mode. It explains why obesity is high in impoverished countries. And why obesity is negatively correlated with income in the US and everywhere else. And why it used to be positively correlated with income in the 1600s because flour was expensive and rare. And why Michael Phelps can eat 16,000 calories a day when his body is burning nowhere near that amount swimming even 8 hours straight.

It explains why you can't exercise your way to weight loss, as illustrated for the umpteenth time in . It explains why modern disease didn't really exist in Inuit or Masai tribes until the introduction of agriculture. It explains why sailors got scurvy on a diet of oats and barley, yet Vihjalmur Stefansson had perfect health after eating only meat for a year under close supervision. It explains why rats bred to be obese will become obese regardless of how much they are starved from birth. I could go on and on and on but instead I'll just let you research this yourself. As adamant as I am, I welcome you to do your own research, and play with your own body to find out what works for you. In the meantime, I'll continue helping people who are incapable of losing weight by traditional methods, and giving my opinion to anyone who wants to hear it.

 

[noremorse]

I am not taking personal responsibility out of the equation at all. In fact, I am empowering your personal responsibility. Previously you were helpless in the fight against your body to take off weight, but now that you have an alternative hypothesis that explains everything about weight gain/loss including things like why women tend to gain weight in the hips while men can have very thin legs yet enormous beer bellies; why overweight people on average eat LESS than thin people; why people have successfully lost weight on all meat diets ranging from 800 calories a day to 2700+ calories a day at nearly the same rate.

It also explains why someone who eats a semi-starvation diet is ravenous and goes into starvation mode while someone who fasts loses their hunger completely after the 48 hour marker or so. And why someone who eats 800 calories a day of all meat is not hungry, but someone who adds another 400 calories of fruits and vegetables is ravenous and goes into starvation mode. It explains why obesity is high in impoverished countries. And why obesity is negatively correlated with income in the US and everywhere else. And why it used to be positively correlated with income in the 1600s because flour was expensive and rare. And why Michael Phelps can eat 16,000 calories a day when his body is burning nowhere near that amount swimming even 8 hours straight.

It explains why you can't exercise your way to weight loss, as illustrated for the umpteenth time in . It explains why modern disease didn't really exist in Inuit or Masai tribes until the introduction of agriculture. It explains why sailors got scurvy on a diet of oats and barley, yet Vihjalmur Stefansson had perfect health after eating only meat for a year under close supervision. It explains why rats bred to be obese will become obese regardless of how much they are starved from birth. I could go on and on and on but instead I'll just let you research this yourself. As adamant as I am, I welcome you to do your own research, and play with your own body to find out what works for you. In the meantime, I'll continue helping people who are incapable of losing weight by traditional methods, and giving my opinion to anyone who wants to hear it.

Hocus pocus BS.

What you are suggesting is more or less like cutting off your legs to prevent possible blood clotting while on a long flight.

I am done feeding the troll.

 

[Jericho]

To quote your own article..

But few people, an overwhelming body of research shows, achieve significant weight loss with exercise alone, not without changing their eating habits.


No one here has ever said it is one or the other. I can work my heart out but if I eat more than I burn..well I will not lose weight.

Calories in < Calories out = weight loss

 

[LoseWeightNYC]

To quote your own article..

But few people, an overwhelming body of research shows, achieve significant weight loss with exercise alone, not without changing their eating habits.


No one here has ever said it is one or the other. I can work my heart out but if I eat more than I burn..well I will not lose weight.

Calories in < Calories out = weight loss

Here are the problems with that equation:
1. Calories in and calories out are not independent variables
2. Weight loss is not the goal, fat loss is the goal
3. Not all calories are the same
4. This equation does not imply causality, so the causal variable could be totally separate and potentially related to both calories in and calories out.

 

[Jericho]

And yet you still didn't answer the fact that you pointed out the article and passed over the fact that it is a combination of both that is needed. To exclude one (as you do when stating you can't exercise your way to weight loss) without the other will only result in short term loss.

I have realized that responding to you is just feeding a bad cycle. You can just a man on many things. In this area, seeing your personal website in your profile links to many MANY diet aids and fads tells me enough about you.

As others have said, I'm done fattening the troll.

 

[LoseWeightNYC]

And yet you still didn't answer the fact that you pointed out the article and passed over the fact that it is a combination of both that is needed. To exclude one (as you do when stating you can't exercise your way to weight loss) without the other will only result in short term loss.

I have realized that responding to you is just feeding a bad cycle. You can just a man on many things. In this area, seeing your personal website in your profile links to many MANY diet aids and fads tells me enough about you.

As others have said, I'm done fattening the troll.

The website is currently under construction, but I appreciate you clicking through!

I'm not excluding one over the other. As I said, they are highly dependent on each other, and both of them are highly dependent on carbohydrate intake. It is impossible to store excess fat in the body without eating carbohydrates, and if you do eat an excessive amount of protein and fat your body will upregulate the "calories out" portion of the equation to compensate, either by putting on muscle tissue, moving more, burning more calories as eat, or crapping them out.

The part that you're missing is that eating carbohydrates increase insulin levels which leads to a decrease the "calories out" portion by storing fat in the adipose tissue and making it unavailable to your body cells.

 

[KaraCooks]

Charging money to do something does not make you an expert at it.

Vegetables are useless "food" totally void of nutrition that make you hungrier.

Yup. You just lost all credibility with me.

Buh-bye. I'll let Steve tackle this one if he thinks it's worth his time.

 

[LoseWeightNYC]

Charging money to do something does not make you an expert at it.

Yup. You just lost all credibility with me.

Buh-bye. I'll let Steve tackle this one if he thinks it's worth his time.

God forbid you entertain the idea that a "food" that has no protein or fat is unnecessary. Or the idea that you can get all of your nutrition from grass fed meats, which has been proven many times, the one that I know off of the top of my head is Vihjalmur Stefansson.

 

[cerad]

Fruits the way that they are now are man made, genetically bred to be extra sweet and palatable. An apple untouched by man is incredibly bitter and unpalatable. Lierre Keith talks a great deal about this in "The Vegetarian Myth."

Better be careful. The bible thumpers will go after you next. Imagine Adam and Eve having to eat from a rock of knowledge instead of a tree.

It's also a bit strange to think that fish was inedible back then as well.

 

[LoseWeightNYC]

Better be careful. The bible thumpers will go after you next. Imagine Adam and Eve having to eat from a rock of knowledge instead of a tree.

It's also a bit strange to think that fish was inedible back then as well.

Excuse me, but last I checked, fish does not grow in the ground... Fish is meat. In fact, it has a nearly identical fatty acid profile to that of grass fed beef.

 

[Jericho]

It speaks plenty. Amazing what you get when you point to a medical website.

 

[LoseWeightNYC]

It speaks plenty. Amazing what you get when you point to a medical website.

Wait, grass fed beef is good for you? Who would have thought?

 

[Jericho]

You didn't read the whole thing did you?


Lean beef that's 10 percent fat or less — whether it's grass-fed beef or another type of beef — can be part of a heart-healthy diet. But it's still uncertain whether grass-fed beef adds even more heart-health benefits.