brb going to call the pushers of HFCS

To summarize the article:

"When surveyed, a lot of people misreport their caloric intake."


Fortunately, this doesn't render all nutritional research conducted over the past 40 years invalid, only that part of it which was based principally on self-reporting surveys rather than clinical research.

And let's be honest, we all intuitively knew that was the case anyway. When surveyed, people mis-report damned near everything- their discretionary income, the number of past sexual partners they've had, the amount of time they spend watching television, their childrens' class ranking, their influence over purchasing decisions at work, their favorite character in My Little Pony, etc.

I think I ate half a wheel of bri yesterday, lolol.

Sure, in general...which is why survey data like that shouldn't be used to form nutritional guidelines without some way of correcting or adjusting for self-reporting bias. If you specifically knew that NHANES data was invalid, then you probably should have spoken up.

And this invalid data does affect the national health culture and inform the official nutritional guidelines.

Someone should break the news to Ian Spreadbury that his research isn't science because science has already told us to just eat moderate amounts of everything and everything will be fine.

Comparison with ancestral diets suggests dense acellular carbohydrates promote an inflammatory microbiota, and may be the primary dietary cause of leptin resistance and obesity

Another link... problems with wheat:
Episode #176 - Full Transcript | Ben Greenfield Fitness

What I fail to understand is how faults in the validity of data used to produce statistics affects the underlying validity of recommendations such as (to quote the excerpt): "eat less and exercise more."

Towards the goal of weight loss, improved BMI, etc., that advice remains valid and stands on its own regardless of any offsets or biases in self-reporting data.


Consider the following: Let's say that I survey a thousand people with the questions "Do you smoke, and if so, how much do you smoke per day?"

And let's say that, on average, people under-report their smoking by 50%. So I publish a report saying that "15% of Americans smoke on a daily basis, and on average, consume 10 cigarettes per day." This data turns out to be wrong, because in reality, 30% of Americans smoke on a daily basis, and on average, consume 20 cigarettes per day.

This does not change the validity of my advice that, if you want to decrease your risk of cancer and heart disease, you should stop smoking.

There's a million ways achieve weight loss, improved BMI, etc.

Use cocaine
Smoke cigarettes
Host a parasite
Throw up after meals
Eat only McDonald's as long as you maintain a caloric deficit


The issue is not that we can't figure out how to lose weight; the issue is that those various methods all fall onto a continuum in terms of health, efficiency, sustainability (speaking in terms of personal goals, not global ecology), and so on.

No one is disputing that maintaining enough of a caloric deficit will lose weight; the question is whether that advice leads to the most successful outcomes in terms of those other goals (health, efficiency, etc.).

When you consider the nutritional paradigm in terms of a fuller set of goals, then it becomes quite important what kind of data you are using to support your theory. And if invalid data is lending greater support to one particular method of weight loss, then the whole paradigm needs to be reexamined in light of valid data.

"eat less exercise more"

One's appetite (or lack thereof) will prevent over-eating if the bodyfat regulation mechanism is working properly. What breaks it is decades of excessive starch consumption causing repeated blood sugar spikes which causes *insulin resistance*.

Lab mice can be made to starve to death even with a lot of bodyfat. Their bodies preferentially consume lean body mass and leave their bodyfat alone.

Lab mice can also be fed the same # of calories but different food, and have the same toys available, but one group will become sedentary and fat while the other active and lean. Nobody is telling the mice to exercise.

The causality is backwards. It's not that eating less and exercising more makes you thin. It's that the factors that cause obesity, cause you to eat more and exercise less.

So, just to verify that I understand you correctly; You're saying that, all else being equal, if I reduce my caloric intake by eating less, and increase my caloric expenditure by exercising more, and make no other changes to my diet or lifestyle, that I will NOT lose weight. Correct?

Not what I'm saying. Being able to easily reduce your caloric intake is a strong function of your bodyfat setpoint. If you starve yourself you will lose weight. But if you have excess fat and you lower your bodyfat setpoint, your appetite will reduce and you will effortlessly lose fat - i.e. you won't be hungry and miserable as you lose weight.

The Swedes get it.

Sweden Becomes First Western Nation to Reject Low-fat Diet Dogma in Favor of Low-carb High-fat Nutrition | Health Impact News

...only took em 40 years...

I lol'd IRL.

I just ate a huge bag of flaming hot cheetos. Am I doing it right?

Are you guys Quinoa racists as well?

That's become one our lunch staples:

Quinoa
Grilled chicken
Kalamata olives
cherry tomatoes
parsley
all tossed in lemon/garlic/olive oil

This article basically sums up my opinions and thoughts about content-specific dieting:

Twinkie diet helps nutrition professor lose 27 pounds - CNN.com

Wait, you're saying that if you consume fewer calories than you expend, you will lose weight?

Blasphemy.

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1385947443

Yay, starving yourself with shitty foods makes you lose weight, and losing weight will improve certain "health" markers because being skinny is generally healthier than being fat.

Who cares?

In case you missed my explanation. The system of hormones Leptin, Insulin, and Ghrelin *make* you eat less (or more) and make you expend more (or less) calories. Yes you can override it, (e.g. by starving yourself, or by force-feeding yourself), but you will lose lean mass and/or be less healthy.