Anyone else on the "Why We Get Fat" (Taubes) diet? (low carb, work out)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There is no secret to why we get fat. There is no insulin, sugar, artificial sweetener, fat or carbohydrate boogeyman standing behind the curtain. We gorge on huge amounts of calories and sit on our asses way too much.
There is no secret to why we get fat. There is no insulin, sugar, artificial sweetener, fat or carbohydrate boogeyman standing behind the curtain. We gorge on huge amounts of calories and sit on our asses way too much.
I will say this - i think its a lot easier to get a lot of calories in sugary drinks without feeling full, than with most foods.
and of course they go together. Lots of people drink full sugar sodas with potato chips or cheese whiz, rather fewer drink soda with apples and bananas.
I dont observe in myself that carbs make me hungrier sooner. I find a balanced meal, with all macronutrients, and heavy on fiber, is the best way to delay hunger.
There is no secret to why we get fat. There is no insulin, sugar, artificial sweetener, fat or carbohydrate boogeyman standing behind the curtain. We gorge on huge amounts of calories and sit on our asses way too much.
I really really dont think its that simple. I think one of the issues of why so many people fail on diets is because they are hungry. Sure, limit the calories, but eat foods that will keep you full. For me, fat helps me stay full, for others it may not be. But, if you start a diet, and you are constantly hungry, you will fail. Its that simple.
Sure, I've lost while eating 1000 cals a day (I'm a guy, was 220 5'9") but... the hunger gets to you, and you start eating like you used to.
Until people make a change to focus on foods that keep them full, they wont lose, or they wont maintain whatever they lose.
yes, some folks seem to fill up on fiber, some on fats, and at least one poster here said it was calories period that made him feel full.
I would be happy if we could all agree that different things make us hungry or full, instead of broad demonizing of particular macronutrients as the cause of hunger feelings.
yes, some folks seem to fill up on fiber, some on fats, and at least one poster here said it was calories period that made him feel full.
I would be happy if we could all agree that different things make us hungry or full, instead of broad demonizing of particular macronutrients as the cause of hunger feelings.
I really really dont think its that simple. I think one of the issues of why so many people fail on diets is because they are hungry. Sure, limit the calories, but eat foods that will keep you full. For me, fat helps me stay full, for others it may not be. But, if you start a diet, and you are constantly hungry, you will fail. Its that simple.
Sure, I've lost while eating 1000 cals a day (I'm a guy, was 220 5'9") but... the hunger gets to you, and you start eating like you used to.
Until people make a change to focus on foods that keep them full, they wont lose, or they wont maintain whatever they lose.
But it is that simple, and we actually agree on that in a round about way. Low carb/keto diets are at their core, a method for reducing calorie intake. Protein and fat make you feel full because the body has to work harder to digest and process them than it does with carbs, especially simple carbs. That allows you to eat until your full while still maintaining a calorie deficit.
It all basically comes down to a trade off on how you want to achieve that deficit. Do you want to sacrifice food selection for less hunger or sacrifice hunger for more selection?
But it is that simple, and we actually agree on that in a round about way. Low carb/keto diets are at their core, a method for reducing calorie intake. Protein and fat make you feel full because the body has to work harder to digest and process them than it does with carbs, especially simple carbs. That allows you to eat until your full while still maintaining a calorie deficit.
It all basically comes down to a trade off on how you want to achieve that deficit. Do you want to sacrifice food selection for less hunger or sacrifice hunger for more selection?
I do agree that its possible it all comes down to cals in vs cals out BUT I dont think its as simple as, look at what you eat, eat the same only less. When I was a kid, my mom brought me for a checkup at our pediatrition. I was chubby, she asked how I could lose weight. The doctor asked me what I had for lunch, I said "1 and a half peanut butter and jelly sandwiches" he told my mom, for now on he should have 1 PB&J.
I dont think its that simple. I didnt eat the extra 1/2 sandwich because I wanted more of the PB&J taste, I ate it because I was hungry. The correct answer would have been, next time, he should have roast beef, or, find another option that fills him up better!
But thats not the way most people look at it.
Listen I dont know if cals in vs cals out works, because I really dont know how many cals my body burns in a day. I can tell you that when restricting cals, you end up hitting times when your body just stalls. If it were as simple as cals in vs cals out, why would that happen?? Its because, when your body doesnt think it has enough food, it'll use less energy... So its important to make sure your body doesnt feel its going to starve. So, how do you convince your body of that? Eat in a constant 500 cal deficit? but, your body eventually decides, that it'll use 500 less cals of energy a day, and you stall again. So you eat less, and you become hungrier.
So, I dont know if its simply cals in vs cals out. Even if it is, whos to say how many cals your body in burning on any given day at any given time? I really cant say that cals in vs cals out can be tracked correctly day in/day out, so I cannot agree that cals in vs cals out works.
I no longer track how many cals I eat in a day, nor do I pretend to understand how many cals I burn in a day. I just eat when I'm hungry, until I'm full, and eat the foods that keep me full, and have the nutrition I need to stay healthy for as long as I can. I really think Cal tracking is a waste of time, I think its more important to eat healthy, then to eat in a certain cal restriction. Now, whats healthy for one many not be the same for everyone. The question of would you rather be hungry and have more options, or full and less options... No one can deal with hunger for extended periods of time, cals in vs cals out or not... in either situation, the issue comes back to carbs in my case, which seem easier for the body to burn, if you are hungry, you will continue to eat. If you are full (and not a gluton or have a food addiction) you wont eat...
So, if simple carbs are digested quickly, you would assume they are the worst choice of cals, one way or another.
To add, if my body has to work harder to break down fats and proteins, you figure its using more cals to break up that food then it is to break down carbs... SO, wouldnt that mean all cals arent created equal?
Last edited by Highwyre237; 08-11-2011 at 01:35 PM..
I can tell you that when restricting cals, you end up hitting times when your body just stalls. If it were as simple as cals in vs cals out, why would that happen?? Its because, when your body doesnt think it has enough food, it'll use less energy... So its important to make sure your body doesnt feel its going to starve. So, how do you convince your body of that? Eat in a constant 500 cal deficit? but, your body eventually decides, that it'll use 500 less cals of energy a day, and you stall again. So you eat less, and you become hungrier.
Plateaus can and do happen on any diet, and it's often not a case of starvation mode. Starvation mode itself is also highly overrated as your body is not going to slow down it's metabolic rate by such big numbers. It doesn't have that capability. Mind you that I'm not advocating people to go into starvation mode because of that revelation, but it's nothing something to live in complete fear of either.
Quote:
So, if simple carbs are digested quickly, you would assume they are the worst choice of cals, one way or another.
That's an overly simple generalization. Too many factors...mainly physical activity...can play into this. For instance if you're planning on doing any strenuous exercise or athletic activity, you're going to NEED carbs.
Quote:
To add, if my body has to work harder to break down fats and proteins, you figure its using more cals to break up that food then it is to break down carbs... SO, wouldnt that mean all cals arent created equal?
No, it's still simply a factor of the calorie deficit.
ok I just did 2 of those estimates, one came to 1975 the other to 1853... if its easily cals in vs cals out, thats a diff of over 100 cals... lets say thats 100 even... so a different of 36,000cals a year, or more then 10 pounds in one year.
Yeah, there isnt an accurate estimate out there... and even if I did track my heart rate at all times a day, that wouldnt even be 100% accurate.
There is no way to truely know how much your body is burning in any given day. "eat less, move more" may work... but we cant calculate how much less, or how much more... and theres no way to accuratly track it. I have no clue how many cals my body is burning, and I dont know how much starvation mode my retract... when does motabolism come into effect? theres really, no way to track it unless we're hooked up to a machine 24x7
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
