New Thread: Fat Head vs. Super Size Me

[Coffee]

I liked Fat Head, too.  

However-- it seems to inspire the argument that: Less calories & less carbs = healthier.  And ignores the difference between premium quality food and low quality food.  

I personally believe the a high protein diet is best.  But that doesn't mean dog food and organic chicken are the same. It's like putting cheap gas in a new car.  Sure, the car will run on cheap gas.  But how will the quality of that cheap gas affect the long term function of the car?  As I remember it, Fat Head kinda glosses over this issue in his zeal to prove that fast food "really isn't so bad."

[craigr]

I lost 20 lbs over the last year and I am now back to my normal weight. I did this by not eating sugars, refined grains and other over the top carbs except on rare occasions. I also avoid eating any trans fats and try to eat mono/poly unsaturated fats and don't go crazy with saturated fats. I eat a lot of fish. I also eat chicken but try to limit my red meat after a several month long experiment where a heavy red meat diet boosted my cholesterol levels (but I still lost weight). Now that I don't eat the red meat as much the numbers have gone back to acceptable ranges.

When I was eating the recommended FDA diet with grains as a focus I put on 1-2lbs a year no matter what I was doing exercise wise. Even when I was extremely active I would do this. The weight just kept coming on.

When I stopped eating the way the govt. recommended the weight came off. This was focusing more on fat and protein and a lot less on carbs and grains. But since the govt. is wrong in just about everything they recommend and do this shouldn't have been a surprise to me. For all I know the grain/corn industry just paid the right people to lobby the FDA to put grains as the #1 diet staple. Who knows?

So I agree with the Fat Head movie. In fact, after I watched the movie I wrote to the guy that made it and commented that my findings agreed with his. He and I both agree that the FDA and standard medical advice the past 30 years to avoid fats at all costs has been a disaster. I think we will look back at this era of time and realize what a disaster it really was.

FWIW. I agree more with the "paleo" diet people that humans just didn't evolve to eat lots of grains and vegetables only. When I took a four day advanced wilderness survival course we had to scavenge for all our food by and large. There are no fields of grains in the wild. You have to eat animal protein/fat or you will die. Everyone, including the instructor, noted that you just can't get enough calories in the wild by eating vegetables and wild edibles alone. You have to hunt for game or fish and you better do it well and fast. This cemented the idea in my head that humans truly are omnivores and they in no way evolved from being vegetarians as some people believe. If you spend a week out in the woods trying to live just on vegetation you are going to be hurting in a bad way.

So yes I agree that McDonald's is not the best place to eat all the time. But the culprit is likely the soda, fries and buns and less likely to be the "meat" they are using.

[l82start]

i have experimented with a high protein high fat diet and found it worked very well, i heard about it from a friend who also had good success with it,
i didn't go the MacDonald's fast food route like the movie fat head, i mostly stuck with a home cooking version of the diet...

for a interesting lecture on the subject that is a less "out to be controversial" than fat head check out this http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 7661765149#

[moda0306]

I think lowfat (1% or 2%) Cottage cheese is another excellent food with low, good fat, extremely high protein and almost no carbs.  Plus it's quite tasty IMO.

[craigr]

Thanks for the video. I will watch it. Gary Taubes book "Good Calories. Bad Calories." is awesome. So are Dr. Eades books "Protein Power". I also enjoyed Primal Blueprint which is a more paleo diet kind of book. All of these books are hitting around the central theme of limiting carb intake and focusing on high quality protein sources with good fats and vegetables as well. I ate a lot of bacon and red meat in one month with limited carbs just to prove to myself that eating fat does not make you fat. It doesn't. I lost more weight that month than I ever did following a low-fat high-carb diet and I was never hungry.

Even if you aren't fat eating carbs, chances are that your blood numbers could be bad. I know someone that was thin as a rail but pre-Type II diabetic. He went on a low-carb diet and several months later was completely off his high blood pressure medications and all of his blood work was very good. He stopped and reversed the Type II diabetes and required no further treatment.

It may not work for everyone, but when this kind of eating works it works well. I'm a convert.

[moda0306]

I find the low-carb diets get a bad rap by some when it's 90% about avoiding the ultra high-carb processed foods from wheat, corn, etc.

At that point, you can eat a lot of fruit and non-starchy vegetables and still get very few carbs.  Also, to eat a lot of fish, chicken, eggs and cottage cheese is probably better than steak, egg yolks and bacon every morning.  Either way, cutting the starchy carbs out of your diet is a must IMO.  If you're eating carrotts and mixed fruits/nuts as your non-meat at that point you're doing much better than the white bread, chips, buns, PASTA, etc.

[l82start]

i have read good calories bad calories, it is a good book, i ate a lot of red meat and chicken and bacon and  i snacked on pork rinds (which sounds awful but is fine for the diet and helped my salt cravings) i am a convert as well... i need to do the diet again, i regained a bit of the weight i lost, then leveled out and i am now staying the same weight and eating some (but not a lot) of carbs

[craigr]

After my own tests, I would suggest limiting saturated fats to the back of the line. When I cut the saturated fats and replaced them with Omega-3 fats (fish), mono/poly unsaturated (olive oil, almonds, etc.) my blood numbers showed marked improvement and I still lost weight.

Maybe reserve a carb blowout day for one day a week if needed. You'll still lose weight but be able to appease the sweet tooth. I've found that I actually have lost my sweet tooth by and large. What I use to eat regularly I now find much too sweet and I may have a hard time even finishing it. Even finishing a can of soda is hard for me now. It is just is too much for one sitting.

When I look at a potato or bowl of pasta I instantly transform it in my head to a big bowl of sugar in front of me. That's what the body converts it to once it hits your system.

[moda0306]

If "good" fats, proteins, low-carb high-vitamin fruit/veggies & water are the "food PP," what's pasta & bread?  Corporate Bonds?

[l82start]

i did OK with sweets once i kicked the soda habit (before switching to low carb i was drinking 4 or 5 a day), salty snacks are my weakness and low carb/no carb ones are hard to find
 i wasn't watching my blood numbers and i don't know what they are now, it would be interesting to have a before and after picture of how this diet effects them though, switching to fish and unsaturated fats seems like a good variation if the saturated fats are causing a problem..

[craigr]

If "good" fats, proteins, low-carb high-vitamin fruit/veggies & water are the "food PP," what's pasta & bread?  Corporate Bonds?

Pasta and Bread are penny stocks. Fun to gamble with, but probably not good for long term success.

[Lone Wolf]

I am not surprised to find that people on this forum have a solid understanding of nutritional issues as well.  This is getting to be a pattern with you people. 

My grand unifying theory on all of this is that a fairly big protein intake has many benefits (including satiety and lean mass preservation, two crucial elements of long-term body fat level management.)  Protein also packs a high thermic effect of food, costing your body calories to process.  Beyond that, staying within a certain caloric "budget" appropriate to your metabolism is pretty much the whole rest of the puzzle.

IMO the remainder of one's food choices should just be down to preference, other health effects (Omega-3's, fiber, very little trans fats), and appetite control (fiber again, protein again, don't "drink" your calories.)

I personally am not a low-card dieter, but I think that lower-carb diets work well because they hit a lot of these important points (high protein intake, lots of fibrous veggies, no drinking calories, etc.)  Fibrous fruits and veggies especially are IMO unlikely to cause people any trouble.  Refined grains do make a lot of people's appetites race, although this isn't something I personally suffer from.  It's a good thing, too, because I greatly enjoy pasta, breads, macaroni, kiddie cereal, etc!

[Wonk]

In a prior life, I founded a company that prepared lower carb (zone-ish), healthy meals that were portion controlled, packed fresh and delivered to local clients.  It was the antithesis of the pre-packaged, super-processed, 20-year shelf life nutri-system model.  Fresh, healthy food has been one of my top passions (you can guess what my other one is).

Some things to think about:

1. Agreed with one of the prior comments that quality of food is just as important--if not more important--than macro-nutrient profiles.  I don't do McDonalds, regardless of the carb component.  More on this later....

2. Calories in vs. Calories out was invalidated long ago.  Composition of macro-nutrient levels has a profound affect on the thermic affect of food.  Additionally, hormonal and enzymatic feedback loops are completely different in high-carb vs mid to low-carb diets.  Let's say you burn 2000 calories/day.  I can feed you 3000 calories of protein and fat and you will lose weight without exercise, guaranteed.  Conversely, if I fed you 1700 calories of high glycemic carbs with little protein or fat, you would most likely lose weight but your body fat levels would actually go up.  We call that "turning a big fat person into a small fat person."  Want more on thermic effects of food and environment?  Try Ray Cronise's take on ice therapy:

http://hypothermics.com/home/

3. As you can imagine, I'm a big fan of a high-protein, vegetable and legume diet that is also high in minimally-processed fats.  I eat lots of fat--saturated and non-saturated.  The Eades' have contributed much on this subject and I encourage everyone to read their books.  I stay away from as much sugar, fruit juices and refined grains (or any grains for that matter) as possible.  Tons of quality research supporting this.

4. If you think macro-nutrient diets become confusing, wait until you look at the research between animals/fish that are fed natural diets vs. corn-based diets.  Mind-blowing.  In short, corn is bad.  Corn is fed to everything--cows, fish, you name it.  Why?  Because it's cheap--subsidized by the federal government as a result of lobbying.  And it completely screws up the health benefits of eating the animal itself, which in turn screws up the person eating the animal (omega 6 to 3 imbalances out the wazoo). 

What does that do to you?  Screws up your entire blood profile--and that's only the stuff we know of.  As a result, I only eat grass-fed beef, and I eat a lot of it.  I eat lots of grass-fed butter too.  I drink lots of whole milk from grass-fed cows.  The saturated fat content of my diet is pretty high and my blood profile is perfect (save for a D3 deficiency because I'm a pale WASP that uses sunscreen and lives in a colder climate).  Long story short--do yourself a favor and get in touch with a local rancher who will sell you a grass-fed, no-hormone cow.  Split it with a few families (about 350lbs a side) and get in touch with your inner carnivore.

5. I agree that humans are omnivores, but operate best on a hunter-gatherer diet.  If hard times come, I'll hunt and eat the vegetarians first because they'll probably be too weak to put up a fight.  As craig mentioned, there's no way the whole world can live on vegetables alone.  Additionally, I don't buy into the ethics of vegetarianism.  But that's another thread...

6. Back to the government-sponsored high carb diet conspiracy theory.  It's a verifiable fact that the corn and edible oils (ie--hydrogenated oils) industries lobbied and funded bogus research to support their businesses.  This dates back to Ancel Keys research that has been completely debunked.  Safe rule of thumb--if the government tells you something, do the opposite and you'll most likely live longer.

As a side note, moda--I agree that short, intense exercise is best (weight training, sprinting, etc).  From research on long-distance runners, they have enlarged hearts and higher propensity for heart disease compared with peers in the short-duration exercise camp.  They are typically healthier than joe sixpack who sits on the couch, but they are not an optimally healthy bunch.  They usually have more frequent joint replacements later in life as well. 

Just for kicks, a few years ago I joined a friends team for an adventure race.  It was 27 miles completely off-road: about 10 miles mountain running, 14 miles mountain biking, 2 miles canoeing and 1 mile swim.  It sucked and the pre-race training was way too much of a commitment.  Good to check off the list of things to do in life, but I'm just not interested in that sort of thing long term.  Give me an olympic platform, bumper plates and a 100-meter dash and I'll be happy.

Oh....don't forget the red wine!

[MediumTex]

4. If you think macro-nutrient diets become confusing, wait until you look at the research between animals/fish that are fed natural diets vs. corn-based diets.  Mind-blowing.  In short, corn is bad.  Corn is fed to everything--cows, fish, you name it.  Why?  Because it's cheap--subsidized by the federal government as a result of lobbying.  And it completely screws up the health benefits of eating the animal itself, which in turn screws up the person eating the animal (omega 6 to 3 imbalances out the wazoo).  

What does that do to you?  Screws up your entire blood profile--and that's only the stuff we know of.  

Not content to foul up our own internal fuel systems, in recent years we have also taken to feeding corn to our cars in the form of ethanol.  The parallels between what corn does to our bodies and what ethanol does to our cars are interesting, ironic and instructive.

It's also interesting how hard it is to get cows to eat corn without it making them sick.  Apparently, without constant antibiotics and hormones, corn would basically be inedible to cows--it causes stomach and intestinal inflammation that leads to all sorts of other cow maladies.  Thus, when you hear people talking about stopping the cow hormones and antibiotics, I think that would basically mean no more corn as cow-feed, which means the whole idea is probably a non-starter--it would require the whole cattle industry to be overhauled.

[craigr]

Wonk's post is excellent. I also think the kind of calories eaten matters a lot. It's not simple arithmetic. Carb calories are different than protein/fat calories in my experience, too.

I'm still fighting the saturated fat issue while I play with my blood numbers. I found that large consumptions of even grass feed beef raised my numbers way high if it had too much saturated fat. Most of the LDL cholesterol was pattern A which is larger molecules and not supposed to be as bad. But the other markers were not going in a good direction. I am still researching the cholesterol issue, but the LDL component (and IDL, VLDL and Lp(a)) I think are still valid concerns until I can convince myself otherwise (which may happen). For now I'm erring on the side of caution though.

The past 30 days I cut out most saturated fats and focused on fats from fish and nuts with protein and vegetables. My cholesterol numbers dropped rapidly after just 10 days.

Now there is controversy over the cholesterol theory of coronary heart disease, but I do try to limit saturated fats especially if I can instead eat fish oil derived fats, olive oils or oil from almonds, etc. I am not saturated fat free, but do try to not specifically gorge myself on it if I don't need to. I don't touch trans fats at all. They are really bad news.

BTW. I found this new franchise called Any Lab Test Now! (www.anylabtesting.com) that will do just about any blood work for you without a doctor's order. I was frustrated that the cholesterol screens the doctors would do was so crude (just HDL, LDL and Triglycerides). They also wouldn't allow me to get more frequent checks so I could see the effect of my diet.

Instead, I went to the local Any Lab Testing office and got the VAP cholesterol test. It breaks about over a dozen markers and cost $79 vs. the $130 the hospital charged me (I have a high deductible plan). Not just this, but the lab testing place doesn't take Medicare or Medicaid as well as some other health schemes. So that means that people like me paying cash aren't subsidizing the govt. health care users with my money. I pay them cash at the lowest price and they give me the most state of the art blood test around. It's free market wonderfulness.

Also, red wine is awesome and good for you. A two-fer.

[Lone Wolf]

2. Calories in vs. Calories out was invalidated long ago.  Composition of macro-nutrient levels has a profound affect on the thermic affect of food.  Additionally, hormonal and enzymatic feedback loops are completely different in high-carb vs mid to low-carb diets.  Let's say you burn 2000 calories/day.  I can feed you 3000 calories of protein and fat and you will lose weight without exercise, guaranteed.  Conversely, if I fed you 1700 calories of high glycemic carbs with little protein or fat, you would most likely lose weight but your body fat levels would actually go up.  We call that "turning a big fat person into a small fat person."  Want more on thermic effects of food and environment?  Try Ray Cronise's take on ice therapy:

Tons of good thoughts, Wonk.  Naturally, I insist on harping only on the one point we disagree on -- whether calories in vs. calories out is true.  In my experience, it is.

I classify thermic effect of food (the energy your body must expend to process a given food) as part of the "calories out" side of the equation.  Thus, I think that if a person follows the general guideline of putting away about 1g protein \ lb. of bodyweight, they enjoy a great benefit from that increased TEF.  (I'm not aware of any significant TEF benefit from fats.  I believe that only protein has this property.)

Retention of lean mass requires sufficient protein intake and then some level of resistance training (with resistance training being by far the most important part.)  There is a metabolic cost associated with retaining muscle mass, a cost your body will only pay if the tissue appears to serve some purpose (like picking up heavy stuff.)

In the end, though, it's calories in vs. calories out still governs whether we are in an overall anabolic (getting bigger) or catabolic (getting smaller) state.

One extreme example (that I don't endorse) is the now-famous Twinkie dieting nutrition professor.  He ate a bunch of snack cakes and other assorted goodies for two months but maintained a calorie deficit.  The result was that he lost 27 pounds, 24 of which were fat.  Again, your way of eating is much, much better for the many health-related reasons you mentioned (and the professor would have done better with more protein.)  However, it showed that calories in vs. calories out still holds true.

[l82start]

i am not expert enough to argue it myself, but the lecture i linked to earlier gives an interesting argument against calories in vs. calories out, it is fairly close to the beginning of the video if i remember correctly, i am curious how you would answer it,

[Wonk]

First of all, thanks for starting a thread like this guys.  I officially got zero work accomplished this afternoon.  Putting a food & fitness topic in front of me is like putting coke and a hooker in front of Charlie Sheen.  I know I shouldn't, but.....

2. Calories in vs. Calories out was invalidated long ago.  Composition of macro-nutrient levels has a profound affect on the thermic affect of food.  Additionally, hormonal and enzymatic feedback loops are completely different in high-carb vs mid to low-carb diets.  Let's say you burn 2000 calories/day.  I can feed you 3000 calories of protein and fat and you will lose weight without exercise, guaranteed.  Conversely, if I fed you 1700 calories of high glycemic carbs with little protein or fat, you would most likely lose weight but your body fat levels would actually go up.  We call that "turning a big fat person into a small fat person."  Want more on thermic effects of food and environment?  Try Ray Cronise's take on ice therapy:

Tons of good thoughts, Wonk.  Naturally, I insist on harping only on the one point we disagree on -- whether calories in vs. calories out is true.  In my experience, it is.

I classify thermic effect of food (the energy your body must expend to process a given food) as part of the "calories out" side of the equation.  Thus, I think that if a person follows the general guideline of putting away about 1g protein \ lb. of bodyweight, they enjoy a great benefit from that increased TEF.  (I'm not aware of any significant TEF benefit from fats.  I believe that only protein has this property.)

Retention of lean mass requires sufficient protein intake and then some level of resistance training (with resistance training being by far the most important part.)  There is a metabolic cost associated with retaining muscle mass, a cost your body will only pay if the tissue appears to serve some purpose (like picking up heavy stuff.)

In the end, though, it's calories in vs. calories out still governs whether we are in an overall anabolic (getting bigger) or catabolic (getting smaller) state.

One extreme example (that I don't endorse) is the now-famous Twinkie dieting nutrition professor.  He ate a bunch of snack cakes and other assorted goodies for two months but maintained a calorie deficit.  The result was that he lost 27 pounds, 24 of which were fat.  Again, your way of eating is much, much better for the many health-related reasons you mentioned (and the professor would have done better with more protein.)  However, it showed that calories in vs. calories out still holds true.

LW, I don't think we're too far from each other from a philosophical perspective.  I'm with you on the 1g/lb LBM.  Protein's TE is well known primarily due to the fact that it's not an efficient energy source--more hoops to jump through.  Fat's benefit (especially in the absence of high-glycemic carbohydrates) is not really in the TE but more in the hormonal changes it elicits and the lasting affects of satiety.  Additionally, by keeping bloodborne glucose levels low (via low or no carbohydrates), calories cannot be stored as fat very easily.

There are several studies (if you want, I'm happy to dig up and reference) from the 40s on U.S. military that evaluated equal calorie levels with varying macronutrient ratios.  In the end, it was found that high carb ratios kept weight on better and low-carb ratios resulted in lower bodyweight & bodyfat levels.  I agree, though, that it is possible to lose weight on a higher carb diet.  It just might not be the most efficient way of losing fat mass.  Some people can eat twinkies and lose fat though!  Without seeing the doc, it wouldn't surprise me if he were an ectomorph.

Medium Tex:

I believe you were referring to higher incidence of E.Coli in the corn-fed cattle and I'm glad you pointed that out.  Very important topic.

Craig:

Great resources.  Additionally, Spectracell performs micronutrient testing.  I have not participated yet, but it's on my list.  The cholesterol/CV risk is definitely a controversial topic, especially when the two sides address the correlation vs. causation debate.  I've told people in jest that if you eat too much broccoli, you'll get cancer.  While I'm kidding, the point is to try and focus on variety as a dominant theme with low glycemic a key component.

Also, when referencing wine I forgot to mention my next favorite superfood: dark chocolate!

[craigr]

I moved towards this view on Food:

Fats

Not permitted:

Trans fats (hydrogenated oils of all types).

Limit quantities:

Saturated fats. Lean steaks are OK in moderation. I try to limit my bacon intake even though it's so good.

Eat as much as you want:

Monounsaturated and polyunsaturated. Focus on Omega-3 sources from fish. Olive oil is what I use for cooking.  

Protein

Protein: Lean sources are all good. Fish protein from fatty fish like Salmon is excellent. I try to limit top of food chain varieties due to mercury concerns. Sardines and Herring may not be appetizing, but they are an excellent source of Omega 3 and actually taste pretty good. They are a great snack. Lean cuts of beef, chicken and pork are also good in moderation.


Other foods

Sugars: Very sparingly. Only special treats. Dark chocolate in moderation is fine.

Refined carbs (white flours, pasta): Same as sugar. I avoid them almost exclusively now because they make me feel horrible after I'm done eating them.

Starches (potatoes, etc.): Same as sugar and refined carbs.

Non-Starchy vegetables: Eat all you want. Preferably a few servings a day.

Fruits: Most are OK. Limit very sugary varieties like bananas and grapes. Eat berries (especially blueberries) due to high anti-oxidants. Try to stick to low glycemic versions to control sugar intake. After cutting out other sugars I find I don't like the very sugary fruits any more now anyway (too sweet).

Fruit Juices: Very sparingly. Concentrated sugars present. Don't drink your calories.

Nuts: Almonds, walnuts, and other varieties are OK. Avoid Brazil nuts and other high saturated fat varieties. Also limit overall intake to no more than a handful or two a day to to high calorie density. Almonds have shown a good connection to improved heart health along with other varieties.

Dairy: I'm not a huge dairy fan overall so I naturally don't eat a lot. There is some research showing the lactose is really not a great thing for most people anyway so I avoid dairy in general except every now and then.

Alcohol: In moderation no problem. Red wine preferred due to side benefits. Grape juice could provide similar benefits for non-drinkers but limit intake due to very high sugar concentration. I try to limit drinking beer due to carbs. Wine has very low carbs but don't drink Ports which have high sugar.

Teas and coffee: In moderation. Green tea has a lot of good side benefits. Hibiscus tea has shown promise for controlling high blood pressure. Coffee has benefits as well. I don't use sugar, but a little in it isn't going to hurt. Don't go crazy.


The big thing for me was cutting out the the sugar and heavily refined carbs. They had a bad effect on how I felt. Since I changed my diet I not only lost weight extremely easily and quickly, but I have a great supply of energy and I feel like I'm thinking clearer. It's been a good thing. The carbs seem to be a huge problem. I'm no longer a believer that all calories are equal.

[AdamA]

I'm no longer a believer that all calories are equal.

I haven't studied this in detail, but I gotta think that if you exercise 45-60 minutes (real exercise--moderate shortness of breath with sweating for 30-45 mins, combined with 10-15 minutes moderate intensity weight lifting) and eat less than 2500 Cals a day you'll be in pretty decent shape. 

I think anything over that and/or lack of exercise and you're bound to gain 1-2 lbs a year after the age of 30-35...

I can't prove it, though. 

[Lone Wolf]

Cheers, Wonk.  Thanks for infusing this thread with more of your Tiger Blood (tm).

To further back you up on the value of lots of protein in the diet, consider that a pound of lean chicken breast (raw weight) is a little under 500 KCal.  So if you eat three pounds of the stuff (a true belly-buster), you only hit 1500 KCal.  That's low enough for a small woman to lose weight.

i am not expert enough to argue it myself, but the lecture i linked to earlier gives an interesting argument against calories in vs. calories out, it is fairly close to the beginning of the video if i remember correctly, i am curious how you would answer it,

I kind of had it on in the background until I got to the point where he announced that he would be showing "pictures of naked human beings" I decided I had better stop watching.    I heard him mention some studies about adherence and "rebound" problems on extremely low-calorie diets (1200 KCals, great Scott!!)  I don't disagree that this kind of "crash dieting" is very unlikely to stick... bad idea!

I think that just finding a gentle, agreeable plan that you can stick to for the long term is the way to go.  A diet that makes you miserable just sucks too much.  The main thing that many dieters do wrong is that they simply diet too hard, restrict things that they personally miss too much, get too miserable, give up, and fall off the wagon.  Easy, gradual, long-term fat loss is so much simpler and healthier.  Everything for the long term.

[craigr]

I'm no longer a believer that all calories are equal.

I haven't studied this in detail, but I gotta think that if you exercise 45-60 minutes (real exercise--moderate shortness of breath with sweating for 30-45 mins, combined with 10-15 minutes moderate intensity weight lifting) and eat less than 2500 Cals a day you'll be in pretty decent shape.  

I think anything over that and/or lack of exercise and you're bound to gain 1-2 lbs a year after the age of 30-35...

I can't prove it, though.  

All I can tell you is that for a period of time I was biking anywhere from 100-300 miles a week and I was still putting on 1-2lbs. a year regardless. Same for heavy martial arts practice. I wasn't counting calories, but I was eating lots of carbs for energy as advocated by the nutrition experts.

It may be that the carbs are not as satiating so you eat more. I don't know. But I think the argument of the anti-carbers about insulin response from carbs forcing storage of fat is compelling based on my own testing with my body. I think there is a strong connection between the kinds of calories you're eating and how you put on fat.

For a month last year I was eating 1 lb of bacon a day and maybe 1-2lbs of steak among other foods and I lost weight. That's a load of calories with limited exercise and I still lost about 2lbs. a week on average. The calorie theory should hold that I would put on weight, yet I didn't.

Now in fairness I didn't keep a food log. But all I can tell you is that doing that form of eating I felt satisfied and I lost weight. Perhaps average calories were less than I thought. But all I can tell you is that I ate a ton of meat that month with loads of fat and the weight just wouldn't stay on me. It dropped off very fast. Much faster than if I was on a low-fat high carb diet.

NOTE: I'm not eating like that now. I was conducting an experiment. I now eat a lot of fish and vegetables with only occasional saturated fat. I severely limit refined carbs and in fact don't even crave them now. They are way too sweet to eat and things like pasta make me feel awful after I eat them. I am still losing some weight, but it is mostly stable and I feel really good.

[Lone Wolf]

It may be that the carbs are not as satiating so you eat more. I don't know. But I think the argument of the anti-carbers about insulin response from carbs forcing storage of fat is compelling based on my own testing with my body. I think there is a strong connection between the kinds of calories you're eating and how you put on fat.

You are right on with this.  Processed carbohydrates are typically not satiating.

Fiber has a huge, huge effect on carbohydrate satiety.  Compare the effect on satiety between eating 2000 KCal of M&M's throughout the day (kinda easy) versus 2000 KCal of hard apples (this would be like some kind of contest.)  Or 2000 KCal of soup.

I personally do indulge in refined carbs like pasta, pizza, Reese's Puffs cereal, etc. when I want them.  But as long as it's all "budgeted", it's what you eat the rest of the time that truly matters.

Personal philosophy:
Prefer fresh, whole foods and big meals when possible.

Determine a calorie budget for the current goal (weight loss or gain) and then follow it.  Make all such budgets gentle, gradual, and as painless as possible.

1g protein per lb. bodyweight.  Go for it, but if you miss it one day, no big deal.

Eat lots of fresh fruit and some healthy fats every day.

Chew calories whenever possible.  If you have to do a protein shake due to hectic scheduling, no harm done.

If there's something you want to eat, find space in the KCal budget and just eat it.  Enjoy it and don't waste a second feeling guilty about it.  (This is just like any other budget.)

On holidays, eat what you like and eat to satisfaction.  Don't pig out unnecessarily but don't skip anything you want.

Never get "weird" about food.  Missing a meal won't kill you.  Nor will overindulging a bit at the evening outing.  Just eat a little less later.

[Wonk]

Cheers, Wonk.  Thanks for infusing this thread with more of your Tiger Blood (tm).

To further back you up on the value of lots of protein in the diet, consider that a pound of lean chicken breast (raw weight) is a little under 500 KCal.  So if you eat three pounds of the stuff (a true belly-buster), you only hit 1500 KCal.  That's low enough for a small woman to lose weight.

Just wait until I break out the Chuck Norris on this thread, LW.

By the way, I forgot to mention an entertaining story about the calories in/out argument.  Dean Karnazes (Mr. Ultra Marathonman) is famous for having Papa Johns on speed dial.  He'll call on a run and they'll drive up to him with large pizzas loaded with all toppings.  He's good evidence that if you can stoke the furnace enough, the fuel won't matter as much.  That said, I'm thinking Joe Sixpack might not be logging the same amount of road time.

Also, the Ray Cronise story is uber interesting.  His experiments with hypothermic environments are borderline crazy--just the kind of guy I like to read about.  I found the story of swimmers like Phelps burning an extra 5000-7000 calories/day just from being in cool water alone totally enlightening.

I'm in total agreement with you that if people can find a happy balance that they can stick with, they'll be successful over the long term.  For the more hardcore dieters who want extremely low BF%, cyclical ketogenic dieting is the holy grail and is used by most bodybuilders leading up to competition.  Not many folks can follow this as a lifestyle, though.

[moda0306]

What is it about PP'ers that no matter what ridiculous subject crawls onto this board the input is extremely infromed and from experience, debates stay cool and are always productive, and there's more wealth of knowledge and good advice on one page than one could get out of reading an entire magazine on the subject (probably littered with skewed media just trying to get you to buy their advertisor's products).