Yea Dr.McDougall is a diet guru. I guess anyone who promotes a diet is a diet guru. I was thinking of the kind of people who don't have any real evidence to back up their claims. Dr.McDougall sites studies to back up his claims.

Yea I do tend to get enthusiastic about Dr.McDougall's ideas. I have been losing weight without any real effort on my part. I have had wight issues since I was a kid. I found something this is working great and is easy to stick with. So yea I am going to get excited about that. As an autistic person I am prone to getting fixated on things. Whatever I happen to be into at the time I want to share with people. In the past the sharing got to the point of being annoying. This post was part of that. Was was going through my mind was "I want to share this. Hey many people have starches in their disaster food stash. I bet people on the ZS forum would be interested in Dr.McDougall's ideas". Like I said, I wasn't expecting the strong reaction I got. Now I am regretting having started this thread.






Not all carbs are the same. High amounts of sugar; especially in liquid form are a great way to pack on the calories. Recently there was a week where I only lost a half a pound. I realized that was due to consuming too much juice. Whole starch foods on the other hand have a lot of substance. So it's difficult to get too many calories from those. I am not particularly active. But I have been losing weight by getting most of my calories from: rice, beans, potatoes, wheat, oats, corn ETC. Boiled potatoes are the most satiating food out there. They rank 323% on the Satiety Index.

http://www.mendosa.com/satiety.htm

The things high on the Satiety index tend to be starches. There are a few that aren't however. Ling Fish is 225%. The point is; since starch foods tend to be very satiating, you don't eat as much. I have found that over time my brains satiety signal is more more reliable and I will stop eating. In the past I would want to keep eating even though I was full. I would want to finish every last bite of food. I still have a tendency to serve my self too much food. But I don't feel the need to eat every light bite.



Isn't that what keto diets are about? It's my understanding that ketosis is using fat as a fuel source. It's also my understanding that cells are meant to run off glucose but can run of ketones from fat in the event of starvation. Of course I am not a nutritional scientist or dietitian so I could be wrong. I am just going by things I have found online. I have some vision issues that cause some reading problems. So much of my information comes from youtube videos. I would love to sit down and read entire studies; however after reading for a bit my brain calls it quits. This is especially true for heavy duty subjects like scientific studies. So any info I get from scientific studies is largely what someone else says the study says. I would hope that people like Dr.McDougall and Dr.Gregor aren't going to be misrepresenting the studies they site.

Also the_alias, I would be interested in seeing some of the negative commentary you found on starch based diets. Obviously anecdotes aren't as good as rigorous scientific studies. But I would be interested in hearting about people who had problems with a starch based diet.

_________________


Emergency prep and Autism

Acronyms

My photography and art

Ketogenic diets have to be both low in carbs and low in protein to work.

When your calories are mostly from fat, the body converts them into ketones for energy. When it has more protein available, it breaks down the proteins (gluconeogenesis) into sugars.

Some strength athletes and bodybuilders use a ketogenic diet. They typically use a "cyclic ketogenic diet", which means they eat a ton of carbs on a "cheat day" for metabolic benefits and then go into ketosis over the next few days. It's highly controversial but some swear by it. I couldn't tell you if any of them actually got big while on a keto diet, though.

The anti-low carb crowd argues that protein's muscle building effects work best in the presence of carbs, because the carbs prevent gluconeogenesis from wasting your protein on energy needs.

I could go on about potential advantages and disadvantages and controversies. But really, high carb wins for just about everything you want to do. Contrary to popular belief, people are getting fat on greasy chicken wings and cheesecake, not oatmeal. If carbs are making anybody fat, it's probably from sugary calorie-dense drinks that don't fill you up.

Purple, the problem with everybody who's published a layman's book on diet is that they have to make it interesting and palatable to an audience if they're going to make money. Perhaps there are some people who don't care about money but most of them don't bother publishing books, and the publisher certainly cares. The MD or PhD behind their name means they ought to be capable of doing a solid analysis, but doesn't mean they necessarily have. I cannot believe the crap that people who have the same degree, and sometimes specialty training, as I do sometimes come out with in the media.

I haven't read a single diet book (and that includes Ornish, who's done more actual research on what he proposed than most) for hi carb or low carb that really impressed me with its evidence base. A lot of them contain some universal advice (excercise, don't eat too much!) which is good.

I've seen a lot of allegedly scientific books with footnotes, citing studies. If you look at the studies, however, they're talking about what cells do in test tubes, or animals do, or citing some other portion of the pseudoscientific literature that agrees with them. Or occasionally citing their own prior publications. Even if all that pans out, the studies themselves commonly are of low quality (not enough participants, not enough follow up, no blinding, etc.) There may be significant good studies that are being totally ignored because their results don't fit with the book's thesis. And even then, I've had the experience of reading a study that had been cited as saying a particular thing - and realizing that it did not, in fact, support that thing. It's absolutely maddening.

I'm in sympathy with anyone who might have to try and read primary research in a field that isn't theirs. I've attempted it, occasionally, I'm pretty damn smart but if it's not my field, I can usually tell I'm missing something, and it's a ton of work and time to try to get enough background to form a half-educated opinion. And that's before we factor in any reading issues people have.

I'm not aware of any good skeptical youtubes or podcasts on this, maybe someone else is. I would definitely be wary of anything that doesn't seriously address potential critiques and acknowledge it's own shortcomings.

Also cookies, candy, french fries, and a lot of highly processed but tasty tasty carbs. That's what does me in. Jelly beans are a problem, pinto beans not so much.

_________________
"When someone shows you who they are believe them" M. Angelou

The carbs that seem to facilitate weight gain the most are things like corn syrup laden beverages. Of course excessive amounts of sugar are bad for you. People like to blame carbs when that's not the problem. A baked potato is only fattening if you drown it in butter, sour cream, and bacon bits. But people want to blame the potato. It's not the pasta that makes you fat; it's the creamy sauce, meat, and cheese. Creamy sauces, butter and the like are great ways to pile on calories. Four months ago my diet was relatively healthy but I wasn't losing any weight. The culprit seems to have been my liberal use of coconut oil. Once I switched to a starch based diet and cut back on my use of oil; the weight started coming off. Regardless of whether or not fat makes you fat; excessive calories will make you fat. In my case the excessive calories were from fat.

_________________


Emergency prep and Autism

Acronyms

My photography and art

I have noticed that about dietary science. It seems that you can find a study to support just about any position. People like Dr.McDougall and Dr.Gregor are going to be biased to an extent because they are vegan. Although Dr.Gregor is trying to make nutritional studies more accessible to the masses. However we are still relying on him to tell us what the study says and what the implications of that are. And we are limited to whatever studies he choses to make a video about. Admittedly most of the info I have been looking is from a more vegan/plant based, high carb approach. I haven't spent much time looking at Paleo or other low carb stuff. Perhaps I should start looking at some of that too. Look at information from several angles and from there do the best I can to decide what is most likely correct.

_________________


Emergency prep and Autism

Acronyms

My photography and art

Weston Price was a dentist who based his conclusions solely on the condition of various indigenous people's teeth. He was mostly an idiot.

Duo, is that 7th Day Adventist study the one that also said vegetarians are less likely to get Alzheimer's?

Sent via carrier wave

_________________
Holding a grudge is like swallowing poison and expecting someone else to die.

"Indigenous" is a heavily abused word. He studied people who were "indigenous" to Switzerland and the British Isles, and he combined that information with studies of rats and his own patients in the United States.

His "indigenous" studies were uncontrolled and epidemiological in nature, and the conclusions would be more solid with a careful survey of breastfeeding habits among the populations studied.

However, his conclusions are mostly in line with scientific knowledge and common sense. If you eat a poor diet, your teeth and bones become demineralized and you also become more susceptible to disease. His nutritional recommendations and interventions were also a lot more conventional than many would like to admit. A diet of whole wheat, vegetables, fruit, meat stews, seafoods and supplementary vitamin D would be pretty unassuming to anybody but a vegan or paleo guru.

If some quacks use his name today, it is the quacks who should be attacked, not a respected dentist of the 1930s. You don't attack Charles Darwin for not having understood how DNA works. You study him as a guy who advanced science and then you study how the field has advanced beyond him.

When I switched to meat eater in my early twenties (pretty recently) a few things changed. I also use coconut oil, or lard, or beef fat now for cooking, or duck fat. It's really had no negative effects on me weight wise. Heaviest I've ever been was 180lbs whilst still on a veggie/pesc diet. I also experimented with paleo esque eating for a fair while - even most recently I've done a two week no carb/no sugar kick just for the discipline of it. Again didn't ever see radical changes, probably because I was already a healthy weight.

I've changed my body though via gym going and developing an interest in that. Even when I wasn't eating much bread/pasta/rice I liked my potatoes, it becomes a taste preference. Bacon and eggs everyday for breakfast is fine I think, but for the monotony!

As someone who's visited the US extensively the biggest difference is sedentary attitude everyone has and the ease and availability of heavily heavily processed foods. Europe and the rest of the West is now caught up I should add...
Last trip to the US I spent 10 minutes in a supermarket looking for a loaf of bread that had no fucking sugar or sugar substitute for fucks sake!

RE Fat burning and energy stuff hopefully the info below will help.

This pictures are all from an excellent book: Training for the New Alpinism.

_________________
Man is a beast of prey

I got some blood work done recently. My cholesterol was already in good shape already. Now it's even better. So what I am doing seems to be working.

When doing a new diet it's a good idea to get blood work to make sure the diet is working.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I717 using Tapatalk

_________________


Emergency prep and Autism

Acronyms

My photography and art