You seem like a really reasonable person. Gary Taubes is probably the best authority on weightloss and health right now. Regardless of what the MD's say.

In reply to this comment by pyloricvalve:
That's interesting. When you say people fail, do they start to eat sugar and carbs again and get fat or do they stay not eating sugar and carbs and even so start to get fat again. If it is the former it doesn't mean it's not the correct way to lose weight, it just means people need more determination not to eat sugar and carbs. My impression is that the usual prescription of eat less exercise more is also very hard to maintain in the long run.

Again I strongly recommend the book. It's not so much a diet book as a book about the evolution of the dietary science.

>> ^DocDarm:

>> ^pyloricvalve:
In "Why we get fat", Gary Taubes argues very persuasively that the above is almost entirely wrong. Increasing exercise will have have the effect of increasing hunger or reducing your activity at other times through tiredness. Eating less will likewise reduce your activity level or lead to levels of hunger that are intolerable in the long term. The way to lose weight according to him is the Atkins, South Beach, Primal method of reducing sugar and carb intake to something very low. Personally I found it very convincing and I strongly recommend the book.

As a medical doctor, I call bullshit on this guy. Look at Atkins/South Beach's effect on peoples weight 1 year AFTER the diet. I see people go on diets all the time. They almost universally fail after 1 year. (Remember, we're talking about LONG-TERM weight loss, not SHORT-TERM weight loss...Atkins/South Beach perform very well in the short term!) My patients that go to the gym to lose weight do much, much better....but only if they KEEP going to the gym.

That's interesting. When you say people fail, do they start to eat sugar and carbs again and get fat or do they stay not eating sugar and carbs and even so start to get fat again. If it is the former it doesn't mean it's not the correct way to lose weight, it just means people need more determination not to eat sugar and carbs. My impression is that the usual prescription of eat less exercise more is also very hard to maintain in the long run.

Again I strongly recommend the book. It's not so much a diet book as a book about the evolution of the dietary science.

>> ^DocDarm:

>> ^pyloricvalve:
In "Why we get fat", Gary Taubes argues very persuasively that the above is almost entirely wrong. Increasing exercise will have have the effect of increasing hunger or reducing your activity at other times through tiredness. Eating less will likewise reduce your activity level or lead to levels of hunger that are intolerable in the long term. The way to lose weight according to him is the Atkins, South Beach, Primal method of reducing sugar and carb intake to something very low. Personally I found it very convincing and I strongly recommend the book.

As a medical doctor, I call bullshit on this guy. Look at Atkins/South Beach's effect on peoples weight 1 year AFTER the diet. I see people go on diets all the time. They almost universally fail after 1 year. (Remember, we're talking about LONG-TERM weight loss, not SHORT-TERM weight loss...Atkins/South Beach perform very well in the short term!) My patients that go to the gym to lose weight do much, much better....but only if they KEEP going to the gym.

>> ^pyloricvalve:

In "Why we get fat", Gary Taubes argues very persuasively that the above is almost entirely wrong. Increasing exercise will have have the effect of increasing hunger or reducing your activity at other times through tiredness. Eating less will likewise reduce your activity level or lead to levels of hunger that are intolerable in the long term. The way to lose weight according to him is the Atkins, South Beach, Primal method of reducing sugar and carb intake to something very low. Personally I found it very convincing and I strongly recommend the book.


As a medical doctor, I call bullshit on this guy. Look at Atkins/South Beach's effect on peoples weight 1 year AFTER the diet. I see people go on diets all the time. They almost universally fail after 1 year. (Remember, we're talking about LONG-TERM weight loss, not SHORT-TERM weight loss...Atkins/South Beach perform very well in the short term!) My patients that go to the gym to lose weight do much, much better....but only if they KEEP going to the gym.

>> ^pyloricvalve:

In "Why we get fat", Gary Taubes argues very persuasively that the above is almost entirely wrong. Increasing exercise will have have the effect of increasing hunger or reducing your activity at other times through tiredness. Eating less will likewise reduce your activity level or lead to levels of hunger that are intolerable in the long term. The way to lose weight according to him is the Atkins, South Beach, Primal method of reducing sugar and carb intake to something very low. Personally I found it very convincing and I strongly recommend the book.


Yup, I've done Keto combined with Intermittent Fasting (I usually eat one meal a day after I get home from work, sometimes I eat lunch too if we go out and eat at my workplace) and I've lost ~30 kg (~66 pounds) in 5-6 months and I have not been hungry once since I entered ketosis. No exercise involved at all either. (Yes yes... 1 data point does not a fact make, especially when they are subjective feelings)

So instead of eating sugar with more sugar and fat-free foods with added sugar in it to make it palatable... eat natural full-fat products and protein and be full all day... or you could eat sugar and have an insulin spike 30 mins later and end up with a lower blood sugar than you started with... unless you eat again. Ergo the "You should 5 meals a day" thing.

Some linky things
Scientific sources about the effects of Ketogenic Diet
1 Cancer
2 Alzheimers
3 Diabetes (Type 2)
4 Cardiovascular health and Dietary saturated fat
5 Review of LC diet and health markers

Blog
6 Cholesterol (Blog by a doctor so iffy source but interesting stuff anyway; I recommend reading all parts really)
7 How we came to believe cholesterol and fat is bad for us (From the same blog. 1 hour talk on the subject)

Video series/lectures
8 Cancer again (Video lecture)
9 The role of fat in weight loss (Video series, 3 parts)
10 Why we get fat (Video series, 3 parts)
11 2011 Public Forum in San Francisco at Nutrition and Health Conference (Video series, 4 part playlist)

You can also look into some of the videos on the sift such as:
12 The Food Revolution (Video/lecture sifted on VS)
13 Sugar the bitter truth.

(Seems they are both sifted by me... Oh my... self promotion galore!)

In "Why we get fat", Gary Taubes argues very persuasively that the above is almost entirely wrong. Increasing exercise will have have the effect of increasing hunger or reducing your activity at other times through tiredness. Eating less will likewise reduce your activity level or lead to levels of hunger that are intolerable in the long term. The way to lose weight according to him is the Atkins, South Beach, Primal method of reducing sugar and carb intake to something very low. Personally I found it very convincing and I strongly recommend the book.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

Wood fiber has about the same energy density as carbs, so it is essentially cooking a hamburger for your electronics <img class="smiley" src="http://cdn.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/teeth.gif">

Burning wood isn't exactly "Green" though, so this is a clever marketing angle that is mostly untrue.

Edit, did some googling, and found their electrical output is about 2Watts (not enough to power most light bulbs), and they cost about 130 bucks. Those kind of cost to power ratios are WAAAAAAAAY out of touch of the needs of third world counties, you need kilowatts before you have any real needs met. If you ran this 24/7 for a year, the annual cost of electricity...not including the burning material is 7.42 dollars per KWH. The average cost of electricity in the US is about 10 cents per KWH, marking this as a third world solution is pretty shitty.


Actually, they have a bigger HomeStove as well, and neither it nor the CampStove are really meant to have a primary purpose of generating electricity - the main purpose is to cook things, and the surplus electricity is a nice side effect. According to this page: http://www.biolitestove.com/homestove/homestove-technology/ , the reason this is better than a regular fire or older rocket stove is fewer CO emissions (eco-friendly) and less smoke (health hazard) for cooking the same meals.

In India, there are tons of people with mobile phones, but the power grid is not reliable and there are frequent rolling blackouts. Of course, people could just wait for power to come back to charge their phone, but if you are cooking at the time, why not use the stove?

I think the high price of the CampStove is meant to help lower the price of the HomeStove for these other markets.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

Wood fiber has about the same energy density as carbs, so it is essentially cooking a hamburger for your electronics

Burning wood isn't exactly "Green" though, so this is a clever marketing angle that is mostly untrue.


Well if you're going to do it *anyway*...

Wood fiber has about the same energy density as carbs, so it is essentially cooking a hamburger for your electronics


Burning wood isn't exactly "Green" though, so this is a clever marketing angle that is mostly untrue.



Edit, did some googling, and found their electrical output is about 2Watts (not enough to power most light bulbs), and they cost about 130 bucks. Those kind of cost to power ratios are WAAAAAAAAY out of touch of the needs of third world counties, you need kilowatts before you have any real needs met. If you ran this 24/7 for a year, the annual cost of electricity...not including the burning material is 7.42 dollars per KWH. The average cost of electricity in the US is about 10 cents per KWH, marking this as a third world solution is pretty shitty.

I never had a problem with the whole "fast zombie vs. slow zombie" debate, as technically you could have fast zombies in the first 6-12 hours, before rigor mortis set in. Then you'd start having the classic variety of zombie.

My biggest problem is figuring out how zeds move after death in the first place. Muscles require ATP (adenosine triphosphate) in order to move; it is the primary and only fuel that muscles use. ATP is broken down from glycogen; glycogen is produced by the liver from the carbs, fat and proteins in the food you eat. In order for glycogen to get from your liver to your muscles, your heart has to pump it through your circulatory system. But if our current clinical definition of death is no cardiac activity, then how do zombies move?

*eat fatty foods and carbs before drinking
*drink water
*choose lighter colored liquors
*drink water
*aspirin before bed
*drink water
*eggs,bananas,fruit juice in the morning

*promote the good information

>> ^deathcow:

stop eating crap, start eating 40% protein 40% carbs 20% fat and workout 5 times a week.... easy enough right


something like chickentuna.com

stop eating crap, start eating 40% protein 40% carbs 20% fat and workout 5 times a week.... easy enough right

>> ^xxovercastxx:

What people don't seem to realize is that Atkins is starvation with a full belly. Yes, if you reduce your useable energy intake to zero, you'll quickly start dropping fat... and muscle... and whatever else your body can break down to fill the gap.
When you go back to eating normally, you'll probably pack it right back on. That's how our bodies generally respond to starvation.
The real kicker is how many people think carbs are unhealthy as a result of this stupid diet.
Back around 2000 when I was sick with an ulcer, acid reflux, and a generally uncooperative GI tract, I was telling someone about how I ate a lot of plain pasta because it never irritated my gut, it was reasonably healthy, and at least I was eating something. I was about 40lbs underweight at this point, so I had to take what I could get. Someone overheard me and said, "Oh, all those carbs are really unhealthy."


It's not starvation - fat has twice as much 'usable energy' as carbohydrates have per gram. Your mind will tell you it's starving for the first few days, because it takes time to build up enough enzymes to efficiently process the different form of energy than it usually gets, but it all ends up as ATP eventually. You're probably right about some people thinking carbs are bad because of this diet, but that's assuming they treat the diet like a religion and don't look at any other information, which is not going to be the case for everyone - and heck, quite a few of the sources of easily available carbs these days are pretty horribawful.

Also, if you look at the research, those participants in low carb/high fat/adequate protein diets usually fair just as good, or better than, high carb participants in terms of keeping the weight off after the diet is over.

I find I quite easy to drastically reduce carbs and eliminate potatoes, pasta and bread all together. I suppose it's a matter of taste.

That being said, the food pyramid has always been a sham, with powerful agricultural and food lobbies holding too much influence over the politicians who create it...time and time again throughout its history. Doesn't seem unreasonable given what we know about health at the moment, compared to the beginning of the 20th century, to believe that grains and starchy foods should NOT form the basis of a healthy diet.

What people don't seem to realize is that Atkins is starvation with a full belly. Yes, if you reduce your useable energy intake to zero, you'll quickly start dropping fat... and muscle... and whatever else your body can break down to fill the gap.

When you go back to eating normally, you'll probably pack it right back on. That's how our bodies generally respond to starvation.

The real kicker is how many people think carbs are unhealthy as a result of this stupid diet.

Back around 2000 when I was sick with an ulcer, acid reflux, and a generally uncooperative GI tract, I was telling someone about how I ate a lot of plain pasta because it never irritated my gut, it was reasonably healthy, and at least I was eating something. I was about 40lbs underweight at this point, so I had to take what I could get. Someone overheard me and said, "Oh, all those carbs are really unhealthy."