This is one of the best articles I have read on weight. This is about half of the article and the link is at the bottom for the rest.


If you had asked your mother or grandmother for diet tips, you might have heard, “Every woman knows that carbohydrates are fattening.” In fact, that’s from a 1963 article in the British Journal of Nutrition, co-authored by one of the leading nutritionists of the era. And for the previous 100 years or so, this was the conventional wisdom: carbohydrate-rich foods such as bread, potatoes, pasta, rice, sweets and beer make us fat, and, by implication, foods rich in fat and protein do not.

But since then, the nutritional dogma has changed completely, and we’ve come to accept the idea that there is nothing uniquely fattening about carbohydrates. Rather, a calorie is a calorie is a calorie, as nutritionists hasten to tell us. This means that the only way to lose weight is to diligently eat less of everything, to exercise more and hope for the best — a prescription that even the experts will admit rarely seems to work.

As an investigative journalist working in science and health, I’ve spent the last decade assessing the conventional wisdom on diet, weight control and disease. My conclusion is that much of what we’ve been taught since the early 1970s — most of which we’ve all come to accept — is simply wrong. This might explain why those same years have seen unprecedented increases in obesity and diabetes worldwide. When I started my research, I had no idea that I would come to such contrarian views. But now I think that certain conclusions are virtually inescapable:

* Obesity and being overweight are not caused by eating too much and certainly not by eating food with “too much” fat.
* Carbohydrates, not fat, are the cause of excess weight, just as our grandparents’ generation always knew. Eating carbohydrates triggers a hormonal response — insulin secretion — that signals our bodies to accumulate fat. This is why the fewer carbohydrates we consume, the leaner we will be. Sugar, flour and other refined carbohydrates produce an exaggerated version of this response, and so are particularly fattening.
* Exercise doesn’t make us lose weight, it just makes us hungry.
* Dietary fat, whether saturated or not, is not a cause of heart disease. Rather the same foods that make us fat — easily-digestible carbohydrates and sugars — will eventually cause the diseases that are likely to kill us: heart disease, diabetes and even most cancers. As the late Tim Russert’s physician explained in The New York Times shortly after Russert’s death, “if there’s one number that’s a predictor of mortality, it’s waist circumference.” Because carbohydrate-rich foods increase our waist circumference, then it must be these same foods that shorten our lives.
These conclusions about diet and weight loss aren’t exactly new. A carbohydrate-restricted diet is not a “fad diet” as the American Heart Association has insisted on calling it. Rather it had been the standard medical practice for treating obesity until the 1960s, when the American Heart Association began insisting that we all eat low-fat, carbohydrate-rich diets to prevent heart disease. But then, in one decade, the fattening carbohydrate was miraculously transformed — without benefit of scientific data — into heart-healthy diet food.
So What Happened?

Beginning in the late 1950s, a small but influential group of nutritionists and cardiologists decided that dietary fat caused heart disease. First the American Heart Association adopted this position, then Congress, the U.S Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the National Institutes of Health. Beginning in the late 1980s with the publication of the Surgeon General’s Report on Nutrition and Health, an entire research industry arose to create palatable non-fat substitutes for fat, while the food industry spent billions to market the less-fat-is-good message. The USDA’s booklet on dietary guidelines and its Food Guide Pyramid recommended that fats and oils be eaten “sparingly,” while we were now to eat six to 11 servings per day of the pasta, potatoes, rice and bread once considered uniquely fattening.

Three facts were neglected during this national push for a low-fat diet. One was the upturn in obesity and diabetes rates that emerged as this new nutritional advice displaced the knowledge that carbs were fattening.

The second was that when researchers actually did clinical trials to test the hypothesis that eating less fat or less saturated fat prevented heart disease, the evidence failed to support the hypothesis. This was the conclusion of a 2001 review of “reduced or modified dietary fat for preventing cardiovascular disease.” The review was published by the Cochrane Collaboration, an international organization dedicated to producing unbiased assessments of the science underlying medical interventions. The authors had combed the literature for all possible studies that addressed the question of dietary fat and heart disease. They identified 27 that were performed with sufficient scientific rigor to be considered meaningful. These trials encompassed some 10,000 subjects, followed for an average of three years each. The review concluded that our supposedly heart-healthy diets, whether low in all fat or just saturated fat, had no effect on longevity and no significant effect on the likelihood of actually having a heart attack.
Meanwhile, the last decade has witnessed a renewed interest in carbohydrate-restricted diets as obesity levels have risen and a new generation of clinicians have come to question the prevailing wisdom on weight loss. These studies have all confirmed what the underlying science of fat regulation tells us: cut out carbohydrates and you lose fat. Seven independent teams of investigators set out to test low-fat, low-calorie diets of the kind recommended by the American Heart Association in randomized control trials against “eat as much as you like” Atkins-like diets. Together these trials included well over 900 obese subjects. In each case, the weight loss after three to six months was two to three times greater on the low-carbohydrate diet — unrestricted in calories — than on the calorie-restricted, low-fat diet.

In 2003, the prestigious medical journal JAMA published an article that its seven authors from the Yale and Stanford medical schools considered to be the “first published synthesis of the evidence” in the English-language medical literature on the efficacy and safety of carbohydrate-restricted diets. They concluded that the evidence was “insufficient to recommend or condemn the use of these diets,” because it lacked long-term randomized trials that could allow the safety of the diets to be established beyond reasonable doubt. Nonetheless, they did report the average weight loss from 40 years of trials and research. “Of the 34 of 38 lower-carbohydrate diets for which weight change after diet was calculated, these lower-carbohydrate diets were found to produce greater weight loss than higher-carbohydrate diets” — an average of 37 pounds when carbohydrates were restricted to less than 60 grams (240 calories) a day, compared to 4 pounds when they were not.
What Is for Dinner?

The ultimate question is whether a protein- and fat-rich diet lacking virtually all starches and sugars can be a healthy diet, since one conclusion of my research is that to remain lean we would have to follow such a regimen for life. If we give up carbohydrates and lose our excess weight, but then go back to carbohydrates, the weight will come back as well.

Is it possible to eat red meat in any quantity without it being bad for our hearts? This is one question of many where the experts have simply failed us. If you actually look at the fat content of a piece of red meat (or eggs and bacon), you’ll find that the principal fat is not saturated fat — which is supposedly bad for the heart — but the same monounsaturated fat as in olive oil, which is supposedly good for the heart. And much of the remaining fat is still what nutritionists would consider heart-healthy. Consider a porterhouse steak, for example, with a quarter-inch layer of fat. After broiling, this reduces to almost equal parts fat and protein. Of the fat, slightly more than half (51 percent) is monounsaturated, which lowers the (bad) LDL cholesterol and raises the (good) HDL. Slightly less than half (45 percent) is saturated fat, some of which raises LDL, but all of it raises HDL. A third of that saturated fat is stearic acid, which raises (the good) HDL, and has no effect on the bad LDL. The remaining fat (4 percent) is polyunsaturated, which lowers LDL but has no meaningful effect on HDL. (You can look up the numbers yourself in the USDA National Nutrient Database.)
http://www.motherearthnews.com/Natural-Hea...ght.aspx?page=4

Interesting. Thanks for posting!

I tried dieting once when I was AB. The only thing that got smaller was my poop.

At 43 years old, 5'4" and 105-110 lbs, this is the lifestyle eating that I follow. I NEVER diet. I exercise for cardio health, muscle strengthening and flexibility...NOT to lose weight. To maintain a healthy weight/BMI, I watch what I eat, and it's not alphalpha sprouts and I do eat a balance of fat. Fat is your friend. It's starch and sugar that cause weight gain. Hence, I stay away from foods that have a high glycemic index count...primarily foods containing refined white flour and sugar (mostly processed foods).

I exercise two times a week and almost always use a manual chair, that keeps me in good shape, but I still look somewhat fat because my muscles in my abs have not been used for 12 years now.

Good post,ive been trying to lose weight since earlier this year,ive cut out fast foods soda and junk foods sorry to say i havent seen any results yet im gonna keep tryin though

That I think is one of the poorer articles I've read on weight loss. Lots of theories..but not a lot of practical tips on education regarding fat burn and weight loss.

* Exercise doesn’t make us lose weight, it just makes us hungry.

???

Are you serious? For those of us used to exercising... this is the biggest piece of BS ever.

Trust me...nobody really LIKES exercising.... well...at least not at first. I'd rather be watching Simpsons on TV than waking up at 5:30 am to run before getting breakfast intake. But people do it because they've made a habit of it.

And exercising does not make you hungry. If you have really gotten your heart rate up after a good weight-lifting session, you're metabolism is also raised up and you find that you aren't able to eat ANYTHING other than a protein shake.

The whole deal about high protein and low carb diet is a fad..but not completely. Many schools of thought state that you should ALWAYS maintain a high protein intake along with both aerobic and anaerobic exercises but you should actually be CYCLING your carbs to lose weight (day one: no carbs, day two: mid carbs, day three: high carbs).

If you cut out carbs completely, you'll find that you get really dizzy and without energy.

The high protein that experts talk about IS NOT bacon or steak..it's lean cuts of poultry, fish, and some cuts of beef. You'll find that chicken and turkey breasts are very tough and sometimes flavorless...why? It's LEAN! It's the fat that makes food taste good.

This journal is scholarly...and it is worth reading....but not if you're really serious about losing weight. It seems to me, and those of you who have undergone serious transformation will attest, that the author has just compiled ideas from many different sources and tried to put it into a comprehensive guide but is missing several very important points.

As an AB, I used to lift weights. I didn't want to be a body builder because my frame wasn't cut out for it...but I wanted to be fit and muscular. The website i would like to suggest is Bodybuilding.Com They sell workout equipment and supplements but they also have a HUGE article section.

Look under the TRANSFORMATIONs part and read articles written by people who have ACTUALLY lost weight. Don't believe writers hired to sell you weight loss supplements...or academics wanting to get published and only focus on theories....

So far, i've lost about 30 pounds post SCI...i went to the rehab center yesterday and got weighed as 198 (my goal was breaking 200 by end of the year!). Do it with nutrition AND exercise. Either one cannot work by itself but the synergy of both can give you good results.

It doesn't matter how much you exercise if you take in more calories than you burn you will get fat. There is a big difference between the types of fat we eat vegetable fats like corn and soy oil are very fattening because our bodies aren't designed to use them. Our ancestors were hunter gathers they did not get gallons of vegetable oils they ate animal fats. The body can burn fat as is but carbs have to be converted before use. The amount of carbs we eat has a big impact on the amount of weight we gain. I eat meat every day because it's a complete protein and is vitamin packed I eat green leafy vegetables for the minerals and a small amount of whole grains and honey. My weight is stable I don't lift weights or take supplements I have been doing it for almost 60 years and still feel great. Our ancestors didn't lift weights and take supplements they needed carbs so that they could store fat for lean times that's why we crave sweets, they did OK or else we wouldn't be here. The only exception is Asian people who have been eating rice for about 6000 years or so but the rest of the world hasn't had time to developed the ability to deal with a high carb diet without getting fat. The article gives good information so just because you disagree with it doesn't make it wrong.

Umm...NOBODY was eating rice 6000 years ago. Please don't write absurd statements like that. Rest of the world??? Do you know that rice is actually native to africa? I bet you didn't.

Information like "exercise makes us more hungry" is not a scientific fact; it's a subjective observation by ONE person.

Be honest with yourself...have you been REALLY overweight? Like 50~100 pounds over your ideal body weight? If so, have you tried and successfully lost it?

Of course you gain weight if your intake is more than your output. But that statement is so rudimentary and broad that it really doesn't make sense.

Athletes like Michael Phelps need to eat on purpose to keep up with the calories they burn. People who really exercise don't have a problem of over-intake.

Your body naturally burns fat but you have to convert carbs to energy in order to get rid of it? Are you serious? I suggest you do some more research. Here's a thought....if a person has a fat-free diet..but takes in 5 pounds of sugar everyday. Does he get fat? Then is his fat made of carbs?

Longhaul...I understand you are over 60 years of age and have plenty of life experience...but if you've never had to focus on serious weight-loss using a combination of diet and exercise, you really can't have any idea about it. I don't mean to disrespect... but some of the things you wrote just does not make sense.

Plus...do not compare people now with our 'ancestors'. 6000 years ago they had to work to find and obtain their food. The hunter-gatherers and the more recent farmers alike had to move their tail to get food. They never had to 'exercise' in the sense that we do...because they were always moving around.

Experts frown on sugar, flour, and refined sugars because they are all SIMPLE carbs. Brown rice, wheat, and whole grains are what you call COMPLEX carbs...they take longer to burn so they give you a sense of being full for a longer period of time.

AH! Grasshopper you have much to learn. I don't make things up it's all in the research.

The history of rice :

Middle and lower Yangtze origin
This area has many river systems and marshes with widespread wild rice varieties. It also has the richest and oldest archaeological sites: Hunan’s Lixian Pengtoushan, Jiangsu’s Wuxian Caoxieshan and GaoyouXian Longqiuzhuang and Zhejiang’s 6000-7000 year-old Yuyao Hemudu and Tongxiang Xian Luojiajiao. 10000 year-old carbonized rice remains and phytoliths are in Hunan’s Daoxian Yuzhanyan and Jiangxi’s Wannian Xianrendong and Diaotonghuan sites. Accumulating finds show the oldest distribution south of Huai River and focussed in the middle and lower Yangtze Basin.

"Umm...NOBODY was eating rice 6000 years ago. Please don't write absurd statements like that. Rest of the world??? Do you know that rice is actually native to africa? I bet you didn't."

"Information like "exercise makes us more hungry" is not a scientific fact; it's a subjective observation by ONE person."
You need to do some research on this one Grasshopper"

"Be honest with yourself...have you been REALLY overweight? Like 50~100 pounds over your ideal body weight? If so, have you tried and successfully lost it?" Grasshopper if you want to lose weight do you go to a person who is over weight or a person who is not for advice? I know how to keep the weight off and haven't gained 50-100 lbs because I know how the body works.

"Your body naturally burns fat but you have to convert carbs to energy in order to get rid of it? Are you serious? I suggest you do some more research. Here's a thought....if a person has a fat-free diet..but takes in 5 pounds of sugar everyday. Does he get fat? Then is his fat made of carbs?"

Catabolism is the set of metabolic pathways which break down molecules into smaller units and release energy. In catabolism, large molecules such as polysaccharides, lipids, nucleic acids and proteins are broken down into smaller units such as monosaccharides, fatty acids, nucleotides and amino acids, respectively. As molecules such as polysaccharides, proteins and nucleic acids are made from long chains of these small monomer units, the large molecules are called polymers. Cells use the monomers released from breaking down polymers to either construct new polymer molecules (fat) (pay attention Grasshopper this is very important info), or degrade the monomers further to simple waste products, releasing energy.

"Longhaul...I understand you are over 60 years of age and have plenty of life experience...but if you've never had to focus on serious weight-loss using a combination of diet and exercise, you really can't have any idea about it. I don't mean to disrespect... but some of the things you wrote just does not make sense."

Not over 60 yet there Grasshopper. I have been studying nutrition for a number of years. I suggest that you broaden your knowledge base, sometimes what we think we know isn't what is real.

"Plus...do not compare people now with our 'ancestors'. 6000 years ago they had to work to find and obtain their food. The hunter-gatherers and the more recent farmers alike had to move their tail to get food. They never had to 'exercise' in the sense that we do...because they were always moving around."

We are biologically identical to our ancestors of 6000 years ago it takes many generations to "evolve" or adapt. Our digestive system has not had time to evolve into the Big Mac/Hostess Twinkie diet. That's why we need to eat the foods that our ancestors ate just not in the quantity s they did. Calories consumed minis calories burned= weight gain/loss no way around it Grasshopper . Class dismissed...........

You know what...I had a whole rebuttal written..but I don't think I will convince you. You know what they say...old dogs..new tricks...

So stubborn you of the elderly years....

I just want to say:

* Obesity and being overweight are not caused by eating too much and certainly not by eating food with “too much” fat.
* Carbohydrates, not fat, are the cause of excess weight, just as our grandparents’ generation always knew. Eating carbohydrates triggers a hormonal response — insulin secretion — that signals our bodies to accumulate fat. This is why the fewer carbohydrates we consume, the leaner we will be. Sugar, flour and other refined carbohydrates produce an exaggerated version of this response, and so are particularly fattening.
* Exercise doesn’t make us lose weight, it just makes us hungry.

Go ahead and eat a pound of lard...see if that does not make you gain weight.

Go ahead and cut out your carbohydrates. See if it does not make you dizzy and lightheaded.

Go ahead and don't move around. Stay in your bed and see if that doesn't make you hungry.



My post was not aimed at you. It was aimed at the article.




Just one point:
You researched about rice...go research about wheat and see when wheat was domesticated. Then think to yourself which area of the world consumes more wheat per capita.

Hey,,, Grasshopper and " one of elderly years ( old guy , for short)

Don't stop,,, there are a lot of us who are reading this stuff, with the hope of learning something,,, and although the needleing of each other may be fun for you,,, it gets in the way , sometimes.

I enjoy reading the thoughts of those who are able,, as you both seem to be,,,to make rather technical information, readable.

While you don't agree in many points, there are those where you coincide.

The point about not having personal experience at being obese, has some merit in my mind,, in that there are those who can eat anything in any quantity and not gain weight,,, then there is the rest of us. So the idea of perspective could be called into play.

But that's where clinical studies come in. While anecdotal evidence is personal perspective,, well run studies take the "personal" out of it.

My hope is that you both will continue this discussion as it is important to many, here. Then we'll decide who we think is full of it, for ourselves.
ed

I am not trying to convince you of anything facts are facts . You dance around what you say then change the subject. It's hard to have a conversation with someone as flippant as you are. You missed the irony of my post Grasshopper . Humans didn't start eating wheat in large quantity s until modern machinery and fossil fuels made it possible so what's your point. You said " My post was not aimed at you. It was aimed at the article." Then why did you make it personal? Work on your delivery it needs some polish.

ed at 58 I still don't feal like an old guy but the birth of my great grandson has me thinking about that. When I put on enough weight that it was getting hard for me to get around I made a decision to lose weight so I did and have kept it off. I assure you I can't eat anything I want without putting on the lbs. .

Oh I hope you're not serious....

Stop being such a grouchy old man, longhaul. I apologize if I offended you but I think you're missing the bigger picture.

You haven't answered to my question of if you've lost some serious weight. You CANNOT lose weight with absurd ideas like "exercise doesn't make you lose weight... it makes you hungry" or "* Obesity and being overweight are not caused by eating too much and certainly not by eating food with “too much” fat."

I was just pointing out some of the nonsense that was in the article that is NOT fact. And if you still believe those to be true, well then... you can continue to think that way if it floats your boat.

REAL LIFE weight LOSS

Click on that site, longhaul. Educate yourself on what I and everybody that has lost some REAL weight have done to achieve that feat.

And in case you still don't believe that I know something about losing weight...

Before:

265 pounds 35% body fat, 40 in waist. 5K time: 25:00 flat. USMC PFT Score: <200

After:

190 pounds 10% body fat. 5K time: 17:12. USMC PFT Score: 282

Of course I'm serious do the research, first it's rice then it's wheat. Talking down to someone will just piss's them off haven't you learned that yet? Where's your chair T=6 complete? I unlike you was smart enough to stop putting on the weight before I became obese and that makes me stupid? We are all different what works for you may not work for others but the basics don't change. Trying to have a civil conversion with you is like beating a dead horse it just ain't going nowhere. See ya around Grasshopper.

When you two have finished locking horns, you might find this interesting.

It was a programme called Horizon on the BBC.

Horizon: Why Are Thin People Not Fat?

The world is affected by an obesity epidemic, but why is it that not everyone is succumbing? Medical science has been obsessed with this subject and is coming up with some unexpected answers. As it turns out, it is not all about exercise and diet. At the centre of this programme is a controversial overeating experiment that aims to identify exactly what it is about some people that makes it hard for them to bulk up.

Broadcast on: BBC Two, 9:00pm Monday 26th January
Duration: 59 minutes
Available until: 10:59pm Tuesday 21st April
Categories: Factual, Science,Nature & Environment

Just my opinion here, but, I've lost 2 stone over the last year by reducing my carb intake, and alcohol intake. Just reducing the booze and changing the type of bread I eat has made quite a difference.

I'd been gradually putting a couple of pounds on over the last 3-4 years, it creeps up on you. I've now reset my weight, and my diet, and have maintained my weight over the last six months with very little effort.

My personal view is to eat a balanced diet, nothing fancy, just a balanced diet.

Simon

I have been shocked to see the weight gain by some spinal patients.

i dont really get it. eat less do more exercise and dont use your SCI as an excuse.

I totally agree with Yong I'm C2 incomplete with no hand function for me I have a bodybuilders diet and training, I'm 34 and have been in a chair 18yrs, here is a photo taken yesterday after a chest workout.

Elton,, I'm impressed.

Did you become interested in BB before your injury or after rehab?? Do you think that makes a difference??

What, if you don't mind me asking, is your diet like,,, and your excersize routine??

I am an old goat, and definately need to lose a lot of weight,, the majority of which I gained after injury,,,190 before,, 240 now.

And that's with three days a week at the gym,,,,ok,,ok,, only an hour and a half of actual work on those three days...I managed to work thru the pain up until just before Christmas when it got the better of me.

My problem was , I think, that I wasn't seeing any significant improvement,,,, What do you use,,,or you Longhaul or Yong,,,, for incentive,,,, on a daily basis, I mean???

Any thing you guys say will be taken seriously,,,,, well,, not the insults,,,,,,,I'd really like this to be my last winter weighing this much ,,,,,,, but not really my " last" winter.
ed

The Maasai men get 60% of their calories from saturated fats. I have western Europe ancestry and if I tried to eat their diet it would kill me for sure. They are a slim people with very little heart disease in spite of their diet.

The traditional Maasai diet consists of six basic foods: meat, blood, milk, fat, honey, and tree bark. Wild game (except the eland), chicken, fish, and salt are forbidden. Allowable meats include roasted and boiled beef, goat, and mutton. Both fresh and curdled milk are drunk, and animal blood is drunk at special times—after giving birth, after circumcision and excision, or while recovering from an accident. It may be tapped warm from the throat of a cow, or drunk in coagulated form. It can also be mixed with fresh or soured milk, or drunk with therapeutic bark soups (motori). It is from blood that the Maasai obtain salt, a necessary ingredient in the human diet. People of delicate health and babies eat liquid sheep's fat to gain strength.

The Maasai generally eat two meals a day, in the morning and at night. They have a dietary prohibition against mixing milk and meat. They drink milk for ten days—as much as they want—and then eat meat and bark soup for several days in between. Some exceptions to this regimen exist. Children and old people may eat cornmeal or rice porridge and drink tea with sugar. For warriors, however, the sole source of true nourishment is cattle. They consume meat in their forest hideaways (olpul), usually near a shady stream far from the observation of women. Their preferred meal is a mixture of meat, blood, and fat (munono), which is thought to give great strength.

[qoute] our ancestors were hunter gathers they did not get gallons of vegetable oils they ate animal fats. The body can burn fat as is but carbs have to be converted before use.[\/qoute]

I call bunk on any history about dietary health. Even with the obesity epedemic. Today people live longer. All that healthy eating of the hunter gatherer types rarely lived past forty.

Do you have any proof that they didn't live past 40 ? Sitting Bull was 60 when he was murdered, Red Cloud was 87 when he died after living one hard ass life, Geronimo was 79, I could go on. The mortality rate was high for hunter gathers because of war and the dangers of hunting not their diet. How long do you think an obese person would live if they had to gather the food they needed instead of being able to get it all at a store?

People live longer in the western/ industrial world due to better availability of health care, including, perhaps most importantly, antibiotics, coupled with less things in the local environment that will kill you, for example venomous snakes, lions, hippos etc.

Diet has little influence

It's about ALL of the factors above. Genetics, diet and exercise. It all counts. People who are rail skinny with no effort usually inherited a very high metabolism through their genes. Exercise helps to boost our metabolism. Get the heart rate going, build muscle, eat clean. That's my system.

Well said.